D&D General D&D without Resource Management

[Lanefan]

I can 100% tell you that your assumption is not accurate. I am a DM that does this, and as a player I have played in many games that, you know, followed instructions.

The game works well when you follow the suggested design. Too few people have tried it.

Unless you're both a) in a dungeon-crawl environment and b) have set things up such that the PCs can't hide anywhere and rest, 6-8 (meaningful) encounters per adventuring day can pretty much only happen if you throw believability out the window.

Not all of us are willing to do that.

 

[Lanefan]

You can have an easier day with 1 encounter or a more intense day with more encounters. It's easier to balance the game from the perspective of a smaller adventuring day then it is for a longer adventuring day.

The 5MWD does not matter. I am ok with people having a 5MWD. And if that's the expected game, then it is easier to extend that workday. A 7-day adventuring day where everyone has to play well when it comes to conserving resources is flat out a lot harder to make small then it is to do in reverse. Same for a 24 hour day.

Sorry, but I don't quite understand this. Yes it's easier to balance smaller time units (to a point; it's probably impossible to balance within a single round, for example) but I don't get how it's easier to make a long "day" small than it is to make a short "day" big.

D&D is a game where a lot of tables meet up, talk, roleplay, do some exploration, and then maybe enjoy 1-2 fights in a session, sometimes more (especially for tables that play for longer hours), sometimes less (I've had many sessions, both as DM and player, where no combat at all happened). And if you want to go full dungeon crawl or hack n slash, you already know when your players will burn out so you can adjust through that in a myriad of ways.

And none of that per-session stuff should have anything to do with the characters' rest rates, which should be based on in-game (i.e. character-perceived) time and-or other in-game factors. It's the characters that are resting, not the players.

I'm not sure whether we agree on this or not.

I must truly stress how little of a problem what you're bringing up is. In a game with magic items, inspiration, spells, boons, charms, and deeds, there are so many tools at my disposal for giving players a longer work day. However, if I give them a shorter work day in the current system, they have all those powers outright to bear. By flipping the system, and making it so I can use these various levers to length the normal workday, I create a more organic and easier-to-mod experience.

I'm still not sure how going either direction is any easier than the other.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

OK, this makes sense so far; though I'd still rather see a longer and-or not complete Refresh each time.

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.

So are you suggesting that each session should line up with an Adventuring Day in the fiction? If yes, that ain't ever gonna work; and if no, what are you suggesting here?

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 the default is a short or very short Refresh period, that paints the DM as the bad guy if she wants to make it longer and-or more difficult; because players generally go for whatever's most beneficial to them/their characters.

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.

Some sessions go through 1 hour in game time (e.g. lots of combat), others go through 1 month (e.g. lots of travel or downtime). What does that have to do with Refresh rates?

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.

Well, yes the time is there; if you're willing to stop 'em right where they are at the end of the real-world night regardless what time of day it is in the game, record what hits and spells etc. everyone's at, then pick up right from that point at the start of next session. Thus, you might plan 6-8 encounters plus all your traps, hazards, etc. but that bit of planning could last you for two or three or even four sessions before that in-game day is done and the PCs can get an overnight rest in.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Count as a resource? Mostly not, other than the time taken (time itself is always a resource).

Potentially generate or consume resources? Most certainly.

 

[Lanefan]

Of course mine... And as far as I know everyone else I've ever played with since 1E. Wizards never had access to crossbows until WotC took over in 3E I believe---I know they didn't in AD&D 1 and 2. Maybe a kit or something added it, but I don't recall any that did off-hand.

Correct, they did not.

That said, given that pretty much any bozo can pick up a crossbow and figure out how to use it within minutes (put the bolt in, pull (or crank) the stock back until it locks, aim, pull the trigger), I've no problem with adding it to the weapons-allowable list for arcane casters.

 

[ezo]

I like to think that Level Up fixed this divide by giving the martials access to the various combat traditions, each of which have 15 combat maneuvers that are ranked by degrees.

Level Up never appealed to me, personally. In general I would prefer a lower power-level and lower complexity game, so adding even more things characters can do and keeping casters as powerful as ever isn't my thing.

Crossbows famously require little skill.

That said, given that pretty much any bozo can pick up a crossbow and figure out how to use it within minutes (put the bolt in, pull (or crank) the stock back until it locks, aim, pull the trigger), I've no problem with adding it to the weapons-allowable list for arcane casters.

Comparitively to longbows, certainly, but they DO require regular use and practice to remain proficient. Although the concept is easy enough, you still have to be shown how to use it. They are as not light or easy to work as many people think.

Like modern handguns, you still need regular practice, etc. With all the time and dedication required to study magic in most fantasy IME a wizard would have little time to train and keep proficient in a crossbow.

 

[Corinnguard]

Level Up never appealed to me, personally. In general I would prefer a lower power-level and lower complexity game, so adding even more things characters can do and keeping casters as powerful as ever isn't my thing.

It was just the opposite for me when I learned about and later participated in backing it's Kickstarter about 2 years ago.

 

[Shardstone]

Lanefan is fighting 10 people at once. His arms flash out, blasting each one of us away. Will he tire? Will he weaken? How many HD does he have left?! Who can say. Fight on, Lanefan. Fight on.

 

[Corinnguard]

Lanefan is fighting 10 people at once. His arms flash out, blasting each one of us away. Will he tire? Will he weaken? How many HD does he have left?! Who can say. Fight on, Lanefan. Fight on.

Blasting? I thought he was eloquently using a pair of swords while dancing across the battlefield, dodging blows from his opponents while landing his own with biting repartee.

 

[Shardstone]

Blasting? I thought he was eloquently using a pair of swords while dancing across the battlefield, dodging blows from his opponents while landing his own with biting repartee.

I hope someone on the forum talks about me like this some day.