D&D General D&D without Resource Management

[Shardstone]

I don’t think you understand my point. You brought up that possibility of session based recovery and I talked about it and only it. I wasn’t talking about anything but that idea.

I think we can. We just have got to stop confusing challenging one point of a post with challenging everything in the post.

My single criticism of session based recovery not being a general solution to game balance has not.

Don’t make it personal.

I didn't intend to make it personal, but on reread, there's really no other way to take my message without me giving intent, so I apologize for that.

Let me try a more appropriate response. I think that Session-based recovery can work really well if you are playing a MODE that involves more narrative control over the players and their power. If I wanted a really heroic D&D game, something where the players are more like Conan (as in the short stories), I would give them the ability to, at-will, X-times per session gain a refresh. This is to replicate how larger-than-life characters can essentially gain a super second wind that lets them overcome their obstacles.

However, if I was playing a game with more grounded ideas, such as a game meant to emulate something like Sword & Sorcery or even just typical dungeoneering, I'd move away from session-based and switch to a shorter Refresh. I'd also probably limit that Refresh to a number of times in the dungeon, or have another constraint, such as you need to be in a haven/oasis/safe room to Refresh. This creates a feel in the game where you're dangerous, and you might need to go out of your way to afford the right to catch your breath and keep trecking on.

And if I was playing a game that was skewed more toward the power levels of 5E adventures, or something that is essentially like Honor Among Thieves, I'd probably allow them the luxury of a 10 minute Refresh when they wanted it, but use various new conditions -- like how I mentioned Doomed or Wounded -- to provide mechanical stakes to combats.

I don't think any one of these options is a core fit for D&D. More importantly, I don't think that contemporary D&D really should have a single mode of Refresh. The game goes out of its way to appeal to a variety of tastes when it comes to adventures. And as we can see in the 2014 DMG, they realized this and put in some less-than-stellar options. However, moving these to the PHB and redesigning the game to be based off a single type of rest/Refresh that can be modified to replicate Mode, Condition, and Location would overall improve the efficiacy of the game.

What holds this idea back, and why I was getting confused by your posts, is the idea of the Adventuring Day. I personally do not think the idea of the Adventuring Day is healthy for the game or a particular good mindset to adopt as a DEFAULT. In reality, the game is split up into gaming sessions, during which any amount of IC time can take place. So when designing the game, it makes more sense to either look at the sessions themselves as the split, or to make the concept of the Adventuring Day very short and easy to modify so that way tables naturally play themselves out of this paradigm.

By play out of this paradigm, I mean that players with a baseline short Adventuring Day will naturally adjust the Refresh to their liking, so long as the tools are given for that.

If we stick to the concept of the Adventuring Day as how we define game balance, we are preventing ourselves from seeing the bigger picture of "THE GAME." D&D is a game about adventurers who usually become heroes through a mixture of combat, exploration, and NPC interaction. Usually, games take place between 2-4 hours. In 2-4 hours, you don't have enough time to contain the current Adventuring Day. Running through 6 combats in 4 hours doesn't leave room for much else, and if that's expected to happen every session, it reduces the other aspects of the game that people enjoy.

And I maintain that any Refresh system that is implemented that isn't based on short-time + big recovery will be at odds with how D&D is usually played. I just cannot be bothered to plan 6-8 encounters and run them for my 2-3 hour monday night game (which is how long it runs) while also coming up with NPCs, traps, dungeons, a world, and so on. This is the main reason people don't run this many encounters. The time isn't there to do it.

So, with all that said, again, I apologize for being hostile this morning. I should have read closer and not been so eager to lump together everyone responding to me.

 

[Minigiant]

Or or

You design the game around a shorter adventuring day like 3-5 encounters and litter the dungeon with potions and wands like Ye Old Days and most video games.

I just cant get why casters have so many dannabbit spell slots by midlevel.
Give them Mana potions if you wanna go longer dangnabbit!

 

[M_Natas]

Or or

You design the game around a shorter adventuring day like 3-5 encounters and litter the dungeon with potions and wands like Ye Old Days and most video games.

I just cant get why casters have so many dannabbit spell slots by midlevel.
Give them Mana potions if you wanna go longer dangnabbit!

