Gentlegamer
Adventurer
Campsites in the dungeon? You mean like Final Fantasy?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
No More 15-Minute Adventuring Day: Campsites
- Thread starter I'm A Banana
- Start date
Argyle King
Legend
Speaking generally, and not specifically about D&D...
I think one of the solutions to the 15 minute adventuring day is to allow game flow to be more organic rather than so tied to a mechanical formula. Also, allow the game world to react in a way that seems natural to the PC's actions.
Example? In the game I'm currently running, I decided what was in a dungeon. I had no pre-decided path which I expected the PCs to take through it. Yes, this meant I designed a few encounters which they never encountered.
What this did was allow the players to choose their own path through the dungeon. As a DM, I never had to 'punish' the PCs for resting too much or not enough or whatever. I handed control of their fate over to them and their choices. If in the process of exploring the dungeon they made poor choices and this lead to an encounter being tougher (or lead to them facing more than one encounter in one instance,) that came from their choices. Likewise, if in the process of exploring the dungeon they made wise choices and this lead to an easier engagement then so be it. An example of an encounter being made easier from this is there was a point in which two monster groups were natural enemies; this made an encounter somewhat easier because -even though there were two encounters going on- the attacks were not all directed at the PCs.
However, one important aspect of doing this is to make sure the players have information that their characters would be able to observe. Maybe the party member who has goblin as a language can understand what is being said on the other side of the door and realizes that an ambush is being planned. That's just a simple arbitrary example, but I think it gets the idea across.
All this being said, I am running a D&D 4E game, so I did adhere to some semblance of encounter design when designing the various rooms in the dungeon. I say 'some semblance' only because the guidelines I use -while based on the 4E books- have been heavily modified. (Ditto for when I do skill challenges.)
I never tell the PCs they cannot attempt to rest. I may hint to them that I do not believe it would be a good idea for them to rest somewhere -as was the case when they wanted to take an extended rest in a ritual chamber where an evil god's presence was very strong, but I never outright forbid it. However, my players are also aware that -while I do not go out of my way to hurt or maim them- I DM in such a way that choosing to rest in the middle of the aforementioned evil god's chamber may not lead to the desired effects. (I did allow the party cleric to attempt a skill challenge to purify the area. He asked, and it seemed like a reasonable idea.)
Part of the organic reactions of the world would be things others have mentioned such as having the enemy not become static while the party rests. If it makes sense for the guards at a castle to call for reinforcements, then giving them more time to do so may mean they do. Likewise, while a Magic Circle might protect you, you eventually need to come out.
Though, to be fair (and to get back on topic,) I do recognize the problem of the 15-minute day. One of the things that I found when I first started playing D&D 4th Edition was that there really wasn't much of a reason for the PCs not to rest a lot of the time. Even if you tried to curb it by making encounters tougher, the PCs were still so strong in relation to everything around them (especially having their daily powers refreshed) that it was no problem to squash encounters which were -by the book- supposed to be difficult. I actually saw this happen yesterday night during the conclusion of a campaign. In an attempt to make the final boss battle more balanced, the DM used what the RAW encounter guidelines and XP budgets said should have been a level 37 encounter. (Level 30 party.) The party cleared the fight in 4 rounds; only 1 of the PCs had been hurt enough to require healing.
I think one of the solutions to the 15 minute adventuring day is to allow game flow to be more organic rather than so tied to a mechanical formula. Also, allow the game world to react in a way that seems natural to the PC's actions.
Example? In the game I'm currently running, I decided what was in a dungeon. I had no pre-decided path which I expected the PCs to take through it. Yes, this meant I designed a few encounters which they never encountered.
What this did was allow the players to choose their own path through the dungeon. As a DM, I never had to 'punish' the PCs for resting too much or not enough or whatever. I handed control of their fate over to them and their choices. If in the process of exploring the dungeon they made poor choices and this lead to an encounter being tougher (or lead to them facing more than one encounter in one instance,) that came from their choices. Likewise, if in the process of exploring the dungeon they made wise choices and this lead to an easier engagement then so be it. An example of an encounter being made easier from this is there was a point in which two monster groups were natural enemies; this made an encounter somewhat easier because -even though there were two encounters going on- the attacks were not all directed at the PCs.
However, one important aspect of doing this is to make sure the players have information that their characters would be able to observe. Maybe the party member who has goblin as a language can understand what is being said on the other side of the door and realizes that an ambush is being planned. That's just a simple arbitrary example, but I think it gets the idea across.
All this being said, I am running a D&D 4E game, so I did adhere to some semblance of encounter design when designing the various rooms in the dungeon. I say 'some semblance' only because the guidelines I use -while based on the 4E books- have been heavily modified. (Ditto for when I do skill challenges.)
