D&D 5E Allow the Long Rest Recharge to Honor Skilled Play or Disallow it to Ensure a Memorable Story

[OB1]

Agree with others here that taking a long rest itself may or may not be an example of skilled play. If the players can take a long rest with no consequences in a situation and they curbstomp the final encounter, great! If they take a long rest and the BBEG has time to escape, power up, bring in other minions, kill the captured prince, open the portal to the Nine Hells, ambush the party while they sleep, or something else that harms the ability of the party to complete their goal, that's unskilled play.

It's also a great story when because of skilled play, the players don't need the rest, have plenty in the tank, and curbstomp the BBEG. The story here is in how they managed to slip by the guards, distract the henchmen, find a secret passage around the trapped hallway of doom and sneak into BBEG's room to deal with him easily.

 

[Necrozius]

Tough one, because I want things to make sense based in the current situation. If players are in the middle of a dangerous dungeon, and the monsters totally know that they’re there, but the players feel that they’ve earned the long rest because they’re out of resources... despite all those dangers... well they can try to do so, but unless the characters make special plans and precautions they might get interrupted.

Then again, part of the fun IS planning out escape plans and scoping out potential locales to set up camp later on.

 

[iserith]

Tough one, because I want things to make sense based in the current situation. If players are in the middle of a dangerous dungeon, and the monsters totally know that they’re there, but the players feel that they’ve earned the long rest because they’re out of resources... despite all those dangers... well they can try to do so, but unless the characters make special plans and precautions they might get interrupted.

Then again, part of the fun IS planning out escape plans and scoping out potential locales to set up camp later on.

The way to deal with that sort of thing is up front in my view, not in the moment. If the rule is "You can long rest, but it can't be in a dungeon..." in the beginning of the game, then the players can take that into account when making their decisions. Perhaps they don't go as deep in a given delve knowing that they have to deal with wandering monsters on the way out and need to conserve. If the DM whips out this rule suddenly, then it can certainly look like the DM is making up excuses or trying to change the rules midstream to affect some kind of outcome the DM wants.

 

[Krachek]

If you disable Long rest for too long I wonder what story will remain to be told.
Again it’s a view in competitive and opposition mode.
Players and DM should work together to build the story and let the players play their game.
DnD has not the rules set to manage players and DM playing constantly against each other.

 

[prabe]

I disagree with your premise, that allowing a Long Rest would interfere with whatever story was emerging. My games are very much about the emergent story, and I don't believe I have ever interfered with a Long Rest because I thought it would make a better story. It's possible that the Gawds of Random have been on the players' side, and nothing has come up on them while they were attempting to Long Rest--but I have nonspecific recollections otherwise.

 

[Blue]

Going to start with a truism: "Winning" D&D is everyone a the table having fun.

Seems simple, but we have to remember that character success is not the only path to player fun, and sometimes doesn't even lead to player fun. So really, our metric for evaluating is how much will thses choice effect the speciifc players at your table, with their interests and weighting of what's important to their fun.

At your table, will players feel cheated that they did everything to ensure they will get a long rest and yet they don't? Will they feel railroaded that their agency is being ignored? If so, that's not a viable path. (And the reality is likely shades of gray.)

At your table, will the players be disappointed by an anticlimactic final battle. If it's too easy will they find it boring and lack punch and meaning? If so, that's not a viable path. (Again, also likely shades of grey.)

Okay, so at this point you've evaluated the two options because you have a metric to do so. But unless you have one (or two!) clear winners, we're not done.

Because if neither of them are particularly acceptable, you're still the DM, and nothing that hasn't hit the table is true in any meaningful way. Put in a twist. Increase the hazard of the battle. Put in some one goal that needs to be realized to win (or not lose) that will still be challenging even if fully rested. Give a reason that the player will intentionally chose to give up the long rest (or not), such as maybe a favored NPC who will be sacrificed at midnight for the ritual. In other words, if ignoring player agency nor trivializing the next day are viable options, change the world. Give your players the opportunities to make memorable stories in your setting.

 

[ph0rk]

Anyone can attempt a long rest. Whether or not it will be successful is something else.

I expect I'd remove tiny hut from the next game I run, and make non-scribable one use tiny hut scrolls a cheap-ish resource but also one that is in short supply, so a group can only have a few of them for a particular expedition.

 

[iserith]

Going to start with a truism: "Winning" D&D is everyone a the table having fun.

Seems simple, but we have to remember that character success is not the only path to player fun, and sometimes doesn't even lead to player fun. So really, our metric for evaluating is how much will thses choice effect the speciifc players at your table, with their interests and weighting of what's important to their fun.

At your table, will players feel cheated that they did everything to ensure they will get a long rest and yet they don't? Will they feel railroaded that their agency is being ignored? If so, that's not a viable path. (And the reality is likely shades of gray.)

At your table, will the players be disappointed by an anticlimactic final battle. If it's too easy will they find it boring and lack punch and meaning? If so, that's not a viable path. (Again, also likely shades of grey.)

Okay, so at this point you've evaluated the two options because you have a metric to do so. But unless you have one (or two!) clear winners, we're not done.

Because if neither of them are particularly acceptable, you're still the DM, and nothing that hasn't hit the table is true in any meaningful way. Put in a twist. Increase the hazard of the battle. Put in some one goal that needs to be realized to win (or not lose) that will still be challenging even if fully rested. Give a reason that the player will intentionally chose to give up the long rest (or not), such as maybe a favored NPC who will be sacrificed at midnight for the ritual. In other words, if ignoring player agency nor trivializing the next day are viable options, change the world. Give your players the opportunities to make memorable stories in your setting.

Here's something to ponder: If the players decide to long rest before going into the "final battle," and they know it's around the corner, who is at fault if it is anticlimactic? The DM for not intervening and not allowing a rest? The players for choosing to rest in the first place? Both? Neither?

 

[prabe]

Here's something to ponder: If the players decide to long rest before going into the "final battle," and they know it's around the corner, who is at fault if it is anticlimactic? The DM for not intervening and not allowing a rest? The players for choosing to rest in the first place? Both? Neither?

Kinda depends on why they know the "final battle" is around the corner, dunnit? I mean, if they know because they've been careful and done good scouting/research, then being able to Long Rest so they can Nova is something they've earned, I think. If they just blindly happened to run out of resources right before the final battle, it's probably not.

 

[Steampunkette]

Here's something to ponder: If the players decide to long rest before going into the "final battle," and they know it's around the corner, who is at fault if it is anticlimactic? The DM for not intervening and not allowing a rest? The players for choosing to rest in the first place? Both? Neither?

The DM.

For not adding a boatload of additional stuff to that final dramatic encounter in waves to exhaust player power before the BBEG finally gets into the fray, is a powerful force, and either wins or falls to the heroes.

What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. They wanna bulk up with a long rest right before the fight, have the baddie do it, too.