A Discussion in Game Design: The 15 minute work day.

[Dausuul]

It's a refereed role playing game in which the rules are not really intended to cover all eventualities, most particularly the specific circumstances in which the rules are applied. Play style is almost always relevant in some way even if the rules have some effect.

Relevant? Sure. I have no problem with playstyle differences entering the discussion. What I have a problem with is playstyle differences being used as an attempt to cut off discussion of the rules.

"Well, when considering [proposed rules change], we should think about the playstyles of groups that encounter the 15-minute workday issue. Since the fix is targeting them, how is that rules change going to interact with their playstyles?" Perfectly fine.

"This is a playstyle issue. Changing the rules will only create more problems." Not fine... unless you can back up that statement with some really solid logic, and I have a hard time imagining what logic you could muster that would cover every ingenious rules-based solution that anybody might come up with ever.

Now, to be fair to Dannyalcatraz, as I look back at what he said, he was fairly careful to couch it in terms of his own experience and wasn't trying to generalize it across the board. Still, I'm not sure what it contributes to the discussion. I mean, if your group hasn't got a problem with the 15-minute work day, great! Carry on as you were, nothing you need to concern yourself with here... unless, out of the goodness of your heart or simple intellectual curiosity, you want to lend a hand with those of us tweaking the rules to prevent the problem in our own groups. Which is what this thread is about--tweaking rules and incentives, not playstyle. If we were looking to tweak our playstyle, we'd be in a different thread.

 

[billd91]

"Well, when considering [proposed rules change], we should think about the playstyles of groups that encounter the 15-minute workday issue. Since the fix is targeting them, how is that rules change going to interact with their playstyles?" Perfectly fine.

<snip>
Which is what this thread is about--tweaking rules and incentives, not playstyle. If we were looking to tweak our playstyle, we'd be in a different thread.

Fair enough, but I'd be sure to keep in mind that optimization-oriented play styles are usually going to push hard at incentives of any sort built into the rules, even if they seem pretty innocuous to a more casual style. That's one of the major reasons we've seen so much discussion around save-or-sit/die spells, 15 minute workdays, mulitple-attribute dependent classes, feat taxes, CODzillas, and wizard = win button.

 

[BlubSeabass]

My opinion on the milestone/after-encounter bonuses is it offers nothing to help the DM know how the encounters will pace. Players can still choose how many encounters they want to have. Encounter balance is messed up because the amount of resources used up is out of the control of the one who has to calculate the whole deal.

To be fair I don't really understand your point. Do I understand it correctly that you wan't to keep the pace of the encounters in the hand of the DM? Thus you prefer environmental rest places, to reset the resources and dictate the pace in which the PC's try a challenge and take a nap?

If so, I see your point. It's like in games like final fantasy, where a save point after a long time means you better get ready. You don't want the PC's to walk into your BBEG with 20% of their resources left. Setting resting places and the PC's always using them gives the DM control and anticipation over the difficulty of a challenge. Two very important factors in the fun-o-meter of an encounter. A very valid point.

Still, this is on the edge of metagaming and railroading. I think other techniques are better for warning, like foreshading, dramatic entrances,interrogations or other clues. If they are used correctly, not only does emersion rises, but the players can anticipate the difficulty of the upcoming challenge. If they expect to meet the BBEG in the room ahead, and don't think they are up to the challenge, they can always go back to rest at your specific rest point.

That said, high CR ambushes do become more dangerous. The party may think they can handle the next normal battle, but may not be prepared for a serious challenge. To be honest, I think that is quite charming =3.

 

[Dausuul]

Fair enough, but I'd be sure to keep in mind that optimization-oriented play styles are usually going to push hard at incentives of any sort built into the rules, even if they seem pretty innocuous to a more casual style. That's one of the major reasons we've seen so much discussion around save-or-sit/die spells, 15 minute workdays, mulitple-attribute dependent classes, feat taxes, CODzillas, and wizard = win button.

A good point, and one which I think supports my preference for a "cost-to-rest" approach. Attempts to exploit a cost mechanic are much more predictable than attempts to exploit a bonus mechanic; the goal of exploiting a cost mechanic is almost always the reduction/negation of said cost, but the goal of exploiting a bonus mechanic could be anything.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Great article, Stalker0! I've never been much concerned with the 15 minute workday, even during my 3e career when spells like Rope Trick all but begged to be abused. But now I'm thinking about it...

If we increased the number of power sources for characters that were based on milestones, it would allow a character to compensate for their loss of power in new and interesting ways. A player would lose some resources by adventuring but gain new ones. Overall the player can choose to play his character with the flavor he wants, and the system is behind him, not against him.

I haven't read the whole thread, but it seems to me that there's a quick and dirty way of adding more carrot to 4e: instead of starting every day with an AP and getting another every 2 encounters, why not start the day with none and gain an AP every encounter?

It's not as interesting as home brew milestone feats and features, but it's simple and easy to implement. [Heck, my group has a "How many encounters did we do last session? How many APs did I spend? How many should we have left?" dilemma every second session. So this house rule would make our lives easier. )

And chances are, somebody's already thought of this, so bring on the rehash discussion!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have written nary a word against being "stingy with magic".

