D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[Ilbranteloth]

Yeah, I think personal experience has alot to do with this. Some people's perspective is that they've been running the same campaign for 30 years, with people cycling in and out every year or two, often complete newbies. My experience is that I've been playing off and on for 25 years, moving around from campaign to campaign, in recent years DMed by people who've been involved with the game for a much shorter time than I have. The primary reason I don't DM is I find it extremely hard to shift personalities at the drop of a hat. To rp a character well, I need time to dig in and figure out what makes them tick.

My campaign is like you describe. I've been running this Realms campaign since '87, with people coming and going over the years. Those that go permanently remain in the campaign as NPCs. Lots of newbies over the years, I love that.I played for a little less than a decade before that, sometimes as a player, but usually as a DM because nobody else was. But some people are more naturally suited to player or DM. From what you describe, I'd love to have you in my campaign. I really like to see the players get into their characters, that, to me, is why I play this game. To see how a group of players turns a sheet of stats into living characters in a living world.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Big DM is not a derogatory term, I merely use it to refer to a DM who exercises a sizable influence on the progress of the game once it begins (in the form of content creation/modification and ad hoc rulings). DM Light refers to someone who tries to limit such in-game influence by front-loading his need for such influence in the key. That's the limit of what the terms represent - and btw I see them both as valid methods depending on what you like. The terms are based on the division of styles illuminated in the quote I began with.

So the reason why Tony doesn't seem to like labels is that they often come across as derogatory. I personally don't have a problem with labels themselves. It's really a matter of agreeing on a term and definition.

To you "Big DM" is about the game after it begins. To me, "Big DM" would refer to the amount of influence the DM has as a whole (before and during the game). Or to put it a different way, how much the DM restricts the options, decisions, and actions of the players/characters.

So when a "Big DM" improvises on the fly new content, they aren't restricting the options of the characters. Instead of saying, "no, you can't do that" it's "OK, you can try to do that, and I need to have an answer if it works." It's the DM interacting with the world in response to the player's choice or actions. That seems much less intrusive, much less "Big DM" than, "no, you can't go there" or whatever.

These concepts are complex, and I don't want people to start reading into that that I don't think the DM should ever say no. One of the other current recommendations I see popping up frequently is, "The DM should say Yes" approach. The problem with most of the blog posts I've read is that they leave out the part that, "yes, you can try it, but there's a very low likelihood of success, or the risk of failure is high and the consequences severe," or many other variations.

As you've said, "everything" is dependent upon the planning. In my campaign I'd say that includes things like the basic relationships between the races, knowing some of the more prominent plots and schemes, and other setting/story-based stuff that makes it possible to make a good judgement call if/when the time comes. Kind of like an umpire learning what the strike zone is, and practicing how to see a 90 mph ball pass through it. That way, when it comes to game time, you can do your job.

So personally, the labels don't bother me. But it appears there is a lot of baggage tied to a lot of them, which makes it more difficult to insult somebody without meaning to. So maybe we have to explain something a bit more clearly? I don't know, it seems like a good percentage of the time that's not always working for me either.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Why would you assume I have few encounters/combats? I have plenty, but the thought of cramming them into a 6-8 encounter/day structure is just baffling. I prefer to avoid filler fights, it's true - encounters should contribute towards story development - but challenge is still important.

I was referring specifically to adventuring days. From your prior post you said you run fewer encounters per adventuring day. Where I see the problem (which I changed) is that people tend to equate "adventuring day" with "day" largely because a long rest = a night's rest. That's not entirely true, since you technically don't have to sleep, but you can only take one per 24 hours, etc. Really, they selected two different but not entirely compatible time scales.

Resting is based on a day (24 hours), and an "adventuring day" is theoretically open-ended. I'm sure they were thinking it equalled day, but it doesn't for a lot of people.

IMO, if a combat encounter isn't doing all of that and providing a fun and interesting challenge, I don't know why we should go through the formality of running it.

