Five-Minute Workday Article

[Bluenose]

There are non-4e ways to deal with the issue. What about a milestone mechanic for unlocking wizard spells, for example?

There are scores of ways to handle nova-ing, if people are willing to look past D&D for the solution. Or consider the fiction of Jack Vance, who made it pretty clear that spells weren't something you expended trivially because you would recover use of them easily and quickly after a rest.

The more I look at the debates here and on WotC's forum the more I think they should publish 2 different games, like a D&D Classic and a D&D 4.5.

Three different versions, at least. The differences between 3e and AD&D/BD&D are at least as significant as the differences between 4e and (all other versions); there are examples even in this thread of that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Nod. The only virtue of such a combat would be that you don't have to be bored with it for very long.

It is a true virtue for a boring combat system to be fast, but not guaranteed. Imagine you'd have only "I attack" as option and deal an everage of 8 hit damage but have to burn through 200 hit points worth of enemies...

I'd envision a "boring/simple" but fast system one where damage is either highr the hit points are rather low, or there are some semi-interesting abilities that make combat faster. Say, a Fighter feature that allows you to kill basically anyone (maybe with a speical counter only available to cool villains) on the 3rd succesful hit in a combat - with some extra actions per day, that can be within the first 2 rounds even.

 

[Badapple]

Thinking of myself as a gamer and my preferences I prefer vancian characters over non vancian characters. There are four elements that my playstyle would love to see in a fantasy RPG:

1.) I like managing resources and having to make the choice whether I want to do some sort of baseline attack or if I want to use a more powerful attack at the cost of my resource pool.

2.) I don’t want this resource pool to completely refresh every encounter. I want my resource pool to be managed over the course of multiple encounters to give me some strategic options as well as tactical. Vancian = good.

3.) I like playing martial characters, so in my ideal system I want to play a martial character with vancian abilities. (D&D 4E opened my eyes to this and once I experienced this I don't want to go back).

4.) I would like to see some mechanics to limit 5 minute workdays beyond a pacing budget. I'm of the opinion that 4E both addresses some of this, and in other ways exacerbates it.

I realize that my desires are contradictory to much of the player base and I realize that in some ways my own desires are even contradictory to each other! But that's what makes a great game to me... something that somehow hits a sweet spot between a bunch of contradictory desires. Whether 5E pulls it off, and to how much of the very fractured gaming base it appeals to, will be interesting to see.

As a side note, interestingly, it looks like the upcoming 13th Age will have game elements attempting to address all 4 of my needs. I'm very interested in how it turns out.

Are there any other fantasy RPGs on the market that address all 4 points?

 

[Badapple]

I said time mattered. That means things progressed in the world, and time played an important factor in that.

At low levels, travel time was a big one. Players could go a month south to deal with Problem A, or they could go two months West and deal with Problem B, but they couldn't do both, because either problem would be dealt with (one way or another) by the time they completed (or failed) in their mission. Do you wait for your ally (but let the bad guy build up), or go in without his specialized help (especially if he has useful knowledge)? Do you wait out the Domination effect (which takes days), or go on and hope that it doesn't interfere too much? Do you go back into the Pit with less spells, or do you wait and let ghosts rampage the surrounding area?

At higher levels, temples needed time to be built, as did convincing large portions of the population in each and every nation to worship the gods again. A nation has to be run, including large troop movements, roads being built, and cities being reworked or built. The council of mages built its own tower, had its own army, and had to build political ties in all the nations.

They certainly could be easier to take out. And, no offense, but your experience isn't universal, and just because it sucked for you when your GM screwed you, it doesn't mean that it works that way for everyone. I wouldn't do that to my players purposefully, and I'm sorry you've had terrible experiences like this.

Regardless of your terrible experiences, though, they don't apply to me. I don't run things that way; my players don't run things that way when they do run games. A "living world" isn't just out to make things more difficult for the PCs. You don't have to accept that, but you're simply mistaken if you think that it's somehow universal.

I'd call you wrong. But, I can't speak to "most games" any better than you can, really. So, maybe we should "call it a wash" instead? Because sitting here saying "my experience is that players get screwed every time when the world reacts to things" simply won't jive well with me (or other people like me), since it's not representative of my game in the least.

My players use the "living world" to their advantage more often than it screws them. Last session, they took some farms around a city hostage with about 100 people to trick 450 of the town's army out, then surprised the town's army by cutting their route to the city off, and attacking with a hidden force over twice their size. I didn't screw the players; they earned their victory. It was the opening salvo in what's going to be an ongoing conflict, and the other armies probably won't get tricked like that (the enemy army routed, so the players suspect word will get to the remaining areas).

