D&D General The "Ease of Long Rests" as a metric for describing campaigns / DM styles?

Rate your usual games from 1 to 5, where 1 means Long Rests are easy, and 5 super hard to get.

No, my point is it is only badly incentivized for a table that does not care about story. And I would claim: D&D is a story driven game, and has been so for a very long time. If you want rest rules that are not attached to a story, then play a tabletop wargame, not a role playing game.
This is circular. If the players don't care about the fiction because their pcs need anything from the world and no longer need to worry about the complications of past rest/recovery implementations they should care about it when it's called "story"....your showing why wotc is long overdue for supporting GM's better with tools to incentivize players in having reasons to care when "story" alone is considered unimportant to players
There is no pretending there. That is what a good DM does. They control the pacing of the story.
No. Your previous post shows that the endless bar raising is not simply "what a good gm does" where you dismiss the overused doom clock expectations by listing several narrowly defined flavors of doom clock as if it were some wise elder xianxia elder bestowing profound mystical insight into the dao of truly grasping the deep mysteries of gming.


All of that aside, why not just implement gritty rules yourself. I know I have for other systems.
Those create a lot of new problems resulting from LR & SR classes being impacted wildly different (huge nerf/giant buff) and many spells/abilities not having their duration scaled all it does is change some of the problems that come from the gm not having the mechanical hooks that once made it hard for players to not care about how an ignored doom clock would impact their pc.
.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wants: The wants of the players should also be driving their decisions. The wizard's need to keep finding pages from his mom's lost spell book, or the need of the thief to keep gathering gold to give to the poor, should, in theory, be enough to encourage players to keep exploring. This is a more difficult situation though, because it goes back to trusting your DM.
Until they've got whatever it is they went for, I've no concern that they'll keep exploring. But - and this does makes load of in-character sense - they'll try as best they can to do so at a pace that reduces their risk to the greatest reasonable extent, and that means resting back to full at every half-decent opportunity.

What I find, though, is that after they've got what they went for they tend to hightail it out of there rather than take the time to finish exploring the whole place, meaning they miss out on whatever xp, treasure, and (sometimes) key story beats and-or hooks for potential further adventures the unexplored parts might hold.
 

Are you for real suggesting that a problem caused by a badly incentivized rest system that depends on players choosing to decide they want the be the jerk who says no to their party members not caring about any of that or is this advice for a different edition where PC's need stuff from the world that those NPCs could provide deny or complicate?
Sorry, but this doesn't parse for me. Are there some missing words or punctuation?
Pretend it's a feature and dump the entire problem on the gm to design endlessly more & more elevated adventures or retcon things into existence through a quantum ogre while hoping that the players never use any skills to assess the state of the world into a into a knowable a state where doing it looks like a very adversarial gm
This doesn't make sense either but I think it might be in reply to someone who has me ignored, thus taking away the context.
 

There is no pretending there. That is what a good DM does. They control the pacing of the story.
Errrr... Pacing? Story? Control of these?

A good DM runs the game at whatever pace the players tend to set, and though there may be some overarching DM-placed plots in place the actual story that emerges from that play is left for the game log the next day to sort out.
 

Those create a lot of new problems resulting from LR & SR classes being impacted wildly different (huge nerf/giant buff) and many spells/abilities not having their duration scaled all it does is change some of the problems that come from the gm not having the mechanical hooks that once made it hard for players to not care about how an ignored doom clock would impact their pc.
Were it me, I think a necessary (but very messy!) part of implementing gritty rest rules into 5e would be to convert all classes to long-rest refresh only and do away with short rest entirely.
 

I find this fascinating and funny because I totally disagree with @tetrasodium’s perspective but also do not look at my D&D games as “a story” like @Scott Christian.
And I find it fascinating that when I talk to different DMs they do espouse thing like @tetrasodium. Then, when I play at the table, it's almost always the same D&D. I think the philosophical arguments behind the game sometimes obfuscate what actually goes on during game play.
 

...adjusting effect durations to support gritty rest mechanics is trivial to house-rule for balance: just bump up all effects (beyond instantaneous) by one duration, i.e. one minute -> ten minutes, ten minutes -> one hour, one hour -> eight hours, eight hours -> one day, one day -> one week, etcet...
 