Agreed. My point wasn't one of whether we run a combat or not. My point is that the issue with the balance of rests vs the adventuring day seems to be based on the desire for the DM to design a day around the use of a certain amount of times the characters can use short and long rest abilities, combined with current hit points and/or hit points that they can recover after the fight. It's based on the expectation that encounters later in the day will be tougher because the characters' will have used some of those abilities. So if you don't run 6-8 encounters during a day, then they won't use up those abilities before the end of the day.

If you don't design encounters around the idea of how many abilities or hit points they'll have left, or the adventuring day around the idea that you'll exhaust those abilities each day, then there is no issue at all.

In my campaigns, sometimes they exhaust them, sometimes they don't. If there is but a single encounter in a given day, then they'll probably be at full strength, and they may or may not use all of their abilities, because they won't know if there will be additional encounters that day. They can gamble that when traveling they don't seem to have as many, but that's not always true.

Another fix, and one which I use, is not to tie the idea of "resource management" into the short/long rest abilities and hit points. I use a fatigue system, which uses the exhaustion track. The effects are a bit more significant, but less severe. But it means that during the course of most days, whether there are encounters/combats or not, they are not at peak ability by the end of the day.

Sure, they could stop and rest more, but that doesn't necessarily help (because it doesn't necessarily reduce the number of encounters), but also I think that since it's not tied to encounters, they don't want to take the time to rest, they (as players) are interested in moving forward, just as I think the characters would be.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

[MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION], I think the attribution is off on that nested quote.

Good! (Actual combat is so messy.)

Y'know what else is a game?
D&D.
Y'know how many other RPGs are games?
All of 'em.

Yep. I just prefer the focus to be on the content of the game, rather than the mechanics. More importantly, even though D&D is far from a simulation game, I like the actions that are taken within the content of the game to be somewhat representative of reality and based on the content of the game, rather than driven by the mechanical rules, so I like to treat it that way. As always, it's not a bad thing that it's a game, it's just a type of game that I don't care to play on a regular basis.

So, slower natural healing, fewer spells/day, counting negative hps (downtime to recover from negative hps, even if magically healed)? Stuff like that?
Some of the old-school pacing came from factors like that, as you mentioned...

Yep, a lot of that. Not using the exact same mechanics, I'm keeping published 5e mechanics as much as I can (that is, I'm using mechanics that are published for 5e, not necessarily the same mechanics for the same purposes - such as using the exhaustion track for injuries). I want to introduce as few new mechanics as possible.

For example, by separating injuries from hit point damage, that is there are mechanical effect from taking a big hit or falling 60 feet (if it doesn't kill you), then the hit points are no longer as important in that equation. Because the recovery time is variable, it might actually take a week to fully recover from being dropped to 0 hp, or it might take a day (usually at least 3). It could also conceivably get worse and kill you in a week. Because the impact is significant, but not as severe as the AD&D approach, it allows them to stay in the game, just with a disadvantage.

So yes, I have potentially slower natural healing, not fewer spells/day (actually, I'm using a combination of 1e/5e spell progression, 1e had more), but no damage-causing cantrips, no negative hp, but significant penalties to recover from being dropped to 0, even if magically healed, etc.

 

[outsider]

To see how a group of players turns a sheet of stats into living characters in a living world.

Yep, that's what I like about D&D. I'm a programmer by trade. There's nothing I enjoy more than taking a bunch of numbers, variables, equations, and formulas, and creating something with them. There's a certain beauty to it, and I consider it a form of art. As a result, I tend to know the rules of whatever edition I'm playing like the back of my hand(not the case for 5e yet though). When the DM is empowered greatly over the rules, I feel as though the tools the game gives me to express myself are being taken from me, and it instead becomes a social game of trying to convince the DM to allow me to do things. Even if the DM always says yes to me, it's just not very satisfying to me.

The above paragraph seems a little more dramatic than I intend, but I think the basic points are there and I'm too hung over to go back and retype it.

 

[Obryn]

I was referring specifically to adventuring days. From your prior post you said you run fewer encounters per adventuring day. Where I see the problem (which I changed) is that people tend to equate "adventuring day" with "day" largely because a long rest = a night's rest. That's not entirely true, since you technically don't have to sleep, but you can only take one per 24 hours, etc. Really, they selected two different but not entirely compatible time scales.

