D&D 5E New L&L When Adventurers Aren’t Adventuring

[Stalker0]

To repeat my comment from the mothership, it sounds great, but it doesn't answer WHY adventurers aren't adventuring. In my current campaign, the party is about to finish up an adventure, and they have a bunch of hooks for other adventures. It would be cool for them to chill in Waterdeep and do downtime stuff for a bit, but why would they not immediately go and do another adventure? The game needs to encourage this kind of downtime, and two-day rests isn't the way.

I agree here. One problem i have had in previous campaigns is the "overly industrious party". Once the adventure is over, they zip to the next. if they hang out in town, they begin singlehandely solving every town problem in existence, and many times they are strong enough to do it.

I've found ways over the years to curb it when i really need to, but its a fundamentally issue with the narrative that i would like to see addressed.

 

[pemerton]

I am not really thrilled about having actual mechanics for that. Although it depends on how it is implemented.

The danger, at least in my eyes, is that "downtime" becomes just another resource to use.

<snip>

What would be better is that
1. Downtime is required.

<snip>

2. Make downtime useful.

<snip>

3. Let the players decide what to do. Imo the most important part. There shouldn't be a list with things you can do during downtime and the players pick one based on the PCs skills etc. The player should announce what he does and the rules should provide rough guidelines, rough enough so that the player can't expect/calculate what he will get in return.

I don't really understand the contrast between what you don't like ("downtime as resource") and what you do like ("downtime as required and useful"). After all, one standard definiition of "resource" would be "useful thing"!

I also don't really see the advantage of rough guidelines which preclude calculation of benefits overn rules which tell you what you can use your skills etc to do in downtime. What is the point of having players make choices to expend a resource (in this case, downtime) without knowing, even in general terms, how this will resolve? At the extreme, this actually makes downtime not useful, because you can't make meaningful choices about it. And even before that extreme, it seems to emphasise GM fiat over meaningful player choice. Is that your goal?

 

[Derren]

I don't really understand the contrast between what you don't like ("downtime as resource") and what you do like ("downtime as required and useful"). After all, one standard definiition of "resource" would be "useful thing"!

The difference would (again) be how gamist the system is.
Bad: "For the first week I roll conscription +2 to increase my army strength and for the second one I do a medium treasure quest with them *rolls 16*. That would be 1 minor item and 3 potions".
Good: "We have to wait 2 weeks because of reasons. I would like to hire additional mercenaries." *DM opens chapter about Out of Adventuring suggestions and guidelines*

 

[pemerton]

The difference would (again) be how gamist the system is.
Bad: "For the first week I roll conscription +2 to increase my army strength and for the second one I do a medium treasure quest with them *rolls 16*. That would be 1 minor item and 3 potions".
Good: "We have to wait 2 weeks because of reasons. I would like to hire additional mercenaries." *DM opens chapter about Out of Adventuring suggestions and guidelines*

From what you've described here I can't tell the difference. In the "bad" example, presumably the GM adjudicated the rolls that deteremined army strength and treasure quest success. In the "good" example, how can I tell that the player is not trying to boost his/her PC's army so as to be able to find some items on a quest?

 

[howandwhy99]

Major kudos for accounting for time, materials on hand, location/territory, and character ability. I'm glad some resource management, consequences of action, and strategic-level predictions are coming back to the game.

I'd say watch out for accidentally including (at least as default) multi-classing into NPC classes via skills. There are no combat, magic, or cleric systems for them to master, but adding in even an economic system can tempt designers into losing the focus of the game. Not every fighter is also a level 10 crafter or level 20 merchant. If for no other reason it breaks verisimilitude to be the greatest living wizard and the greatest living dozen other professions due to how skills work.

The real difficulty is allowing all of these actions, just as in the literal dungeon, to be dreamt up by the players. Let them work their own needs out by self directing without the predefined "action economy". In other words, maybe we could think about design where effects are unknown to the players again? One of the major game design paradigms for D&D is nested systems for exploration. Allowing players to simply say what they want without prior reading of what is predetermined means all these systems can be in play simultaneously. I think it's much more freeing than what you've got at the moment.

Lastly, I agreed with some of the article comments about the name. These rules are referring to long term strategy in the game. Not a lack of adventuring. Players may forget what they do still affects their other adventures, but the game shouldn't. One of the defining aspects of D&D compared to most videogames is D&D players control the clock. They may not be able to define the time requirements of any action, but they can speed up, slow down, and generally change course at any time. That fluidity allows players to remove anything they find as tedious* and yet still choose what they wish to slow done and focus on. Doing this without giving them preconceptions about what is allowed or available would be one of my biggest preferences.

EDIT:
* Here I mean that they can learn how to overcome the world's challenges and then determine S.O.P.s to largely bypass any redundancies in similar challenges in the future. These could even be created for whole combats.

 

[Derren]

In the "good" example, how can I tell that the player is not trying to boost his/her PC's army so as to be able to find some items on a quest?

He might do exactly that. Just not with a single roll on a downtime table but through actual play. Yo do not clear dungeons with 1-2 rolls. Why should downtime be handled that way?

 

[Blackwarder]

I just hope they won't reduce it to mindless dice rolls, if I'm raising a mercenary company than I want to have all the details about payment, equipment, upkeep reaction rolls etc etc.

I just want it to be logical.

Warder

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

How about "Downtown" mechanics, or "Getting Down" mechanics...or "Downton Abbey" mechanics

I'm down with that.

 

[MarkB]

How about "Downtown" mechanics, or "Getting Down" mechanics...or "Downton Abbey" mechanics

"Towntime mechanics" might be the most descriptive term.