No More 15-Minute Adventuring Day: Campsites

[JamesonCourage]

I dislike the proposed idea pretty immensely. But, I prefer simulation. If the party has the time to rest, let them. If they don't, then there's a reason. Why don't they? Enemies attacking? Enemies regrouping? They'll be too late if they rest?

I prefer to look at these things from a more naturally in-game logic viewpoint. As a player, I'll be making my decision on when to rest as it makes sense to my character, not to me as a player. I expect the same out of my players.

Personally, I took spell resources largely away from a "per day" orientation. The higher the spell slot, the longer it takes to get that spell slot back (up to a little over two months for a level 10 spell slot). However, since I tempered this with infinite lower level spells, it seems to work out well. You have your "dailies" (ie, spike abilities) that take a while to recharge, and you have your "at-wills" (infinite lower level casting). If a mage casts two level 6's and a level 5, he has to ask himself, "is it worth waiting 10 days to get all of these back, or can I press on sooner, or even now?"

I'd rather resources take longer to recharge, not shorter. But hey, that's me. Other people don't like the downtime (even if it's skipped), the resource management, the bookkeeping, or any other number of things. And that's cool. They aren't wrong. It's just subjective on what you prefer. As far as what I prefer, though? Definitely not the idea proposed in this thread. That'd be a giant step towards driving me farther from 5e than I a was driven from 4e. As always, though, play what you like

 

[Crothian]

Meaning we shouldn't try and make it easier on a DM by providing them with ways in which to defeat common bugaboos?

Yes, it's not our job or responisbility to make it easier for DMs. Plus, these solutions only work with specific circumstances and players. So, it is not like we are presenting perfect usable advice here. DMing and play groups can be complicated interactions and just presenting the problem simplistically as the 15 minute work day does not offer enough information to really figure out what the true problem is and what the solution might be.

I mean, if the 15-minute-adventuring-day isn't a problem for you, it's not a big deal, but I think that something is a little lost when the players control their own resource recharging, especially without a built-in cost. The tension of "we might run out of spells/potions/rations/whatever!" is lost, and retreat becomes a good play strategy, rather than a last resort.

No every one wants or cares about that kind of tension. That's just one play style and in reality the 15 minute work day is another play style. If that's what the players want and the DM is working to take that away from them then there is going to be a problem in that group.

 

[The Shaman]

. . . I think that something is a little lost when the players control their own resource recharging, especially without a built-in cost.

This is part of what random encounters are for - the cost comes from the adventurers' environment.

Here's a tangental thought: in 1e AD&D, rope trick lasted 2 turns (twenty minutes) per caster level; in 3e, it was bumped to 1 hour per caster level.

Perhaps making it easier for the adventurers to rest isn't really the answer?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

This is part of what random encounters are for - the cost comes from the adventurers' environment.

Here's a tangental thought: in 1e AD&D, rope trick lasted 2 turns (twenty minutes) per caster level; in 3e, it was bumped to 1 hour per caster level.

Perhaps making it easier for the adventurers to rest isn't really the answer?

There's a Leomund's Hut and I think Rope Trick ritual in 4e (non-core both of them), and I don't know how long they last. I wouldn't be surprised if one or both lasts long enough for an extended rest. However, rituals do cost components per casting.

IMO, what broke Rope Trick in 3.x wasn't the duration, but how hidden it was. It it was plainly visible and the interdimensional space could be broken into, it's be nothing but a comfortable extradimensional space. Enemies without magic could find the area, and if they don't want to attack could at least wait outside in large numbers, perhaps setting traps, casting Glyphs of Warding underneath the space and what have you.

 

[Goonalan]

I kinda do this already, forex I played through KOTS with a bunch of noobs not so long ago- I've DM'ed KOTS quite a few times now, and so-

When they wandered into the caves section (which serves no real purpose) I made it clear that this was a place that the Goblins don't go, when they found the secret chamber there I made it doubly clear that this was a 'safe hidden' place.

Same goes for the Hidden Armory which was behind a secret door.

The point being the players grasped the idea that they had a bolt-hole in which they could 'probably' take an extended rest undiscovered.

The reason I did this is because if they decided to drop anchor just anywhere in the dungeon then I was going to bring the bad guys to them- as I've done with previous KOTS wanderers in the past.

The threat needs to be active, finding somewhere to get in an extended rest should be difficult to achieve, but in 4e, not impossible.

Lastly should they vacate the dungeon and head for home then as stated previously the bad guys make ready for their return, or else abandon the lair.