I never tell the PCs they cannot attempt to rest. I may hint to them that I do not believe it would be a good idea for them to rest somewhere -as was the case when they wanted to take an extended rest in a ritual chamber where an evil god's presence was very strong, but I never outright forbid it. However, my players are also aware that -while I do not go out of my way to hurt or maim them- I DM in such a way that choosing to rest in the middle of the aforementioned evil god's chamber may not lead to the desired effects. (I did allow the party cleric to attempt a skill challenge to purify the area. He asked, and it seemed like a reasonable idea.)
Part of the organic reactions of the world would be things others have mentioned such as having the enemy not become static while the party rests. If it makes sense for the guards at a castle to call for reinforcements, then giving them more time to do so may mean they do. Likewise, while a Magic Circle might protect you, you eventually need to come out.
Though, to be fair (and to get back on topic,) I do recognize the problem of the 15-minute day. One of the things that I found when I first started playing D&D 4th Edition was that there really wasn't much of a reason for the PCs not to rest a lot of the time. Even if you tried to curb it by making encounters tougher, the PCs were still so strong in relation to everything around them (especially having their daily powers refreshed) that it was no problem to squash encounters which were -by the book- supposed to be difficult. I actually saw this happen yesterday night during the conclusion of a campaign. In an attempt to make the final boss battle more balanced, the DM used what the RAW encounter guidelines and XP budgets said should have been a level 37 encounter. (Level 30 party.) The party cleared the fight in 4 rounds; only 1 of the PCs had been hurt enough to require healing.
So use a level 40 encounter next time.
I find it helps to play BBEGs like they actually want to stay alive. If you're gunning for eg Lolth, it's going to take tactical genius from the PCs to meet her on terms where it's 'only' an EL 37 encounter. If she thinks you're a serious threat, and she knows you're coming for her, her preference will be to engage you with all her forces at once, like Mabelode vs Rhynn & Kwwll - hundreds of powerful demons, exarchs, drow champions et al.
Argyle King
Legend
So use a level 40 encounter next time.
I find it helps to play BBEGs like they actually want to stay alive. If you're gunning for eg Lolth, it's going to take tactical genius from the PCs to meet her on terms where it's 'only' an EL 37 encounter. If she thinks you're a serious threat, and she knows you're coming for her, her preference will be to engage you with all her forces at once, like Mabelode vs Rhynn & Kwwll - hundreds of powerful demons, exarchs, drow champions et al.
It was a bit of an eye-opener. The party was expecting a rough fight when we first rolled into initiative; it didn't go that way.
If some groups have 15-minute work days and others don't, why are the ones who don't criticizing suggested solutions for those who do? It exists for some groups, and it exists for multiple reasons, not just for lazy DMs.
Many of the solutions from the Don't crowd is very situational. Reactive dungeons and wandering monsters only work for Some places, not others. PCs taking a rest while trying to forcibly breach a fort should be laughed off the table.
However, if you have a large cave complex that has 3 factions in it - the kobolds, the orcs, and a big bad minotaur - then unless the 3 factions interact on a daily (if not hourly) basis, then if PCs come in and wipe out the orcs, the other two factions have little reason to be suspicious (sounds of fighting and shouting is common among the orcs, sounds may move funny in caves, etc)*. And because the complex is firmly established by the three factions, there's little reason why they would allow independent monsters to wander through since that would be a threat to any of the dungeon's residents (you wouldn't let a bear routinely wander through your neighborhood, would you?). Thus the PCs, based on verisimilitude, would be safe to camp in the Orc section after clearing it out.
The reactive dungeon also assumes certain responses from the dungeon residents. It assumes that the Residents think the assailants are still in the dungeon, that the PCs are going to wipe out the rest of the residents, and that the rest of the residents should take offensive measures. Using the above example, the kobolds if they were alerted could easily just increase their own defenses for a time, battening down the hatches, rather than try to defend the Orcs' lost territory or patrol it - later they will loot resources/food/etc from the dead orcs' tunnels. The minotaur might assume that the assailants were coming for the orcs and, while he may be on the lookout for intruders, likely doesn't care for the fate of the orcs. Neither group scours the destroyed territory, thus neither group would stumble upon the camping PCs.
The other problem with "Ok well the dungeon responds" is that if the dungeon responds while the PCs rest, they're likely to battle without recovering their daily resources, face overwhelming odds, and die. So the DM has to decide if he wants to kill the party to teach them to stop resting.
The problem with "Well the party should face non-max challenging odds" was responded well by NewJeffCT - in a game where a combat can take an hour, spending an hour fighting a non-challenging fight when you may not play all that often is a waste of time.