This is circular. If the players don't care about the fiction because their pcs need anything from the world and no longer need to worry about the complications of past rest/recovery implementations they should care about it when it's called "story"....your showing why wotc is long overdue for supporting GM's better with tools to incentivize players in having reasons to care when "story" alone is considered unimportant to players
And that was my point. Why play a role-playing game - a game where story is the primary objective - with players that don't care about the story. @Lanefan brings up a good point though. Their characters might still make a safer path, hence, resting more often. But, I just don't see it as a problem. If the world is reacting to your players, then there are narrative consequences. If the narrative consequences are strong enough to urge them forward, then so be it. They got some extra rests and easy-moded their way through (provided you don't balance the encounters based on the moment.)
No. Your previous post shows that the endless bar raising is not simply "what a good gm does" where you dismiss the overused doom clock expectations by listing several narrowly defined flavors of doom clock as if it were some wise elder xianxia elder bestowing profound mystical insight into the dao of truly grasping the deep mysteries of gming.
I am not trying to bestow profound insight, nor am I trying to pretend everything I do (or the DMs I play with) understand the game better than others. In fact, my post was quite the opposite. I was trying to understand your sense of what a doom clock was. I simply stated that time might be a better instrument, as opposed to doom + time. That's why I gave the example of missing a wedding, as opposed to the world is going to end.
Those create a lot of new problems resulting from LR & SR classes being impacted wildly different (huge nerf/giant buff) and many spells/abilities not having their duration scaled all it does is change some of the problems that come from the gm not having the mechanical hooks that once made it hard for players to not care about how an ignored doom clock would impact their pc.
.
I think this is a valid reason to not implement those rules. So, since that is the case, maybe make your own. I know, I know, that is not ideal, and at some tables, not even welcome. But, I think it might be worth a shot if your table is having this problem consistently.
Until they've got whatever it is they went for, I've no concern that they'll keep exploring. But - and this does makes load of in-character sense - they'll try as best they can to do so at a pace that reduces their risk to the greatest reasonable extent, and that means resting back to full at every half-decent opportunity.

What I find, though, is that after they've got what they went for they tend to hightail it out of there rather than take the time to finish exploring the whole place, meaning they miss out on whatever xp, treasure, and (sometimes) key story beats and-or hooks for potential further adventures the unexplored parts might hold.
This is definitely true, especially that last part. But, in truth, I really don't see it as a problem for any game that I have been a part of. The last campaign I ran in D&D was a sandbox. They didn't get to 3/4 of the stuff. As a DM, I need to be okay with this. The story took us one way, and that is where it naturally ended. As a player, I itch a little when we leave obvious spaces unexplored, but when we do, we are often seeking an objective. In our last campaign, I had cast locate person, and we must have walked by five or six different explorable areas. There was no time to explore because we needed that person.
Errrr... Pacing? Story? Control of these?

A good DM runs the game at whatever pace the players tend to set, and though there may be some overarching DM-placed plots in place the actual story that emerges from that play is left for the game log the next day to sort out.
Yes, the players can help set the pace in D&D, but the DM ultimately has control of the pacing. They are the ones that can cut scene, move time around, determine rewards or consequences for inactivity, etc.
 

I just think the in-game events are A LOT more of an incentive for in-game choices than any generic idea of how classes are meant to be played.

100%.

Not to mention that there are so many variations in character builds and abilities that "meant to be played" can't possibly be a very narrow definition in the first place. Even it it is, if players at a table enforced enforced this "meant to be played" playstyle - whether through constant suggestions of what others "need" to do each turn or through regular demonstration of disapproval for the PC action choices of others - I would not be long for such a table. Not my cuppa.
 
Last edited:

Yes, the players can help set the pace in D&D, but the DM ultimately has control of the pacing. They are the ones that can cut scene, move time around, determine rewards or consequences for inactivity, etc.
I'm going to comment on this because it's central to the point I keep making that you keep completely ignoring in order to blame the GM for not doing better at one thing or another until the players choose to start caring.

In the past the GM had mechanical reasons why the players feel like they need to care even if the GM is using those elements in service of exerting a light touch of "control" over the pacing. There were a lot of those elements& discussion pages back touched on some, but a couple of the big ones that were flatly removed by 5e were things like:
  • There was a bar that the PCs needed to clear before they could realistically say "lets take a rest" without a second (or third+) player at the table stopping them from doing something that would be obviously harmful to the group or that second player's PC.
    • The mechanics that led to that were quoted & discussed in 89, 92, 94 along with some of the posts between.
  • The PCs themselves required regular infusions of gear ranging from consumables to better magic items.
With Those two broad categories removed in favor of "magic items are optional" & all or nothing explosive total restoration of resources it becomes possible for players to simply refuse to move at any pace until their rest interruptions are no longer standing in the way of their rest. No matter what you choose to call a doom clock or how narrowly you describe one, they all pretty much depend on the players caring about the consequences & the GM had the consequence lever removed unless the players choose to care because "story".

"Story" is good maybe even great, but my average table has around 4-5 players & the average campaign tends to run into low to mid teens. Over that span of weeks & months it would be absurd to suggest that the GM somehow weave a "story" that every single player can say "wow MyChArEcTeR really cares about this particular story element" 100% of the time across every session absent gm facing levers that control any mechanical hurdles or teeth. That level of "story" development would still be absurd even with a short lived campaign like "we are going to go through LMOP★"... yet you keep bringing up solutions relying on that level of transcendental "story" weaving from the GM in order to avoid admitting that 5e may have shifted the balance of power over the pacing & consequence of rests too far in favor of players.


★Couple months of weekly sessions IME.
 

Remove ads

Top