Resting is based on a day (24 hours), and an "adventuring day" is theoretically open-ended. I'm sure they were thinking it equalled day, but it doesn't for a lot of people..

At that point, why not just take the next, logical step and remove any reference to a 24-hour day at all?

I'm not being facetious.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Great - so I assume then any such changes to official rules or some limited extra guidelines in modules would be unopposed by you since they don't affect you right?

In official rules? No need to assume. I couldn't care less what is or isn't included. They can change them all they want, that's never something I've objected to. The game is not designed, written or published for me. And as I've said before, I'm not only probably an outlier, but also not the audience they should be catering to if they want a mass market game.

I might not like all of them, and I'll express my opinion and happily discuss why. If somebody is making a suggestion that I don't like, I'll voice my opinion on the proposed rule. I'll also try to offer suggestions as well.

But the game is what WotC decides it is. I didn't care for the changes in 4e, and ended up playing it very, very little, but that's because my players didn't like it. I would have run it if that's what they wanted. Fortunately for me, since I didn't care for a lot of it, I didn't.

If they like what you propose, then change away!

I'm also going so far as to rewrite the rules as I'd like to see them (always evolving and learning - which is why I'm still interested in learning more of your techniques rather than philosophy), and I'll happily make my rules available, and even eventually on DMsGuild. Don't know if anybody else will like them or care.

The published rules to me are a baseline. Whenever we discuss the game, playstyles, specific rules, etc. the RAW remain the baseline. The baseline also includes the history of the game in my opinion. Although this is its own set of rules, and plays a unique game from earlier editions, that history of design, intent, actual play, and related are still part of the game. Just like a new Star Wars movie has to deal with what's come before.

Acknowledging and agreeing on the baseline makes it easier to discuss changes. And explaining why you want to make those changes helps a lot too.

For example, the OP - [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] has some complaints about the resting mechanic. He feels that "time constraints" and several other "solutions" that work very well for many, many other people to be unacceptable. He wants a solution that works for him. Fair enough.

I disagree with his assessment of the problem, and I don't like some of the solutions offered, such as a different resting time-table for overland travel and dungeon exploration. I've offered some suggestions, and pointed out that Adventures in Middle Earth has an example pretty close to his different time-table suggestion. I've tried to come up with my own solutions, but with the way the game is structured, it is very difficult to come up with a solution regarding attrition and resting.

Since I've never really had attrition as one of my daily goals, I really have no vested interest in the discussion other than I enjoy tweaking the rules, and it's interesting to see what others come up with, even if I don't like what they've come up with. It's quite possible a suggestion made in an effort to fix this perceived problem will still be valuable in my game.

My approach separates attrition from hit points and short/long rest abilities. It's not a solution for everybody, but it does have the results that others seem to be looking for. It adds some complications, but uses existing 5e mechanics. It's really more about tracking the conditions. On the other hand, I've had a number of people say they would walk away from my table at session 0 if these are the rules I used.

Hey, I think the game is much, much more than a single rule, but whatever.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Yep, that's what I like about D&D. I'm a programmer by trade. There's nothing I enjoy more than taking a bunch of numbers, variables, equations, and formulas, and creating something with them. There's a certain beauty to it, and I consider it a form of art. As a result, I tend to know the rules of whatever edition I'm playing like the back of my hand(not the case for 5e yet though). When the DM is empowered greatly over the rules, I feel as though the tools the game gives me to express myself are being taken from me, and it instead becomes a social game of trying to convince the DM to allow me to do things. Even if the DM always says yes to me, it's just not very satisfying to me.

Despite being labeled as a Big DM, I totally agree with this. Every decision that I have to make on the fly needs to be made within context of the rules, in addition to the characters, the narrative, etc. For me, the rules should provide a framework for a DM to make good decisions so that it doesn't alter the expectations of the players.