KM's suggestion is fine for the same reason that dungeons often do have empty rooms. The campsites are empty rooms or points that are easily defended/out of the way. However, D&D is a game of resource management. And taking some of the resource management out of the players' hands will likely be problematic**.
But I think the best method would be a three-pronged approach. KM's method (WHEN APPROPRIATE), the Reactive dungeon (WHEN APPROPRIATE), and the DM talking to the players. Because trying to curb bothersome Player behavior in-game without addressing it out of game is a recipe for frustration. A DM could simply say "Guys, I don't like you just resting. Could you try resisting the urge to blow all of your resources the first chance you get."
*And honestly, in a reactive dungeon, why don't some enemies run away? Most intruders aren't coming in to slaughter everyone so they can live there, they're either looting or just slaughtering. A smart monster would see that his more-than-martially-comptent neighbor the orcs just got slaughtered, pack up his stuff and take a few days vacation, then checking back to see if the coast is clear later.
**Again this depends on the group. I would be OK with a DM letting us know when/where we can rest and when we can't, when we're in hostile territory. But then I prefer very loosey-goosey styles, and don't like the 15 minute work day.
Many of the solutions from the Don't crowd is very situational. Reactive dungeons and wandering monsters only work for Some places, not others. PCs taking a rest while trying to forcibly breach a fort should be laughed off the table.
However, if you have a large cave complex that has 3 factions in it - the kobolds, the orcs, and a big bad minotaur - then unless the 3 factions interact on a daily (if not hourly) basis, then if PCs come in and wipe out the orcs, the other two factions have little reason to be suspicious (sounds of fighting and shouting is common among the orcs, sounds may move funny in caves, etc)*. And because the complex is firmly established by the three factions, there's little reason why they would allow independent monsters to wander through since that would be a threat to any of the dungeon's residents (you wouldn't let a bear routinely wander through your neighborhood, would you?). Thus the PCs, based on verisimilitude, would be safe to camp in the Orc section after clearing it out.
The reactive dungeon also assumes certain responses from the dungeon residents. It assumes that the Residents think the assailants are still in the dungeon, that the PCs are going to wipe out the rest of the residents, and that the rest of the residents should take offensive measures. Using the above example, the kobolds if they were alerted could easily just increase their own defenses for a time, battening down the hatches, rather than try to defend the Orcs' lost territory or patrol it - later they will loot resources/food/etc from the dead orcs' tunnels. The minotaur might assume that the assailants were coming for the orcs and, while he may be on the lookout for intruders, likely doesn't care for the fate of the orcs. Neither group scours the destroyed territory, thus neither group would stumble upon the camping PCs.
The other problem with "Ok well the dungeon responds" is that if the dungeon responds while the PCs rest, they're likely to battle without recovering their daily resources, face overwhelming odds, and die. So the DM has to decide if he wants to kill the party to teach them to stop resting.
The problem with "Well the party should face non-max challenging odds" was responded well by NewJeffCT - in a game where a combat can take an hour, spending an hour fighting a non-challenging fight when you may not play all that often is a waste of time.
KM's suggestion is fine for the same reason that dungeons often do have empty rooms. The campsites are empty rooms or points that are easily defended/out of the way. However, D&D is a game of resource management. And taking some of the resource management out of the players' hands will likely be problematic**.
But I think the best method would be a three-pronged approach. KM's method (WHEN APPROPRIATE), the Reactive dungeon (WHEN APPROPRIATE), and the DM talking to the players. Because trying to curb bothersome Player behavior in-game without addressing it out of game is a recipe for frustration. A DM could simply say "Guys, I don't like you just resting. Could you try resisting the urge to blow all of your resources the first chance you get."
*And honestly, in a reactive dungeon, why don't some enemies run away? Most intruders aren't coming in to slaughter everyone so they can live there, they're either looting or just slaughtering. A smart monster would see that his more-than-martially-comptent neighbor the orcs just got slaughtered, pack up his stuff and take a few days vacation, then checking back to see if the coast is clear later.
**Again this depends on the group. I would be OK with a DM letting us know when/where we can rest and when we can't, when we're in hostile territory. But then I prefer very loosey-goosey styles, and don't like the 15 minute work day.
I have yet to see a situation where a reactive adventure didn't work, or found one where a random encounter felt forced by definition.* And no, we don't camp while breaching forts.
* To clarify, I have seen some forced random encounters, but have not seen a situation in which a random encounter could not have been used.
IronWolf
blank
Rechan said:
Because those of us that don't have 15 minute work days think we might have some tools we use to help prevent 15 minute work days from being an issue.
Rechan said:
Very true. Sometimes the PCs can rest at will and it makes total sense to do so. Sometimes the world reaction to a PCs actions have no immediate (or even long term) effect on the PCs.
