Do the rules need to?

[Doug McCrae]

Near as I can tell, the 15MWD is a playstyle thing, not an issue of mechanics.

I don't understand this statement. Surely it's a playstyle *and* mechanics issue, insofar as the problem, if it is a problem, can be solved either by changing player behaviour *or* by changing mechanics. A third option would be to change adventure/world design so the player characters are no longer expected to have more than one resource expending encounter over a 24 hour period.

It's interesting to note that player behaviour can be changed in a number of ways. One is to have negative consequences befall the PCs for 15MD-ing. Another is, more simply, just to ask them not to do it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

My answer was no, the 15MD is mostly specific to D&D so it doesn't need to be addressed by most rules sets. Even in D&D, the playstyle that allows 15MD may be one the rules designers don't wish to support. It may well be that market research shows the 15MD is a non-issue.

If the question had been, "Would you like to see the rules of D&D address the 15MD?" then my answer would have been yes.

 

[Crothian]

To phrase it differently, I think a more poignant question is "Why shouldn't the rules discourage the 5 minute workday?"

Because some people want to play that way. Do we want rules in the game that enforce the one true way to play the game? Do we really need a lot of extra rules to do that? Or do we leave out these rules and allow the people playing the game to decide how it should be played?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Do we want rules in the game that enforce the one true way to play the game?

Yes, sometimes. Depends on the game.

Pre-4e D&D for example enforces, or at least pushes strongly toward, one particular playstyle. The game needs to be played over campaign length, starting at level 1 and stopping at around level 10 or else wizards, and some other casters, are OP. Adventures need to consist of many encounters over a single day, or else casters are OP. Slow, cautious play - ten foot poles, buying the stock of a pet shop to set off all the traps, 15MD - will always be the most successful unless time is a resource, 1e-style, and unless there is pressure from other players who aren't in The Party, OD&D-style.

Without all this in place, pre-4e D&D tends to break down. So, in my view, the rules of this game do enforce, or at least strongly encourage, the one true way to play. Whether they should do so is another question. Perhaps they should allow for multiple playstyles more than is the case. Perhaps they should encourage a single, different, playstyle.

For example, in an article in Dragon #29 (cover dated September 1979), Rewarding Heroism in D&D, Doug Green laments the fact that PCs tend to act far more cautiously in D&D than the protagonists in the fiction on which it is based. He suggests making two changes to the rules to support his preferred playstyle - a sort of hero point mechanic and an xp bonus for heroic self-sacrifice. Doug absolutely does want rules that enforce the one true way to play. It's just that his true way isn't the same as the RAW's true way.

 

[Shades of Green]

One way to mitigate the 15MWD problem is to institute random encounter checks every hour or so (or even every 8 hours) of game time while in an adventure location. This makes time into a resource that has to be managed, and the players risk encountering monsters if they rest every 15 minutes (or if they search every inch of the wall). So you can definitely rest after 15 minutes of combat, but it is balanced by the risk factor, and the players have to make a decision.

Dungeons and deep wilderness are dangerous areas, and staying there should always be a risk.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In my experience, players are a canny bunch. They tend to learn early on what a system rewards, and what it does not. If a combination of the rules and expected usage make the 15-minute workday the best option, players will learn to make use of that option.

I think this thread is going to run into a problem with "What is a rule? And what is the difference between a rule and how you run the game?" For instance, are wandering monsters a rule? Other time limits? Even if they are situational?

I also think you need to take into account how forgiving the game is of a tactical misstep. The less punished you are for using suboptimal tactics, the less you need to use the optimal ones. But, IMHO, this is also rules related.

Do we want rules in the game that enforce the one true way to play the game?

I do. I want to know what was intended so that, if I choose to remake it in my own image, I know what I should be looking to change.



RC

 

[utopia27]

I just wanted to amplify an earlier point - 15 MD is a resource management issue (in a game rules analysis sense).

There is an objective(s) - save the damsel, defeat the evil overlord, whatever. This is a constrained resource - characters have various powers/capabilities usable a finite number of times per day, or for a certain duration per day. There is risk management - personal risk (medic!), and objective risk.

As long as time is a free resource - no 'cost', no additional personal risk, no additional objective risk, then the REASONABLE, RATIONAL way to achieve the objective at minimal risk is to spend time like water, and nova for 15 MD.