That's why I've filled in holes in the rules, so it makes it easier for the players and the DM to know what a likely judgement will be if we run across something not covered in the rules. Really, any judgement I make shouldn't be much of a surprise if I'm being a good DM. Particularly if you know the rules well. Yes, I have my own style, and thoughts on specific rules, but I'm always happy to discuss those before the game, and if something arises in game, we'll address it however we need to then too. My preference is to go with it this time, and we can discuss it out of the session. But if we have to stop the session, then we will.

A good example might be stealth and hiding. To me, it's nearly impossible to write a good rule for this. I'm not a fan of "you have to have x amount of cover to hide." Why? Because I know that humans are often extremely unobservant, and they are easy to misdirect and fool as well. I love the video where you're supposed to count how many times a basketball is passed between a group of moving people, and a majority of people never notice the guy in the gorilla suit walk into the middle of it and beat his chest.

So you'll find I'm much more generous with your attempts to hide, provided there's a reasonable explanation as to why you'd be able to do so from a given target. The Help action by another to distract them can go a long way in this regard.

My rules on flanking aren't based on a miniature you move into place while all the other miniatures are standing still. It's based on how real people flank others. In an open space, it's very difficult for two people to flank a third. You generally need 3 people to make it work. But if you're fighting somebody in a hallway, and the rogue wants to tumble past the opponent so the target is between them and you? That's a whole different story. And you gain a benefit from it.

Does it require some adjudication? From time to time. And the answer won't always be in your favor. But I think you'd find they are pretty consistent. If you can provide a reasonable argument as to why something should work, then I will consider that. But it's not a social thing, it's a logic thing. No matter what, there are tons of things I don't know, and you might point out something that didn't even occur to me - or maybe I just missed it. Plus, once it gets to that point, it's really the table that makes the decision not me.

I'll also point out, that other than a ruling that we later decide was not the right approach, anything that you've been able to do once, will work again in the future. Most actions have a chance of failure, so you won't always be successful, but the ruling will be the same. Consistency is very important, and I'm always updating my rules to account for things we didn't think of before.

The above paragraph seems a little more dramatic than I intend, but I think the basic points are there and I'm too hung over to go back and retype it.

You have to be careful with that! Trust me.

 

[shoak1]

Yep, that's what I like about D&D. I'm a programmer by trade. There's nothing I enjoy more than taking a bunch of numbers, variables, equations, and formulas, and creating something with them. There's a certain beauty to it, and I consider it a form of art. As a result, I tend to know the rules of whatever edition I'm playing like the back of my hand(not the case for 5e yet though). When the DM is empowered greatly over the rules, I feel as though the tools the game gives me to express myself are being taken from me, and it instead becomes a social game of trying to convince the DM to allow me to do things. Even if the DM always says yes to me, it's just not very satisfying to me.

The above paragraph seems a little more dramatic than I intend, but I think the basic points are there and I'm too hung over to go back and retype it.

Great point - I wonder if that is why several of them have stated that the players in the game are so biased and trying to get their way, as opposed to the players at my table. I guess you might say DM Light is Players Empowered in the sense that they are just as much arbiter as I.

Its interesting that as an owner of a business, I have done that in the past. If I have a whiney employee, I sometimes make him a shot-caller so to speak. The responsibility shows him there is a lot more to making a decision that he thought before, and he either thrives on it or hands the baton back and then stops second guessing my decisions lol

 

[Ilbranteloth]

At that point, why not just take the next, logical step and remove any reference to a 24-hour day at all?

I'm not being facetious.

For me, there are two reasons.

First is that they used the term rest. Seems stupid, but it makes a difference to me.

Second, because I think that there should be a time element to regaining abilities. At least certain abilities.

Naturally, I've changed things a bit. Multiple times.

I view magic as requiring a sort of inner well of magical power. It doesn't decline over time, like fatigue doesn't alter it. Instead, that bit of magical energy, that attunement, is gone after you cast it or use an ability tied to it. You do have a limited amount you can "hold" at a time. A good night's sleep replenishes it (in my game it's sleep). But there's also a gradual natural replenishment. Which means if you don't sleep, that spell slot will become available to you again in 24 hours from when you used it. In reality, I track time in 4 hour blocks (early morning, dawn, morning, afternoon, evening, and night). So if you use it in the morning, it's available the next afternoon.