I have written a word against m-us packing crossbows.

I pointed this out to you in that very post you quoted. You repeatedly ignore what I write, and pretend that I have written what I have not!

I've read what you wrote and I'm not ignoring it- I'm just practicing the same economy with my words as I do with my "magic."

IOW, please feel free to interpret "stingy with magic" as I did when I wrote it: preferring to use mundane/non-spellcasting solutions to problems over actually casting spells...until its time to cast spells.

That can mean using a crossbow; that can mean using a sword; that can mean sticking a foot out to trip a foe; that can mean walking across the room to get a key off a belt-hook on a dazed foe; all instead of "magic-ing" the problem away- even while combat rages on!

I'm not going to go through thousands of pages of various novels and stories to pick out exactly how particular spellcasters did this in their own way. I have better things to do.

Going back to your original post:

I'll eat the stars on my pointy hat before I'll go about pretending to be a mechanic or even a, pardon my French, warrior. Dignity of the profession, man, and conduct unbecoming! It sets a bad example, I say.

I suppose the cleric gets a missile weapon, too, so that she can also be played as she's 'supposed' to be played? Why not give her more attack spells while we're at it?

To be even handed, we must make the fighter a magician as well.

Why have the classes at all?

There is no one way a class is "supposed to be played." For me, that phrase should never be applied to a class: it is more properly limited to being another way of saying the particular PC has to be played true to itself- you don't play the "hot-tempered thick-headed barbarian chieftan" as a hypercautious academic genius, for instance, nor (probably) should the "bookish acolyte" be charging into battle ahead of everyone in the party.

And classes? They exist to delineate degrees of expertise in various areas of adventuring competence. But just because one slings spells for a living doesn't mean that one cannot be competent with a bow. Not as proficient as the guy who does it all day and has done since childhood, to be sure, but competent nonetheless.

Why have them? In short, classes are useful for helping define a PC.

Despite my long love affair with D&D, even my favorite form of the game- 3.5Ed- is only my 3rd favorite RPG system. The top spot? My favorite system of all time is HERO, a classless system. (HEY, I heard that snort!) However, were I running Fantasy HERO, I'd probably have at least 2 sets of standard package deals* for players to use for their PCs. 

* For those who don't know, a "package deal" in HERO is a collection of powers, skills, talents and disadvantages meant to supply a standardized baseline for some discrete group- useful for describing races, classes, professions, bloodlines, training, curses, and other "types".

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

To be fair I don't really understand your point. Do I understand it correctly that you wan't to keep the pace of the encounters in the hand of the DM? Thus you prefer environmental rest places, to reset the resources and dictate the pace in which the PC's try a challenge and take a nap?

What I want is to ease off on the amount of predicting and changing the DM has to do with crafting adventures. The specific problem proposed is of burning through resources quickly and then doing whatever activity is necessary to replenish those resources. I have read proposals that harass the PCs or make the world change while the PCs rest, and I have read proposals to create rewards to encourage the PCs to move forward. All create more for for the DM.

Letting the DM control where or when the PCs can replenish their resources is to put less guessing-work in. I wasn't thinking of a "video game save point"-type situation; the example I had in mind was stating that all "per day" stuff refreshes at sunrise. It's still "per day", but now the DM doesn't have to predict between which encounters the PCs will replenish their resources because they can place "sunrise" between any number they want and balance those encounters accordingly. (Also leads to tense situations where you have to hold off the enemy long enough for sunrise to come.) Of course this example doesn't work perfectly, it was just the first one I could think of.

Still, this is on the edge of metagaming and railroading. I think other techniques are better for warning, like foreshading, dramatic entrances,interrogations or other clues. If they are used correctly, not only does emersion rises, but the players can anticipate the difficulty of the upcoming challenge. If they expect to meet the BBEG in the room ahead, and don't think they are up to the challenge, they can always go back to rest at your specific rest point.

Thing is that if we're going to require dramatic techniques of warning I'm going to use dramatic techniques of deciding when things are allowed to replenish. If it's important that the confrontation with the BBEG be the next "scene" then at least some resources are probably going to be replenished between "scenes". If dramatic moments are important than then method of replenishing is going to be based on them. I am not going to mix a game and a story like that. I am fully willing to rules to drive a story, but they will be rules created for the purpose of telling a story.

If instead a game is what is desired then I am not going to care one iota about immersion in some "story world". I think game worlds are interesting on even their immersion breaking points.

I'm sorry for the rant, I just feel like I'm being asked to combine contradictory expectations.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Defining the Subject: Do we have a problem?

What is the 15 minute workday? Everyone has their own personal version of the concept, but to generate a good discussion we need to define the concept specifically.

The 15 minute workday occurs when characters engage in an adventuring activity that drains them of resources in some way. This could be loss of health, expending of abilities, etc. Instead of continuing said activity, the character chooses to refrain from the activity in order to recover the lost resources. Done to an extreme, the character is said to only engage in adventuring activities for “15 minutes a day”.

