No More 15-Minute Adventuring Day: Campsites

[Primitive Screwhead]

You don't even need threats of TPKs.
... 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.

True, but unless you have a DM that is open about enjoying running CP2020 or Paranoia and has no issue with the have the campaign end in a TPK if the party bites off more than they can chew through bad choices... then the lack of 'raise dead' doesn't matter. I have played in games where the PCs had plot protection so thick that it didn't really matter what we did. In that sort of environment a 15 minute day has no drawbacks.

When the players know that I would gladly ramp up the challenge to the point they risk a PC or two.. and maybe even the entire party... they tend to focus on the in character reasons for continuing on despite being down on resources.

YMMV

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, I think we're really on the same page here- almost every DM in our group has had a PC or 3 at death's door, only to be saved by PC actions. The latest was my Dwarven Starlock who was nearly boiled alive. He was only a few steps ahead of the rising superheated liquid when someone threw him a rope.

No TPK was threatened, but no plot protection was offered.

 

[prosfilaes]

You see it in zombie fiction,

You mean where the party all dies at the end?

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 not an argument against the 15-minute day. It's an argument that you need to keep back something in reserve for the end of the 15-minute day.

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

Gandalf is a literary construct. The most important piece of "physics" underlying Gandalf's powers is the need to be awesome only in those cases where it's his turn to be awesome, and not overshadow the other characters.

Frankly, I have no idea what Gandalf's stats and game system look like. I see no evidence that resting helped his magic, and have no idea what, if anything, he could have done that he didn't. His actions against the balrog could have been like the turn undead abilities of a cleric; powerful, but narrow.

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

I'm sure some do, as do some non-15 minute men. The difference is, 15 minute men fight a few battles and recover their resources. Non-15 minute men keep going for long after they've lost their edge, and they're more likely to die because of it.

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.

Yeah, that's what I want to play in D&D. How about this instead; my character will carry a book around and read after he's cast his 1-3 spells, and I the player will do the same?

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.

As Bullgrit says in #29, the reason my players do this is because they don't want to see their character die. What happens if I do as you suggest, and after firing my crossbow at the monsters (5% chance of doing 1d8 damage - avg. 0.2) instead of my Magic Missile (5d4 guaranteed damage - avg. 12.5) and the monster brings down our lead fighter?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You mean where the party all dies at the end?

I've seen plenty of zombie fiction that includes survivors...most of it even.

That's not an argument against the 15-minute day. It's an argument that you need to keep back something in reserve for the end of the 15-minute day.

As others put it, if their casters have something left, classic 15 minute men keep going. They stop when the casters are out of spells, nearly regardless of other resources. By definition, they have kept nothing back at that point.

(In 4Ed, the triggering resource is supposedly Healing Surges.)

Gandalf is a literary construct

As are all the characters in the fiction you want to compare RPG games to.

If you want to say something is unlike the fiction-style play you advocate, you cannot criticize my point by saying I'm comparing something to a fictional character.

Gandalf simply doesn't cast spells left & right to solve problems. He casts spells if and only if spells need to be cast. Thus, he always has power to expend.

15 minute men don't. They cast and cast and cast. When the casters can't cast, the day is over, time to rest. (At least, so goes the oft-cited description of play.)

I'm sure some do, as do some non-15 minute men

By definition, no.

What happens if I do as you suggest, and after firing my crossbow at the monsters (5% chance of doing 1d8 damage - avg. 0.2) instead of my Magic Missile (5d4 guaranteed damage - avg. 12.5) and the monster brings down our lead fighter?

Knowing the guy who plays our mages?

His response would probably be that your Mage:

1) chose his spell list poorly

2) chose the wrong spells to memorize/cast before backing off the accellerator

3) chose the wrong targets for his spells

4) stopped casting at the wrong time*

5) the fighter got unlucky and/or prevented you from casting the spells you should have been casting

...in some combination. (Because he tells me that when I step into his backyard and play a spellcaster.)

He's been doing this since 1985, and it's yet to pop up often enough to worry about it.



* to clarify, the figure I stated is an estimate. The point is that he does not keep casting spells every turn. He has an initial burst of casting, then pauses, switching to weapons/going to standby. If and only if the battle turns against the party does he resume casting. Once the battle is in hand, he stops casting. End result: he nearly always has something nasty available to cast, even in the 6th encounter of the day.

 

[prosfilaes]

As others put it, if their casters have something left, classic 15 minute men keep going. They stop when the casters are out of spells, nearly regardless of other resources. By definition, they have kept nothing back at that point.

This whole discussion is about parties resting to recover resources. That seems like the key element here. If the party never rests inappropriately, what do you care about how they manage their resources? If they conserve their resources and in doing so play the 15-minute day, then we have the problem we're talking about.

As are all the characters in the fiction you want to compare RPG games to.

Yes and no. We can construct a character sheet for Bilbo, for the Superman of Superman I, for the Great and Mighty Turtle. In all these cases, there's going to be wide discrepancies on the numbers, but what they can do is going to be generally agreed upon. We can't do that for Gandalf.

Gandalf simply doesn't cast spells left & right to solve problems. He casts spells if and only if spells need to be cast. Thus, he always has power to expend.

For all we know, Gandalf has spells to handle Balrogs ... and Balrogs. As I said, when we see a D&D cleric blast a hoard of skeletons to dust and then not do the same to a hoard of goblins, we know that it's not because she's conserving power. There's simply not enough evidence in the LotR to say whether or not Gandalf could

By definition, no.