I have sleep separated into 2-hour periods (1 hour for reverie), so you can regain some of your spell slots, Hit Dice and hit points over a shorter period of sleep.

Any long rest ability works the same in my campaign, as most of them are (or could be) magically based.

Short rest abilities are a bit more challenging (for me, since I like an in-world explanation for how they work). I've landed (for now) on the idea that I don't really care if you have them for every encounter. So each rest (short or long) replenishes them. A (short) rest in my campaign is 10-15 minutes. I currently don't have warlocks or monks in my campaign, so it sidesteps the issues with regard to Ki or regaining spell slots for now.

You can also prepare spells any time you want, and you can change your prepared spells as well. It takes 15 minutes + 1 minute per level of spell slot to prepare.

Hit point recovery is automatic. After sleeping (and only sleeping) you recover all of your hit points, and 1/2 your Hit Dice (rounded down, minimum 0). You roll them and add your Constitution modifier as normal, and these are your hit point pool. Whenever you are performing non-strenuous activity, or resting, you regain hit points from this pool to your hit point maximum. Any magical healing, healing due to the use of a skill or ability is applied first, and hit points from your pool second. At some point during the day, your pool runs empty.
I'm considering tying the recovery of short rest abilities to the hit point pool. When it's empty, you can't regain short rest abilities. But I'm not that concerned about it because I have numerous conditions that use a modified exhaustion track, and that is not uncommon. So there's a good chance each day that you might not be 100%, but not every day. This can occur due to damage, or activity (such as climbing, swimming, or even combat) that are very strenuous.

So, what if they decide they want to take a nap in the middle of the day? Well, to start I have a quality of sleep rule. If you're uncomfortable (sleeping in armor, for example), then you subtract 15 minutes from each hour. If you are woken up, such as for combat, it costs you 30 minutes. (I also have a trait for somebody that can sleep anywhere, anytime, and ignore these penalties. You roll for traits randomly).

While I don't have a specific rule for it, if you're not tired, then it can be difficult to fall asleep. Your attempt might fail. If you're suffering from exhaustion, probably not. If you're fatigued, it might be more likely you can fall asleep. Otherwise it's one of those judgement calls. In most cases the answer will probably be no, you just can't fall asleep (unless you're one of the lucky, although I also have rules for perception in sleep, and waking up, and they have a harder time with that). It's of limited use anyway, since 2 hours of sleep regains 1 level of exhaustion, and 1/8 of your maximum hit points, Hit Dice, and spell slots, all rounded down (minimum 0). So a short sleep is of limited restorative value.

I'm sure the majority of people won't like my solutions. But they work together in a way that makes sense to me. Most of the time, all of these variables are irrelevant. Most of the time people just set up camp, and sleep at night, and the standard long rest rules are pretty much the same. The major difference is really the hit point pool, and the fact that I have conditions that make worrying about when they recover abilities and hit points irrelevant to me.

Why so many rules? Because I like things to make sense (to me), so I think through these sort of things anyway. But also because I like consistency. Things that I can easily quantify in a rule, I like in a rule. That way I don't have to make a judgement call during the game. Like "I've been awake for 4 hours, can I take a nap?" There are a lot of variables there, and while I can write a rule and quantify all of that, the answer isn't consistent enough to write a simple rule. More importantly, there are some rules that I don't want a set answer, and this perhaps is one of them. It's a decision I want to leave open for me.

For those that don't like that approach, I'd probably recommend a 10% chance to be able to sleep for a 2-hour block for every 2 hours you've been awake, +5% for each level of fatigue/exhaustion. In d20 terms, that might be a DC 20 check (no modifiers), after being awake for 1 hour, -1 DC for each additional hour you are awake, -1 DC for each level of fatigue/exhaustion, -1 DC for each hour of sleep less than 6 in the prior night. You'd have to make that check for each 2-hour block of nap, with new modifiers due to the new sleep. Probably a +2 to +5 to the DC.

That's an awful lot of rule for something that will come up so infrequently, but I think it models what I'd like fairly well. Or I can just internalize it and wing it. It does show my thought process on what I might consider when I say, "no."