That is what I did with the Gritty grandma Realism rest rules:

https://www.enworld.org/threads/long-rest-variant-my-gradual-gritty-realism-variant-rules.700415/#post-9162672

When you are full, you can handle a full 6 to 8 medium encounter as normal, but in a long rest only regain 10 to 30% or ressource. So if they have a steady two encounters a day, they will eventually run out of ressources.
It gives the DM tools to adjust the regeneration trough the conditions the party rests in and by handing out Healing and Mana potions.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't intend to make it personal, but on reread, there's really no other way to take my message without me giving intent, so I apologize for that.

Let me try a more appropriate response. I think that Session-based recovery can work really well if you are playing a MODE that involves more narrative control over the players and their power. If I wanted a really heroic D&D game, something where the players are more like Conan (as in the short stories), I would give them the ability to, at-will, X-times per session gain a refresh. This is to replicate how larger-than-life characters can essentially gain a super second wind that lets them overcome their obstacles.

However, if I was playing a game with more grounded ideas, such as a game meant to emulate something like Sword & Sorcery or even just typical dungeoneering, I'd move away from session-based and switch to a shorter Refresh. I'd also probably limit that Refresh to a number of times in the dungeon, or have another constraint, such as you need to be in a haven/oasis/safe room to Refresh. This creates a feel in the game where you're dangerous, and you might need to go out of your way to afford the right to catch your breath and keep trecking on.

And if I was playing a game that was skewed more toward the power levels of 5E adventures, or something that is essentially like Honor Among Thieves, I'd probably allow them the luxury of a 10 minute Refresh when they wanted it, but use various new conditions -- like how I mentioned Doomed or Wounded -- to provide mechanical stakes to combats.

I don't think any one of these options is a core fit for D&D. More importantly, I don't think that contemporary D&D really should have a single mode of Refresh. The game goes out of its way to appeal to a variety of tastes when it comes to adventures. And as we can see in the 2014 DMG, they realized this and put in some less-than-stellar options. However, moving these to the PHB and redesigning the game to be based off a single type of rest/Refresh that can be modified to replicate Mode, Condition, and Location would overall improve the efficiacy of the game.

What holds this idea back, and why I was getting confused by your posts, is the idea of the Adventuring Day. I personally do not think the idea of the Adventuring Day is healthy for the game or a particular good mindset to adopt as a DEFAULT. In reality, the game is split up into gaming sessions, during which any amount of IC time can take place. So when designing the game, it makes more sense to either look at the sessions themselves as the split, or to make the concept of the Adventuring Day very short and easy to modify so that way tables naturally play themselves out of this paradigm.

By play out of this paradigm, I mean that players with a baseline short Adventuring Day will naturally adjust the Refresh to their liking, so long as the tools are given for that.

If we stick to the concept of the Adventuring Day as how we define game balance, we are preventing ourselves from seeing the bigger picture of "THE GAME." D&D is a game about adventurers who usually become heroes through a mixture of combat, exploration, and NPC interaction. Usually, games take place between 2-4 hours. In 2-4 hours, you don't have enough time to contain the current Adventuring Day. Running through 6 combats in 4 hours doesn't leave room for much else, and if that's expected to happen every session, it reduces the other aspects of the game that people enjoy.

And I maintain that any Refresh system that is implemented that isn't based on short-time + big recovery will be at odds with how D&D is usually played. I just cannot be bothered to plan 6-8 encounters and run them for my 2-3 hour monday night game (which is how long it runs) while also coming up with NPCs, traps, dungeons, a world, and so on. This is the main reason people don't run this many encounters. The time isn't there to do it.

So, with all that said, again, I apologize for being hostile this morning. I should have read closer and not been so eager to lump together everyone responding to me.

I agree with so much here. Will try to respond in more detail later.

 

[Voadam]

One bandaid solution for this is using XP as a balancing tool ...
I think 4e did this, but am not sure:
The more encounters your have between long rests the more you get (like in multipliers).

So, to put that into 5e as a quick and dirty solution is, when ever you take a long rest, all XP you got till the start of the Level gets halved or a specific amount of XP gets removed (adjusted by level). By RAW except for the first levels, you need 2 to 3 adventuring days to get enough XP to gain a level - so you adjust the XP Reduction and XP you give so that that stays true. But when you take more long rests, Leveling up gets harder.
So for example:
You need 1000 XP for the next level.