As it happens with the newbs they got the hints that the caves were safe but decided to clear the area out before taking an extended rest- alas two of them (including the Cleric) died in the attempt. Admittedly they were on their seventh encounter of the day, low on Surges, but still in a very heroic frame of mind.

I think their having a safe place to retreat to actually encouraged them to keep going till they were out of resources. They loved it by the way, and learnt (slightly) from their mistake. Although they are actually in the process of repeating it in TL at the moment, in the Horned Hold, they've just finished their 6th encounter in a row and are pushing on with a max of 2 Healing Surges left/PC and most Dailies spent. However this is because the room set aside in the dungeon for the players extended rest (the Ruined Shrine) so terrified them they turned tail (after a close run thing with the Wights) and instead decided that plowing through the Duergar was far preferable than resting up- they hate Wights now (they lost 2-3 Surges each in the fight before they got in a Short Rest and had to spend more).

Keep 'em on their toes, that's what I say.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

One of the things we do, as a group, is keep an eye out for defensible and/or concealed locations we could hide in when we need to rest as we are working our way in.

One example was discussed on this page: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/313896-lets-rest-now-3.html

 

[Stalker0]

I think you could make this work in a specific worldsetting, by making rest only effective in specific parts of the world. For example:


Game Default: Resting to recover wounds/spells/healing surges takes many days or even weeks.

Nyethra (knee-eth-ra

Nyethra is a tiny blue/green plant that grows in all areas of the world, from the highest mountains to the lowest underground caves.

The plant is worldly known for its recuperative powers. Those that rest near areas with the plant can recover in mere hours instead of days.

Nyethra is a mystery. It grows in many places, but general attempts to cultivate the plant have failed. It also grows exceedingly slowly, and while consuming the plant can recover exceptional vitality, it is almost always worth more alive than dead.

Areas where Nyethra is plentiful are jealously controlled. Kingdoms have been founded on their areas, or in smaller patches inns that are the equivalent of small forts.

Woodland areas of Nyethra are kept secret by druids and woodland spirits.



So there is a way to make the "campsite" a function of your game world. Its not that the area is quiet or secluded....but simply that resting isn't effective for adventuring except in "campsites" like these.

As a note to the overall concept, while I agree its not the solution for everyone....and it can feel a little heavy handed, I think it is an elegant solution for some games.....especially ones that use the campsite idea not as a game mechanic but as a function of their game world.

 

[The Shaman]

I kinda do this already, forex I played through KOTS with a bunch of noobs not so long ago- I've DM'ed KOTS quite a few times now, and so-

When they wandered into the caves section (which serves no real purpose) I made it clear that this was a place that the Goblins don't go, when they found the secret chamber there I made it doubly clear that this was a 'safe hidden' place.

Same goes for the Hidden Armory which was behind a secret door.

The point being the players grasped the idea that they had a bolt-hole in which they could 'probably' take an extended rest undiscovered.

OD&D recommends including many empty rooms in the dungeon, and this is one of the reasons why - they give the adventurers a chance to find an out-of-the-way space to rest, set up ambushes, and so on.

The secret room with a thick layer of undisturbed dust on the floor is a good clue to observant adventurers.

 

[Bullgrit]

This is less of a problem in older editions because it takes a long time to recover your lost HP -- long enough that most groups stop short of it -- but it can be a problem in certain kinds of game there, too.

Huh? From what I saw in BD&D and AD&D, it took two days. Once the party is spent, they pull out/hole up and rest. Next day, the cleric memorizes all cure spells, casts them on everyone who needs them, then they rest again. Next day, go back into the dungeon. This is exactly what I saw with D&D3 adventures when the PCs decided to pull out for rest.

Now, I have seen an increase in the 15-minute adventuring day with D&D3. (I haven't played D&D4 more than once.) But the problem was a paradigm shift in the DMs' heads, not really with the game edition rules.

In the "old days" a BD&D or AD&D dungeon/adventure was stocked with a wide range of challenge levels. Even in 6th-level adventures, there would be encounters with a half-dozen orcs or some other mild challenge, (compared to the party's level). Translating the old style into D&D3 encounter levels, a dungeon might be something like:

6th-level adventure
Encounter 1 = EL 3
Encounter 2 = EL 4
Encounter 3 = EL 2
Encounter 4 = EL 3
Encounter 5 = EL 5
Encounter 6 = EL 7
Encounter 7 = EL 2
Encounter 8 = EL 5
Encounter 9 = EL 6
Encounter 10 = EL 8

The party could go through many encounters without having to use their "big guns". Heck, they could probably go through all 10 in one adventure day, reaching resource exhaustion only after the last. (And then they had to resist the "one more room" urge -- which I saw kill many PCs and parties.) They'd then pull out/hole up for a couple days to recuperate before going back for encounters 11+.