On the other hand, they know that they can't just sit in the city forever and build up a higher resistance for the next few years. They know that the other armies will start to act, and they'll need to respond to it (and prepare for it). This might mean that they get hurt, but it might mean that they can prepare well enough to ready for the counterattack they know is coming (the question now is "when").

I don't know how it'll play out yet. We'll see. That's part of the fun. But, I'll tell you this much: my "living world" isn't meant to screw the players. Time matters. They only have so much time to raise more resistance fighters, move their army (or armies, possibly), craft weapons or armor, travel around themselves, etc. Time matters. It just does. And it's not to screw the players, it's because that's how time works in my game.

It's not just to screw the players. As always, play what you like

Ok first of all, your campaign sounds like an absolute BLAST to play in. Even though 4E is my far and away prefferred system, these are the kind of games that shine in any system... and well really a good DM and a fine group of players is far and away more important than the actual rules.

But I'm also curious, it seems like your world is especially prone to 5 minute workdays.

First of all, let's say the low level characters choose option A and travel for one month. Do you give them encounters on the road? If so, how many per day? I've always found wilderness travel really exacerbates 5MWDs because it's likely that any encounter they meet will just be met with at least a partial nova, because the players know they will refresh their abilities.

Second, the party travels for 30 days to reach an adventure spot. Will it matter if they rest 2 additional days, making the total quest take 32 days instead of 30?

What if the party invests in magical items, or has a druid that makes wilderness travel easier, or uses utility magic to vastly increase their travel time? Say the party arrives at the adventure spot in only 24 days. Do you allow them 6 extra days to get their quest done? That would give them many more rests.

In my experience games where there is a long travel time to a site, I hand wave the encounters and the travel time (making a broad note of it) but once they reach the site the real "clock" begins... and then I pace the adventure accordingly. It's not perfect, but there is a hit in verisimilitude.

Also it's really cool that your high level game involves armies and castle sieges and politics and what not. But you also said it takes place over game YEARS. How do you deal with the wizard player that can simply take 3 days off per month from his political wranglings to make himself improved invisible, teleporting to the enemy base camp, leaving 4 delayed blast fireballs behind, and then teleporting back home? Or to stop the enemy from doing the same to the players?

High level games that take place over long stretches of time, in my experience, only exacerbate the power vancian characters with a large array of utilitarian options have over martial characters that have fixed abilities that happen each round. Especiallly in social and exploring pillars. How do you get around this?

 

[Balesir]

Actually, let me correct you right here... the latest version of the system fixed most of YOUR problems.

Thank you for your generous condescension - but what I actually meant was it mostly solves this particular problem. It's a subtle difference, I agree, but I think it's important.

It did not fix it for most people.

I don't claim that it "fixed" it for anyone; it just went most of the way toward fixing it. More was needed for a complete fix. And it fixed some of the problems contingent on the 5MAD (i.e. potential daily power user dominance).

It didn't fix it for those people who have still been complaining about the 5-minute workday in 4E all this time,

Quite so - because it only mostly solved it, it didn't completely solve it. As an aside, there are other systems that do completely solve it - which just strengthens the point that it is not an "inevitable" or "inescapable" problem.

plus didn't fix it for all the people who didn't move on to play 4E because the "solution" involved the creation of mostly at-will and encounter based design that they didn't like.

Ah, now this is the nub of the matter, I agree. There are those who like the things that cause the issue so much that they are quite prepared to ignore it so that they can retain those elements in the game.

This is why the last edition of D&D is more relevant than the other games that solve or avoid the issue; it shows that something that is "D&D" can mitigate or remove the issues, even with some element of the things that cause 5MAD still present. 4e still has "vancian" spellcasting, for instance - just not as wide open, nor as exclusive to the "elite" classes, as some prefer. And yet it goes a good way towards removing the problems with the 5MAD.

So while 4E might've done right by you... that doesn't mean that it did right by most of the D&D player base, and thus can't be used as the defacto "solution" for this issue.

Well, apparently, those who were not "served" by 4e don't want a solution, anyway, if it involves doing anything differently from the legacy editions. The obvious route would seem to be either (a) make the solution optional/modular in some way or (b) have two separate games. For some while now I have thought option (b) really looks like the better bet. What I fear is that we'll get one game only, because that's the dictum, and one "side" in the debate will be SOL.

And that's the point. No one solution (or two solutions or five solutions) will solve the issue for most players.

Nonsense - there are several systems out there that solve the issue already. The problem is not solving the 5MAD issue - the problem is solving the issue while simultaneously keeping every iota of the huge and detailed game aspects that seem to be considered "essential" by some D&D fans. Given the extent of these in some cases, that probably is impossible. The "solution" in this case cannot be systemic, since the system is not allowed to be changed in any useful way in this respect. The obvious alternative, in this situation, is a social contract that says that all present must ignore the fact that the issue is present - and any who fail to abide by that contract will get punished via in-game "coincidences". If that works for you, good for you - but there are clearly several for whom it does not work at all.