If PCs I run for want to take a rest while trying to forcibly retreat, they are welcome to make the attempt. Shoot, if they retreat from the fort and find a safe place to do so, then there is even a chance they will get that rest. The fort will certainly still be standing and likely have seen repairs and possibly even improved defenses against similar tactics. But that is the PCs choice.
Rechan said:
Correct. If there was not a large amount of interaction between the three factions, the party might have just carved out a great place to rest.
People seem to be reading that the ones advocating verisimilitude are saying always attack the PCs when they rest or always change the monster tactics. That isn't what we are saying. We are saying when it makes sense to do so, then do so. This makes the PCs think about the situation and will eventually lead to the PCs determining it isn't always safe to rest.
Rechan said:
PCs need to choose smart places to rest if they are going to do so within a dungeon. Look for places that can be secured, likely multiple exits, etc. Sometimes there aren't great places to rest inside. Then the PCs need to decide whether to take that risk or retreat from the dungeon, possibly knowing they have lost an element of surprise if they leave.
Rechan said:
The same reason PCs don't run away from insane or outmatched battles. They think they can win.
Exactly.
Like I said, we plan our rests/extraction strategy as we are fighting our way in.
IME, sometimes they do.
MichaelSomething
Legend
I would like to note that a 15 minute adventuring day isn't always a bad thing. A LOT can happen in 15 minutes...
howandwhy99
Adventurer
What about the 15-Minute Adventuring Year?
Let's say the PCs acquire a treasure which detects as magical, but currently charging. The next day they try and use it, but the item still doesn't work. It still detects as charging magic, but the charge has only grown very, very slightly. They compare this to a 1/day item and are told the new treasure may take another 9 months before it is fully charged. How long since it was last used? About 3 months.
Now they could ask around for rumors about anything significant happening 3 months ago in the area where they acquired the treasure. That may lead them to learn about its power, but the question for this thread is:
Is it okay for the PCs to wait around for a year, every year, to go adventuring?
Sure, why not? They choose their own course. Will other events crop up they may want to deal with in the interim? I would think so. Not the least of these being daily food, water, and rest. But, if the adventure / world is dynamic, they probably don't have many quiet places to remain shut in during the interim. Is it impossible? Probably not, if they are innovative.
For me the key is: Is time a resource or not in the game? Does the game end for those characters if they turtle long enough? I'd say yes. Old age penalties eventually begin to accrue and the PCs finite lifespans mark the end of the game for each one when those moments arrive.
Such considerations put a practical limit on recharge powers and on time progression for the characters. Anything over a month is probably too much. Anything over a year or so might as well be a once in a lifetime event. Plus, time costs are probably best built to be commensurate with the power level of the effect. Does this thingamabob build a tower with traps and a dungeon? That would probably fit for 1 year's worth of waiting.
The thing is, if they want to adventure 15 minutes of game time once per year, then they have a chance to do so. It won't be the longest, most level advancing, advantageous, or, heck, exciting campaign ever, but its theirs to do so.
...something tells me though that power attracts power. And if they keep using that yearly gewgaw, something big enough to take it will eventually win through and try to.
Let's say the PCs acquire a treasure which detects as magical, but currently charging. The next day they try and use it, but the item still doesn't work. It still detects as charging magic, but the charge has only grown very, very slightly. They compare this to a 1/day item and are told the new treasure may take another 9 months before it is fully charged. How long since it was last used? About 3 months.
Now they could ask around for rumors about anything significant happening 3 months ago in the area where they acquired the treasure. That may lead them to learn about its power, but the question for this thread is:
Is it okay for the PCs to wait around for a year, every year, to go adventuring?
Sure, why not? They choose their own course. Will other events crop up they may want to deal with in the interim? I would think so. Not the least of these being daily food, water, and rest. But, if the adventure / world is dynamic, they probably don't have many quiet places to remain shut in during the interim. Is it impossible? Probably not, if they are innovative.
For me the key is: Is time a resource or not in the game? Does the game end for those characters if they turtle long enough? I'd say yes. Old age penalties eventually begin to accrue and the PCs finite lifespans mark the end of the game for each one when those moments arrive.
Such considerations put a practical limit on recharge powers and on time progression for the characters. Anything over a month is probably too much. Anything over a year or so might as well be a once in a lifetime event. Plus, time costs are probably best built to be commensurate with the power level of the effect. Does this thingamabob build a tower with traps and a dungeon? That would probably fit for 1 year's worth of waiting.
The thing is, if they want to adventure 15 minutes of game time once per year, then they have a chance to do so. It won't be the longest, most level advancing, advantageous, or, heck, exciting campaign ever, but its theirs to do so.
...something tells me though that power attracts power. And if they keep using that yearly gewgaw, something big enough to take it will eventually win through and try to.
Similar Threads