But when DMs started creating adventures for D&D3, I saw this happen:

6th-level adventure
Encounter 1 = EL 6
Encounter 2 = EL 6
Encounter 3 = EL 6
Encounter 4 = EL 6
Encounter 5 = EL 6
Encounter 6 = EL 6
Encounter 7 = EL 6
Encounter 8 = EL 6
Encounter 9 = EL 6
Encounter 10 = EL 6

So the party was often spent after the fourth encounter. They'd have pull out/hole up before taking on the next few encounters.

Then DM's started misunderstanding the idea of a challenge, and thought that if the encounter wasn't a full, balls-to-the-wall fight, it wasn't worth bothering with. So adventures started becoming:

6th-level adventure
Encounter 1 = EL 8
Encounter 2 = EL 8
Encounter 3 = EL 8
Encounter 4 = EL 8
Encounter 5 = EL 8
Encounter 6 = EL 8
Encounter 7 = EL 8
Encounter 8 = EL 8
Encounter 9 = EL 8
Encounter 10 = EL 10

The the PCs pretty much had to rest for a day or two after every one or two encounters. Pushing forward for a day beyond that was almost suicide.

Then DMs started complaining about the 15-minute adventuring day.

A couple years ago, I played and DMed in a round-robin style campaign, where each person DMed an adventure in turn for the group. I saw the above in action. I still designed my adventures like I used to in AD&D, and the party could go through many encounters in a day. But the other DMs always upped the ante for their encounters. It got to a point where the party sometimes had to rest after *every* encounter, because every encounter had to be a "real challenge" (read: party level +2 or +4).

Then when the DMing turn came back around to me, I still used my old style adventure building, and I saw the PCs throw their biggest resources into every fight, even when it was completely unnecessary. I mean, when the wizard throws a fireball to wipe out a a handful of orcs rather than let the fighters slaughter them in a few rounds, (with minimal or no party damage), it shows that the Players have been *trained* to hit every encounter as if it required their full arsenal.

I've seen this kind of paradigm mentioned many times around here, too. So I know it wasn't just my groups who did this. So in my experience, the 15-minute adventuring day is not an effect of the game system so much as it is the result of DMs simply misunderstanding the challenge rating system, and forgetting, (or never knowing), the old style of dungeon design.

So really, the way to end the 15-minute adventuring day is not to come up with *more* ideas to force things, but best to just go back to the early idea that not every fight has to be a full-force challenge. Players/PCs falling to the 15-minute adventuring day is not the game's fault, it's the DM's fault -- the DM trains Players to use that tactic.

Bullgrit

 

[Quickleaf]

You're not wrong, but this puts a lot of demands on the DM to come up with interesting and creative consequences each time the party rests, and might throw out of whack the assumed amount of resting an adventure takes into account in 3e or 4e.

Not that it can design random encounters on the spur of the moment, but my DM cheat sheet (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-discussion/307923-d-d-4th-edition-dm-cheat-sheet.html) on the "plot" page has a table about possible consequences for resting.

An idea that tells the players when they can rest, and makes it a resource that they use up, shifts the burdens from the DM back onto the players, who can then make strategic decisions about which resources to use where.

With resting as a resource, do you mean something like "you can take 3 extended rests during this adventure"? I think there's definitely a place for a structure like that. Fore example, the PCs are on a hostile plane with no chance of rest except for the magnificent mansion artifact they've got which can be used to provide them with X number of rests.

One really cool trick I picked up from www.stormindacastle.com is the idea of horizon events which progress along a stage as certain conditions (particularly extended rests) are met. Basically the idea is as part of adventure prep you come up with an outline of 3 consequences for taking extended rests. Each consequence stage involves some new hazard, increased threat, or dungeon-wide effect. At stage III things quickly start going from bad to worse.

In 4e this meshes nicely with adventures which run 8 to 14 encounter.

The dungeon in this version is abstract, so it can be any sort of adventure, really, but it could also be a literal dungeon.

Ah, I think I see what you're shooting for...contrary to the negative responses, I could see this work really well in a game with no "dungeon" largerthan 5 room. It's like you have this network of "safe" nodes with several exits. But once you take an exit you trigger a cascade of encounters which put the pressure on.

Er, am I close to what you were thinking?