The only way it will be solved is if they put the power into each DM's hands to develop solutions themselves because each person's issue is different from every other's.

I will do it the way I have addressed system issues for around 30 years - by selecting the system I choose to run. I commend this method to everybody, for whatever issues they find bothersome.

My only real issue, in general, is that a game I have found very low in issues - D&D 4E - may end up not only superceded by a game I find unattractive, but blocked from support by a jealous and coercive IP owner.

 

[Balesir]

There are scores of ways to handle nova-ing, if people are willing to look past D&D for the solution. Or consider the fiction of Jack Vance, who made it pretty clear that spells weren't something you expended trivially because you would recover use of them easily and quickly after a rest.

Actually, that's a really interesting alternative to make "full blown" vancian casting work without novaing. Just make each "spell" a discrete "thing" - once cast it is gone for good (until re-made). Wizards would be able to write out a spell into their spellbook (thus 'forgetting' it), so they could swap spells into and out of memory. But, once cast, they must re-acquire the spell in order to cast it again. In effect, spells become a sort of "magic item" that MUs need, just as fighters need magic swords and armour. A "wand of fireballs" is a device with several instances of a spell stored within it. Hmm - nice idea!

 

[FireLance]

I think it would be useful to decompose the 5-minute workday into two (that I can think of, anyway - there may be more) separate problems.

The first, I call the imbalance problem. The issue here is that different characters have different resource recharge rates. The typical contrast here is between a totally at-will class (such as pre-4e fighters and rogues) and a totally daily class (such as pure Vancian spellcasters). Longer "days" favor the at-will classes, while shorter "days" favor the daily classes.

The solutions to the imbalance problem include:

1. Giving all characters similar resource recharge rates. It need not be AEDU - all characters could be completely at-will, completely daily, or have a combination of at-will and daily abilities.

2. Ensuring adventuring days of varying lengths. This could be done by occasionally imposing time limits that constrain the PCs' ability to rest, while allowing them to take their time on other occasions.

The second, I call the nova problem. This is the tendency for players to want recharge their resources between encounters so that they go into each encounter at full resources, or close to it. The PCs thus fight one encounter and rest to regain resources.

The solutions to the nova problem are:

1. Ensuring all resources can be regained in a short time. This could be done by only giving characters abilities and resources that are at-will or which can be regained after a short rest.

2. Giving the players incentives to increase the length of the adventuring day (or disincentives to reduce it). This could include bonus experience points for each encounter beyond the first, making the adventure harder (e.g. by giving the PCs' opponents extra resources) or reducing the rewards (e.g. more opponents flee with their treasure) each time the PCs stop to rest.

What is interesting to note is that solutions to one problem do not necessarily solve the other. Increasing the length of the adventuring day to solve the nova problem might actually create an imbalance problem if it reduces the number of short adventuring days.

 

[erleni]

There are scores of ways to handle nova-ing, if people are willing to look past D&D for the solution. Or consider the fiction of Jack Vance, who made it pretty clear that spells weren't something you expended trivially because you would recover use of them easily and quickly after a rest.



Three different versions, at least. The differences between 3e and AD&D/BD&D are at least as significant as the differences between 4e and (all other versions); there are examples even in this thread of that.

I played 2e for many years using also a lot of rules expansion (Spells & Magic, Skill & Powers, High Level Campaign) and honestly transition to 3e was almost seamless. I can't really see big differences in playstyle, so if someone could point them out it will be very helpful for me.

 

[Tuft]

This thread seems to forget an OD&D staple that was a powerful disincentive to taking too many rests:

Wandering Monsters and rest-time ambushes. Against a party where just one or two guards were prepared, and the rest were sleeping, unarmored and unarmed, or not daring to break their spell recovery rest, they could be pretty brutal...

 

[Minigiant]

This thread seems to forget an OD&D staple that was a powerful disincentive to taking too many rests:

Wandering Monsters and rest-time ambushes. Against a party where just one or two guards were prepared, and the rest were sleeping, unarmored and unarmed, or not daring to break their spell recovery rest, they could be pretty brutal...

Again. Not so simple.


The healthy party members can kill the wandering monsters on the trip to town if in range.
The party has a head start on the escape.
More guards means more monsters in the area of spells and purposely triggered traps.
DM banning/adjustments of nova and rest friendly spells are required.

Mechanics does affect the effectiveness of a strategy. And every edition had slightly different mechanics and rules.