D&D (2024) 4e design in 5.5e ?

[Lanefan]

I agree! Didn't the Dungeons of old have built in deterrents to constantly resting?? I also remember reading that in the games of old, the session was over as soon as you rested??

That last would be news to me.

I know the 1e DMG seems to base itself on a weekend-warrior style of play, where the party always returns to base at session's end and in-game time then passes one-for-one with the real world between sessions; but I've never seen or heard of any table that actually played this way.

But yes, wandering monsters were deterrents to resting; as were time pressures (in some modules) and resource management (a problem in all cases if you rested too often).

Isn't the DM suppose to provide time pressure? Like an approaching army, an evil wizard plotting, or your milk spoiling??

Simple resource management - food, water, light sources, etc. - can adequately provide this pressure at low levels in an old-school game. External time pressures are something the DM can save for later in the campaign.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I agree! Didn't the Dungeons of old have built in deterrents to constantly resting?? I also remember reading that in the games of old, the session was over as soon as you rested??

Yup. It was called "Random Encounters" and "Monsters acting intelligently as they can to try and KILL THE PC'S INVADING THEIR HOME".


Back in ye olden days, I remember many occasions where the PC's had to turn tail and GTFOD because they started a fight in an area near other monsters who could hear the fight, so they joined in and sent one or to 'runners' to nearby rooms to get more reinforcements, tell the leaders, sneak back around behind them to attack from two areas, block the PC's escape, etc. You know...stuff any at least semi-average Int/Wis creatures would do.

Oh, and random encounters. Rolling 1d6 for every 10 minutes of rest is a pretty big deterrent. Obviously, 'leave the dungeon' is the right course of action. But, again, "Dungeon full of monsters", so killing off 4 rooms of orcs and their pet owlbear, then leaving the dungeon to camp a few hours away was...er... "gambling". Coming back into the dungeon... expect new guards, higher alert, traps, tricks or even a night time assault by a hunting party and their 6 worgs!

Unless you had one of those "inferior" DM's who never did any of that and just assumed monsters were static, like in todays typical MMORPG.

Isn't the DM suppose to provide time pressure? Like an approaching army, an evil wizard plotting, or your milk spoiling??

Well, he's not supposed to do it all the time. He should simply be "running the world" and having the monsters react in a believable manner for their intelligence and attitude/goals. If the PC's take out a few guards and a single monster or two... chances are the rest of the orcs/goblins/whatever will chalk it up to "Oh, adventurers. Hope they don't come back". But the more disruptive the PC's are, the more likely for a mounted defense or even offense.

Personally, the "5-minute work day" never happened in "older games" (B/X/BECMI, 1e, etc). Like...ever, and I've been DM'ing since 1981. The only time we actually saw the fabled "5 MWD" was with the introduction of 3e...and only then it was occasional (our play style was pretty ingrained into our psyches I guess...).

With how I read 4e to play...yeah, "Nova...rest...Nova...rest...Nova...rest..." seems to be the order of the day. Why? From my understanding, the PC's were always expected to be at "full strength" for big battles; and if they had used up most/all of their Daily abilities...they were screwed. Of course, I could be TOTALLY wrong and 4e can play completely different than how it reads... we never played it; read it, made PC's...er... actually, we never got past making PC's. Everyone's PC was more or less exactly the same in every way except "flavoured text", so we cut our losses right there and went back to 1e/Hackmaster.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Lanefan]

And you are basing this on what?

You do realize just how dismissive this sounds right?

Dismissive or not, @overgeeked has it pretty much right: it's in the players' interest to reduce the challenge, and it's only natural that players are going to complain about elements of the game that make it more challenging.

The problem is not that they complain, however. It's that the designers listen to them.

 

[Mordhau]

I don't get it. If players don't want to be challenged why are DMs trying to challenge them?

Is it all about the DM's fun? Or should we believe that there are masses of DMs out there who mistakenly think they need to challenge their players in order to ensure they have fun when what their players actually want is to be allowed to win all the time?

 

[overgeeked]

Dismissive or not, @overgeeked has it pretty much right: it's in the players' interest to reduce the challenge, and it's only natural that players are going to complain about elements of the game that make it more challenging.

The problem is not that they complain, however. It's that the designers listen to them.

As an example. I’m running a 5E West Marches game. I conducted a little experiment. I rounded up some players and told them the plan. They made characters. And then I doled out the small list of house rules, which included the optional encumbrance rules. And then half the group changed their characters to either higher STR characters or races with powerful build, which doubles your encumbrance limits. I mentioned that I also wanted to restrict the use of bags of holding...and a player switched to an artificer so they could make their own bag of holding at 2nd level.

 

[niklinna]

As an example. I’m running a 5E West Marches game. I conducted a little experiment. I rounded up some players and told them the plan. They made characters. And then I doled out the small list of house rules, which included the optional encumbrance rules. And then half the group changed their characters to either higher STR characters or races with powerful build, which doubles your encumbrance limits. I mentioned that I also wanted to restrict the use of bags of holding...and a player switched to an artificer so they could make their own bag of holding at 2nd level.

At least their priorities are clear?

 

[overgeeked]

I don't get it. If players don't want to be challenged why are DMs trying to challenge them?

Is it all about the DM's fun?

I don’t get it. If the DM wants to challenge the PCs why are players trying to avoid being challenged.

Is it all about the players’ fun?

Or should we believe that there are masses of DMs out there who mistakenly think they need to challenge their players in order to ensure they have fun when what their players actually want is to be allowed to win all the time?

The DM isn’t an organ grinder or a trained monkey. They get to have fun, too. If the type of game that is fun for each person doesn’t match up as a group, they shouldn’t play together.

 

[overgeeked]

At least their priorities are clear?

Yippee.

 

[Hussar]

LOL. Wow. Sure. If you ignore that the paladin is explicitly more powerful than the ranger and the monk. Artificer is subpar at best. Twilight and Peace clerics are broken. People screamed for years about how bad the ranger was and it was finally fixed with Tasha’s. The echo knight is busted cheese. The hexblade is so good it dominated power gamer builds for years, still does, but to a lesser extent. “Pretty darn close.” What a joke.

Yes, ivory tower theory crafting doesn't really impress me all that much.

In play, the classes are fine. And, to prove that, I'd point to the fact that the difference between top and bottom of classes played is pretty much just a rounding error. Rangers are getting played. Druids are getting played. Fighters are getting played. If there really was this huge mechanical issue, it would be an issue.

 

[Hussar]

In my experience, the players would rather drop the quest than risk going into even the easiest fight with anything less than 100% of their resources.

Now, do you really think that your experiences are indicative of anything other than your experiences?