By whose definition? From reading the thread, I get the impression that this thread is about people who have a few encounters then rest, not about whether or not they have spells left when they rest.

Knowing the guy who plays our mages?

Really, this is all beside the point. I don't want to play a mage who has to sit around doing nothing or effectively nothing. What you're describing is a specialized playstyle that I don't think many 15-minute gamers want to play. The fighters have an effective option every term, and the mage players want the same thing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This whole discussion is about parties resting to recover resources. That seems like the key element here. If the party never rests inappropriately, what do you care about how they manage their resources? If they conserve their resources and in doing so play the 15-minute day, then we have the problem we're talking about.

Except that is different from the standard complaint from DMs about the 15 Minute day, namely, the party goes nova then rests.

I have yet to see a party- in person or described in these boards- that stops adventuring while the casters are still able to go *BOOM*.

There's simply not enough evidence in the LotR...

Because Gandalf almost never uses magic- even when given ample opportunity- unlike a typical 15 minute Mage in D&D.

By whose definition? From reading the thread, I get the impression that this thread is about people who have a few encounters then rest, not about whether or not they have spells left when they rest.

By pretty much the way everyone describes "The 15 Minute Workday" on these boards.

I don't want to play a mage who has to sit around doing nothing or effectively nothing.

Bully for you.

However, those who do play as described (and many of those around them), don't view it as "doing nothing or effectively nothing".

 

[ExploderWizard]

Bully for you.

However, those who do play as described (and many of those around them), don't view it as "doing nothing or effectively nothing".

Its no different than a fighter without feats or powers being able to do nothing but " I swing my sword" because there isn't an action button on the character sheet.

As if its somehow the games fault that the player, the DM or both lack the imagination to do otherwise. Its all pure crap.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Except that is different from the standard complaint from DMs about the 15 Minute day, namely, the party goes nova then rests.

I have yet to see a party- in person or described in these boards- that stops adventuring while the casters are still able to go *BOOM*.



Because Gandalf almost never uses magic- even when given ample opportunity- unlike a typical 15 minute Mage in D&D.



By pretty much the way everyone describes "The 15 Minute Workday" on these boards.



Bully for you.

However, those who do play as described (and many of those around them), don't view it as "doing nothing or effectively nothing".

I've seen the 15 minute workday with spells left. All it requires is a DM who's willing to let the PCs rest after one or two encounters, and also enjoys using a nasty wandering monster table (with CR+3 encounters if you're unlucky enough to roll a 1 on said table). This applies doubly if he rolls twice on the table for every night.

In that scenario (which I've witnessed) the players in general and the spellcasters in particular will horde their resources like you wouldn't believe. Because the first time they roll two nat 1s in the same night, they will have to fight two CR+3 (it might even have been CR+4 or CR+5) encounters just to rest. Players in that situation rapidly learn to keep at least half their resources in reserve, because a single nat 1 is rough, while two can be disasterous even with half your resources.

As such, you end up with a 15-minute workday with spells held in reserve.

Bad DMing? IMO, yes. Or at the very least a poor grasp of certain aspects of the 3.x system, and their repercussions. Nonetheless, I've seen it happen.


I have to agree with [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION], playing a mage of the "two or three spells an encounter" style isn't my idea of fun. I've been in a group like that and it was basically the mage and her bloody janitors. The mage would effectively win the fight in round one or two (usually by casting web) and then hang back, coup de gracing and offering basic support. Massively boring for the rest of us, who'd have to slog through the remaining creatures without any real sense of danger or challenge.

If it works for you, great. Definitely didn't find it to be my cup of tea though.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Therein lies the challenge of playing a support role.. and Mage should (IMHO) be a support role character. Like Gandalf, he is there to pull the 'OMG, we mortals couldn't do that!' instead of 'magic is the only way to win battles'.

A couple thoughts on Gandalf and the other iconic Mage in fiction.. Merlin. Their greatest power was that they knew things. Not magic things.. just things. Like were to stay in Breland or how to navigate the Misty Mountains.

The majority of the magic used by both amount to parlor tricks when compared to the DnD spell lists.... actually some of the 'spells' used by Gandalf were 2e cantrips...

But I digress. The issue I see is that players with support roles use their OMG powers at the wrong time. Instead of seeing if the mundane methods work first they rely on the supernatural.. leading to a less mystifying experience of magic at the game table and the evolution of 4e that leveled the playing field between 'support' and 'lead' roles.

I enjoy playing the support role and have spent many a game literally off screen, often spending my time reading comic books or tending the register at the store we played in, only to step in at the rare moment when the group needed my characters special talent.
Kinda like when Gandalf rode in to Helms Deep with the cavalry at his back {and the sun shining from directly behind him... in the book he didn't cast any spells, just used the slope of the hill and the morning glare to gain superiority}


YMMV

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Okey-Dokey.

Like I said coming in (and elsewhre): never seen the 15MW in person in 34 years in the hobby, so I'll defer to those whoHAVE as to it's details.

But I'll stand by my assertion that it is a playstyle that only exists due to cooperation between a party who prefers it and a DM who allows it. The GM's solution to dealing with a playstyle he doesn't want in his game is to penalize the behavior he dislikes while rewarding what he wants to see more of.

...and I don't see the OP's idea as doing that.