There are circumstances where this is realistic and appropriate. Most 'secrets of the ancients' and 'plunder the tomb of the overlord' type scenarios are in this category. The secret/tomb/mcguffin has been at rest for thousands of years. If it takes a week to get past the front door, it's probably not going anywhere. Biggest downside - need to get a walker for the half-orc barbarian after a few years.

In many circumstances, time is NOT a free commodity. Dragon-captured damsels are a perishable commodity - spending time increases risk to objective. Some objectives are event-driven - the end-the-word-ceremony occurs on the solstice in 96 hours, the prisoner will be transported between facilities on Tuesday, the Big Fight and Chariot Races are on the same night as the end of the month Just This Once so the casino heist will Never Ever be better. For these scenarios, time must be managed as a resource against risk to the objective. Characters have rivals and enemies - spending time (particularly in one place) increases personal risk. More directly, a character(s) can be cursed/diseased/geased, and spending time doesn't increase "risk", it introduces a hard time/capability constraint, with undue delay leading directly and with no uncertainty to death (oh - and failure to meet objective as a consequence).

So, to summarize, different adventures can drive different play styles. If there is no consequence for freely spending time, it shouldn't be surprising that time will be spent freely to gain benefit. To drive non-15MD play styles, the GM should ensure that time must be a resource to be managed, by ensuring that it's not free.

This is an issue of campaign/adventure design and GM'ing style. Two warnings - 1) if you, as a GM, choose to change up the play style (starting to apply some consequence to wasting in-game time) YOU SHOULD CONSULT and WARN YOUR PLAYERS, 2) remember that the additional resource constraint will reduce characters' other resources - they won't be able to nova 4-5 times/day - so you should adjust challenge levels accordingly (a delicate art requiring practice).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In 4e, the nova is more or less gone. While you can burn all your dailies in a single fight, it doesn't cripple you to the point of requiring an immediate rest. Furthermore, dailies, while strong, are not the equivalent of higher level spells. The players are actually rewarded for pushing on without a rest if peril is imminent. And of course, it's still dangerous to sleep in the dungeon.

OTOH, there have been recent threads about how the 15MWD is still alive and well in 4Ed, and occurs when the party's Dailies and Surges were exhausted.

(How you can exhaust both of these quickly, though, is a mystery to me.)

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think sandboxes are more vulnerable to 15MD-ing than adventure paths, for two reasons:

1) In an AP the bad guys typically have an evil plan that will result in really bad stuff happening soon. This time limit puts pressure on the PCs, stopping them from resting overly much. In a sandbox the bad guys' evil plans typically result in only somewhat bad stuff happening, nothing world destroying, so there's less pressure. And the PCs are usually more mercenary, more Cugel or Conan than Frodo, so they don't care about somewhat bad stuff happening unless it will cost them mazoolah.

2) In a sandbox the players are free to choose the adventure. They may always choose to assault tombs, ancient treasure vaults and the like, which, as has been mentioned upthread, have no negative consequences for 15MD-ing. Indeed in a recent thread more than one poster recommended the 15MD as a tactic for dealing with the classic Tomb of Horrors module, partly to ensure the scout always had a fly spell active, I think.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Because some people want to play that way. Do we want rules in the game that enforce the one true way to play the game? Do we really need a lot of extra rules to do that? Or do we leave out these rules and allow the people playing the game to decide how it should be played?

If you want to play a game about the heroes novaing and then resting for hours, that's cool. I won't tell you you're playing wrong, and D&D in all its editions certainly encourage players to do so whenever their DM allows it.

But game devs have much less wiggle room to say "Groups who like the nova-rest cycle can play that way, and groups who like a reckless style can play that way too; my game supports both." Because a single game can't support both -- at least not without at least one variant rule.

In the case of a game like D&D, it's always better to nova-rest if it's feasible. So that play style is the de facto One True Way of D&D, even though it's never spelled out as such, and even though many DMs rail against it.

A game can't have it both ways; the rules will always encourage one play style or the other by virtue of rewards, punishment, or omission. Unless the game dev writes at least one variant to the default rules. Even then, the default rules will dictate the Way -- even if it's not quite a One True Way -- simply by virtue of being the default rules.

Oh, and I'm still not sure what the poll has to do with the OP.