Normal would be:
400xp trough adventuring - long rest - 100xp = 300xp, 400xp - long rest 100xp = 600xp, 500xp adventuring- long rest - 100xp = 1000 XP level up.
3 adventure days to level up.

Now, with the 5minute adventure day:
100xp adventuring- long rest - 100xp = 0 XP gained total.
So they will not level up at all.

More careful adventure day:
200xp trough adventuring - 100xp for long rest that's 100xp.
So they need 10 "adventuring days" to level up.

Like, that is a purley mechanical incentive with no inworld representation ...

Maybe the other way would be better ...
Getting a bonus for more encounters.
So of you only do one encounter, your XP is multiplied by 0,5. If you have two encounters the XP you gain is multiplied by 1, with 3 encounters with 1,5, 4 encounters with 2 and so on (0,5 multiplier per encounter more).
That sounds more positive.

4e used action points, not xp for this.

Everyone has one action point which can do nifty things, one option that everyone can do, and one that paragon path specific bonuses can apply to.

They refresh to one on a long rest and you gain one every two encounters if you go without long resting (max two at a time, refreshes to one on a long rest). So using a resource and pressing on has an incentive.

 

[mamba]

Usually, games take place between 2-4 hours. In 2-4 hours, you don't have enough time to contain the current Adventuring Day. Running through 6 combats in 4 hours doesn't leave room for much else, and if that's expected to happen every session, it reduces the other aspects of the game that people enjoy.

I agree that there should be 2 to 3 encounters, maybe 4, but that in no way means I want a refresh per encounter, or even short rests. Just adjusts the chars (or encounters) accordingly and leave it at daily rests

 

[Shardstone]

I agree that there should be 2 to 3 encounters, maybe 4, but that in no way means I want a refresh per encounter, or even short rests. Just adjusts the chars (or encounters) accordingly and leave it at daily rests

A daily rest involving 8 hours of sleep or downtime IMO doesn't actually change anything. In fact, it does the opposite by cementing the adventuring day as the must-use paradigm. I think the best of both worlds here would be short rests of variable length, and instead of calling it short rests, its really just a rest/refresh. Then you can increase the Refresh duration to 8 hours if you want dailies, or decrease it to 10 minutes for more high-octane action, and so on and so forth.

Another great example is Baldur's Gate 3. I think if we had an in-universe currency to buy rests, like Camping Supplies or Strong Goblin Liquor or Halfling Weed, and you have to spend that currency to refresh, you create a good paradigm for the game. In this case, it doesn't really matter how long the refresh is, just how much currency do you have to get your refreshes. If you want a daily game, you could say that players can only light a bowl of Halfling Weed for a refresh once every 24 hours -- after all, smoking too much will make you exhausted. Likewise, if you try to refresh with Strong Gobline Liquor too often, you'll just get drunk -- wait a day and try it again. This minimizes the resting period while keeping the need to sleep etc.

This still leads to a soft Adventuring Day paradigm, but a DM that can decide how often Refreshes are available is in control of their own game (well, as much as they can be, given 4-7 other players are going to make decisions too).

 

[Corinnguard]

Do the activities a party does between encounters and sleep count as a resource? And if so, how does everyone manage them during game play? A short or a long rest doesn't always involve taking a nap or going to sleep. Sometimes it's the characters pursuing a hobby, training, researching, preparing spells, etc.

 

[mamba]

A daily rest involving 8 hours of sleep or downtime IMO doesn't actually change anything. In fact, it does the opposite by cementing the adventuring day as the must-use paradigm. I think the best of both worlds here would be short rests of variable length, and instead of calling it short rests, its really just a rest/refresh. Then you can increase the Refresh duration to 8 hours if you want dailies, or decrease it to 10 minutes for more high-octane action, and so on and so forth.

yes, you can adjust it to whatever duration you want, I am going with 8 hours

 

[Shardstone]

yes, you can adjust it to whatever duration you want, I am going with 8 hours

I don't care how you adjust it for your table.