No More 15-Minute Adventuring Day: Campsites

[Dannyalcatraz]

My point stands. You want fiction-style play, you need to offer a fiction-style world. In fiction, they don't fight battles 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. I don't remember a single fantasy book where the protagonists had multiple battles two days in a row.

While I cannot recall any fantasy novels at the moment, I don't doubt that there are- probably something dealing with an indefatigable foe, like undead or constructs.

You see it in zombie fiction, the Evil dead movies, slasher flicks, and even an episode of nBSG- I doubt Horror & Sci-Fi's cousin Fantasy has missed that trick, especially when it's so full of options to do it with.

No rational, sane person in the adventurers' shoes would consider themselves quite capable of adventuring at that point.

You're missing one aspect of the problem: no rational, experienced person in the adventurers' shoes would consider using all of their resources in just a few encounters. They would hold something in reserve as long as possible.

That's what I was getting at when asking how many times Gandalf would "nova and nap."

15 Minute Men expend their resources profligately, sometimes to the point of massive overkill, and thus render themselves toothless while still quite physically capable.

In contrast, in the group I've been a part of since 1998, there is a guy I've gamed with since 1985 who plays wizards almost exclusively. As I've recounted many times on these boards, it almost doesn't matter how many encounters we have, he still has spells at the end of the day. Why? Because he casts 1-3 spells per combat, then STOPS. Instead of expending extremely limited resources, he'll wander the battlefield doing Coup de graces or taking potshots with his crossbow or dagger.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This isn't always appropriate.

Sure it is, just in a different way.

In the goblin warrens example, it's not that the evil plans come to completion, it's that the party's retreat makes their earlier efforts meaningless.

They kill a bunch of goblins, get dinged, dawdle in their recuperation, and return to action finding the sections they cleared out are restocked with more goblins...except these are more heavily armed and on alert. Maybe they even have runners to spread news of an attack so that the community's response will be swifter...and more violent.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In the goblin warrens example, it's not that the evil plans come to completion, it's that the party's retreat makes their earlier efforts meaningless.

This goes into what I said about Reactive Dungeons, how they would be the best solution, save for the rules of the game that make them a problematic one.

 

[ExploderWizard]

This goes into what I said about Reactive Dungeons, how they would be the best solution, save for the rules of the game that make them a problematic one.

What rules make reactive dungeons problematic exactly?

Each situation is different depending on the inhabitants and circumstances.
This makes for a great deal of unique possibilities no matter what ruleset is being used to run the game,

 

[I'm A Banana]

What rules make reactive dungeons problematic exactly?

First, XP and treasure per encounter. Harder/more encounters aren't a disincentive, they're a reward, in terms of XP and GP. It's kind of the same reason having a combat isn't a good punishment for failing a 4e skill challenge. Combats are not, in and of themselves, something to avoid.

Second, that harder/more encounters actually encourage you to nova more often. A TOUGHER group of goblins isn't going to get a more cautious, more considered approach, it's just going to escalate the nova-ing. If you blew all your dailies on a batch of 5 standard goblins, you're certainly not going to go easier on the batch of 3 elite goblins.

Third, the game assumes that the party has resources for X encounters per day. If they get low on supplies because those X encounters are harder, or there are X+1 encounters, they are going to be encouraged to rest more often, not less often. Adding more and tougher encounters enters a "death spiral," encouraging the PC's to rest more often, and punishing them with more/harder encounters, thus encouraging them to rest EVEN MORE often, and on and on.

None of those are necessarily insurmountable (Good DMs have probably been already doing this for years, but good DMs are not the DMs with a 15-minute-day problem). However, they all require a pretty deft touch and a sensitive awareness of the party's resources, motives, and capability. If a DM already has this, then chances are he's not got much of a problem with the 15-minute adventuring day to begin with.

 

[ExploderWizard]

First, XP and treasure per encounter. Harder/more encounters aren't a disincentive, they're a reward, in terms of XP and GP. It's kind of the same reason having a combat isn't a good punishment for failing a 4e skill challenge. Combats are not, in and of themselves, something to avoid.

If you are using standard XP awards for 3E and 4E then yes, killing as much as you can manage is the way to go. The reward system largely determines how the game is approached.

Second, that harder/more encounters actually encourage you to nova more often. A TOUGHER group of goblins isn't going to get a more cautious, more considered approach, it's just going to escalate the nova-ing. If you blew all your dailies on a batch of 5 standard goblins, you're certainly not going to go easier on the batch of 3 elite goblins.

Makes perfect sense.

Third, the game assumes that the party has resources for X encounters per day. If they get low on supplies because those X encounters are harder, or there are X+1 encounters, they are going to be encouraged to rest more often, not less often. Adding more and tougher encounters enters a "death spiral," encouraging the PC's to rest more often, and punishing them with more/harder encounters, thus encouraging them to rest EVEN MORE often, and on and on.

Not a lot of wiggle room with all these assumptions is there? Between the reward structure and all the assumptions it sounds an awful lot like someone or something telling you how to run your campaign .

In this situation the key to fixing things is changing the nature of the carrot rather than adusting the size of the stick. YMMV.

 

[LurkAway]

Adding more and tougher encounters enters a "death spiral," encouraging the PC's to rest more often, and punishing them with more/harder encounters, thus encouraging them to rest EVEN MORE often, and on and on.

I must be missing something, but generally in a dungeon, the antidote to resting is wandering monsters (old school) or a reactive dungeon, which interrupts the resting. If the PCs rest outside the dungeon and then return, are they guaranteed to beat the tougher encounter? Why are they never worried about a TPK, an obstacle like a well defended moat or a DC 40 locked and barred iron door that they can't open, etc. Why is this "death spiral" presumed to be automatic? From a metagame POV, why don't the players get bored at the very idea of this behavior and (like anything else) abide by a social contract to have fun adventures?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Second, that harder/more encounters actually encourage you to nova more often.

Not IME- if you expect harder/more encounters, the more you need to make sure you have resources available for those encounters. You get stingier, not more profligate.

To put it in a modern context, if your party is expecting to take down a single, isolated garrison of 20 Nazis, you may well "go nova" and use nearly all your ammo and grenades to take it down. OTOH, if you are behind Nazi lines trying to take down a big camp in a heavily patrolled area, you're going to husband your ammo and explosives and opt for quick, quiet kills to get close, using the loud, flashy stuff when you get inside. And you will probably have designated to retain certain munitions for your retreat/extraction...or emergencies.

This, in a nutshell, is how the groups I've been in run, almost regardless of genre; no going nova. EVER.

IOW, the exact opposite of going nova early and often.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Comments

Primitive Screwhead:
Exactly my experience... but only if the DM is willing to TPK

You don't even need threats of TPKs. Difficult resurrection- a.k.a, the threat of real & permanent PC death- makes each player think a bit more about how his/her PC thinks about death...or at least, how much they don't want their individual PC to die.

Obviously, in D&D, that describes most low-level to mid-level play unless religions are selling the service to fatten their coffees.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

My point stands. You want fiction-style play, you need to offer a fiction-style world. In fiction, they don't fight battles 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. I don't remember a single fantasy book where the protagonists had multiple battles two days in a row.

Pick up any book by David Gemell.