Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shardstone" data-source="post: 9208069" data-attributes="member: 6807784">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.</blockquote>

Verification