Now the first question, is this actually a problem? If we question specific gaming groups, this varies quite a bit. Some groups may only have one combat or “adventuring activity” per day, per week, etc. To them this isn’t an issue at all. Some gaming groups have entire sections of campaign take place over the course of a few days, to them it can seem like quite a problem.

Ultimately to me, what defines this as a problem is the fact that a game system at its core, is designed to model archetypes.

I'm afraid I disagree with your concluding premise here - you ask whether we have a problem, and then state one possible reason for it to be a problem, and then go on to talk about solutions to this 'problem'.

But... Until WotC started talking about the 'problem' of the 15 minute workday it was a subject which almost NEVER came up in discussions as a problem on ENworld that I recall - and there have been lots of discussions (generating heat and light). Psions introduced problems with nova-ing in a big way with their PP mechanic, and that got discussed, but general 15-minute workdays? Not a problem.

The real question about whether or not it is a problem isn't down to some game theory, it is whether it was spoiling the games of lots of people. I think the evidence is that it wasn't, in that there would have been a lot more discussion of it over the last 10 years if it had been a problem!

I think that Danny really nails it here:

My take on the 15 Minute Workday is this: it is not an artifact of the game, but rather, an artifact of playstyle.

I've been playing since 1977, in a variety of communities, in several states, in a variety of different RPGs and with literally scores of different players...and I've never seen it. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying that it only exists under certain conditions.

And condition #1 is that the GM allows it to happen. Not once, not twice, but as a routine, which then becomes an expectation, thus leading to subconscious metagaming. The PCs "go nova", expending their energies with the knowledge that they'll be able to rest almost always at a time of greatest convenience to them.

In contrast, gamers of my acquaintance don't have that expectation, so don't play as if they can rest any old time. Instead of "going nova", PC's carefully manage their resources, always maintaining a reserve. For example, going through the 3.5 version of the ToEE, it wasn't uncommon for our party's mage to still have spells to cast after 5+ encounters. Which was a good thing because we (the Party) didn't determine when we got to rest- the campaign environment did...and there were times when we were retreating carrying one or another comrade from the field of battle. Sometimes harried as we went.

Now, you could argue that since 3e put the focus on the 'encounter' as the unit of play rather than the 'adventure' or the 'dungeon', it started to make it more likely that some people would develop a playstyle which supported "burn all the spells in an encounter, then bug out and refresh', after all, people 'knew' they were 'supposed' to do 5 encounters a day (or whatever) because the system was 'balanced' around that proposition.

Kamikaze Midget had a brilliant post on this issue somewhere, but try searching for a post that contains the word 'Adventure'! If I can find it, I'll edit it in here.

Regards

 

[BlubSeabass]

I'm afraid I disagree with your concluding premise here - you ask whether we have a problem, and then state one possible reason for it to be a problem, and then go on to talk about solutions to this 'problem'.

But... Until WotC started talking about the 'problem' of the 15 minute workday it was a subject which almost NEVER came up in discussions as a problem on ENworld that I recall - and there have been lots of discussions (generating heat and light). Psions introduced problems with nova-ing in a big way with their PP mechanic, and that got discussed, but general 15-minute workdays? Not a problem.

The real question about whether or not it is a problem isn't down to some game theory, it is whether it was spoiling the games of lots of people. I think the evidence is that it wasn't, in that there would have been a lot more discussion of it over the last 10 years if it had been a problem!

<snip>

Regards

Aaah but here is where I don't agree with you.

You say that the 15-minute workday never has been a big issue, in which I agree. But what gets generally discussed? Things that are in control of the players. Why? Because the DM can't just tweak that the way he wants; he needs to justify it.

Here is the catch with the 15-minute workday. It is a minor flaw, which a DM can easily fix through environmental changes. The problem (the rest) is only there when it's not stopped (you say granted). But the flaw is in the game-mechanics. If the DM does not fix this constantly, every game and while designing every dungeon, it's gonna be there.
More experienced players may not have this problem, since they are used to good adventures. But newer DM's may bump into this problem. That it's easily patched doesn't mean it's not there.

Now it just depends on how you want to fix it. Most of you seem to be cool with the small leak, and wrap a handkerchief around it every week. That's fine, it's your game and cost-efficient. Some of us, including me, seek the more complicated ways to fix the mechanics, in which I favor Stalker0's approach.

 

[Ariosto]

There is no one way a class is "supposed to be played."

That's for you to say of your own game design. I'm talking about Gygax's game design, and what others have made by mangling it.

Do you seriously think it makes no difference when one class (fighter) gets stuck in the same old limits, while others (clerics and magic-users) encroach on those?

The overwhelming weight of evidence says it does indeed make a difference. It may even make the "everything you can do, I can do better" kind of difference. (In the short run, the OD&D cleric can be just that, vs. the fighter, even without any changes. The Moldvay/ Marsh/ Cook B/XD&D makes m-us pretty pathetic next to elves.)

But just because one slings spells for a living doesn't mean that one cannot be competent with a bow.

Actually, yes it does, by the old rules, and for good reason.
It's this little thing called "game balance".
Again, you can create a different balance in a different game. However, blindly screwing around with something that's in balance tends to produce something that's out of balance.