D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[hawkeyefan]

So now let's compare our styles:

All the same so far.

Yeah, I expect that there will be large parts of our games that aren't as different as we might assume. That's why I figured maybe discussing a specific module we had both DMed might help.

So here our paths deviate. In my way of thinking the DM deciding something this important on the spot, after seeing the health of the party, what they have done so far, etc, taints the purity of the players' cause-effect dynamic. In effect I see it as Big DM shaping things rather than the player's actions doing so.

We agree that the DM is taking things in hand here, butI think we disagree on how big a deal that is. I'm not a huge wandering monster kind of DM anymore. I throw one in every now and again to keep the PCs on their toes, but generally I find those encounters to be among the most dull that I've run. There's usually not a lot to them. I prefer the combats on my game to serve some purpose, whether it's as a challenge to the PCs, or it's important to the story, or if it's a dynamic encounter that will be fun to play...whatever the reason, there just has to be one.

In the case of Barovia, I wanted the environment to seem dangerous outside the towns, but I really didn't want to run encounter after encounter with wolves....so I just decided it would be beat to simply say that the wolves constantly harass them. This gave them reason to always try to get to a aettlement in order to recover.

I don't think this had too much impact on their agency. Or at least, not a negative impact.

We both seem to make sure to have placed rest restrictions - I used a ticking clock instead which I felt let them manage their own resource though. My method also served to limit their ability to rest-fight-rest which throws off the delicate balance I create (since Big Challenge is our focus not Big Story).

Yeah, mine was equal parts challenge and story. I wanted the players to have to plan their travel and their effective rests wisely. They had to spend a couple of nights out in the wilds and that left them unrested the next day, which meant whatever location they were headed to just became more difficult. But I also wanted to do it that way to reinforce the idea that the environment was dangerous....that they were constantly being watched and hunted.

Did you decide ahead of time to put the hag there or was it on-the-fly? And if you didn't pre-decide to put her there was there a reason?

The book includes the possibility of an encounter with the hag, but it's not meant to be a combat. So I went with that because the PCs were seeking the witch Baba Lysaga for ongoing campaign reasons. So I figured good idea to plant that seed early, even though it was kind of a red herring since the witches at Bonegrinder don't have anything to do with Baba Lysaga.

Again, did you decide ahead of time to put bones sub-plot there or was it on-the-fly? And if you didn't pre-decide to put it there was there a reason?

I'm not entirely sure. It's in the book, and I thought it was a pretty cool idea, so I threw that hook out there to see if the players would bite. Essentially, I threw out about 5 or 6 different subplots in Vallaki, all based on content from the book, with some minor tweaks to fit personal taste. I was aware of the material, and what possible avenues the players might go, so I introduced the plots that I thought they would dig, or that would be the most enjoyable and make for the best story. So I have a list of hooks that I plan, and then I put maybe 50-75% of them into play. When I decide to do that is hard to say. I have plans, but I am ready and willing to change those plans depending on the vibe at the table.

Then we see what the PCs decide to pursue. If they had decided not to investigate the missing bones, then things would have continued largely the same....they would have investigated another lead and followed that trail.

I assume while in town your group played it traditionally in the sense of, "I walk up to the innkeeper and say hi." This as opposed to my method (admittedly unusual) to abstract the town interaction into a series of skill challenges and encounters.

Yeah, we played it pretty traditional. The PCs interacted with different NPCs and learned information, and the rogue also did some gather information type checks to see what else could be found out. They stayed in town for a couple of days learning things and deciding what to do.

The two house scenes were rather easy to detail and construct so I gave them the option of either fighting with the Watcher or the Baron or both, but pre-manufactured a reason (I forget what) why they really should take one of the three options - so while they did have the option to just leave, it would have cost them something.

I left how they handled the situation entirely up to them. I did not set any encounters with the Baron or his men, or with Lady Wachter or her sons, other than the festival encounter described in the book. Everything else consisted of interactions initiated by the PCs, and I would have the NPCs respond accordingly.

In my method, I spend an extra 15 mins prep time working out contingencies - the probability of the town guard intervening when they hear the alarm sounding at the Baron's residence, and the strength of the intervening force, etc. While this doesn't preclude my need to decide things on the fly, it greatly reduces the frequency of Big DM intervention between player cause and effect. Call me DM Light

I have a loose idea of that kind of thing. But, I ultimately decide at the table exactly how to handle it. I usually go with what will make for the most fun at the table, and basing the difficulty on how foolish or clever the PCs have been. So if they're being foolhardy and careless, then they'll find themselves in freater danger.

I like this back and forth comparison of prep and play using a specific example. Maybe we can take it further. What would you say the percentage of playing time is that you spend in combat, as opposed to dialog, physical challenges, exploration, and roleplaying? How important is combat (%wise) to the overall results of a campaign, as opposed to strategic choices, skill use, exploration, and roleplaying? How careful are you in structuring and balancing encounters and rest to PC level?

Let's both answer these questions and give examples from our Strahd campaign. I'll do mine in a bit after breakfast

We probably spend more time in combat, ultimately. Probably like 65%.

Combat is probably equally important to the PCs success as the other game elements. So if we went with the whole combat/interaction/exploration, then it would be an equal 33%.

As for how careful I am in balancing and structuring encounters, that's hard to say. I do try to pace things, and I try to challenge the PCs. But I don't ever use XP budgets and CR and all the related encounter design mechanics. I just design encounters, or modify existing ones from a module. In the case of Curse of Strahd, we played the entire module with the PCs starting at level 6 amd ending at level 8. So I had to beef up some of the earlier encounters since they were higher level to start.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What I mean by casual players are the ones that pick up the latest adventure or AP when they get a chance and running through it. I think they outnumber the DMs writing their own campaigns, and folks like us that take obsessiveness to new heights. (Guilty on many levels).

I suppose my idea of casual is more er, casual: shows up to play when not busy with life, plays no more than a few hours, owns a PH (4e probably shared a DDI with 6 other players) & dice, changes tables without complaint - has fun.

In particular a casual game is open entry/exit, players play when they can, DMs run for who shows up, each session is in isolation. You can't expect a lot of continuity, or make things even out over time, or anything. Each session needs to be a complete experience.

As for how careful I am in balancing and structuring encounters, that's hard to say. I do try to pace things, and I try to challenge the PCs. But I don't ever use XP budgets and CR and all the related encounter design mechanics.

Just some quick agreement, that's how I ran AD&D at my most successful with it - by feel. An art.
It's what I find works best with 5e, too. But it can work with any system...

 

[shoak1]

If he's using 'Story' conventionally (WoD/Storyteller 'narrativism') when he says 'Big Story' (and I kinda doubt that), it was possible at any time if the DM wanted to, but not really a 'thing' until 2e, IMHO.

I mean the term "Big Story" to describe a focus on roleplaying, story, and just having fun, as opposed to a focus on competitiveness, rigid and balanced rules, and tactical challenge (i.e."Big Challenge").

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, that pretty much is exactly how I handle such things, except that I almost always address something as common as pursuit in my key. As I believe (Tony?) said upthread, being DM Light is about front loading these decisions, not removing the need for them.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I think it's a good example to illustrate some of my thoughts on preparing versus deciding in play.

To decide for the NPC ahead of time seems odd since the NPC would decide to pursue or not depending on many factors we would only know through play. What if he's the only NPC standing when the PCs flee? What if the PCs are fleeing only because their cleric went down, but the other PCs are largely okay? I would think that the "purest" decision the DM can make for this NPC would mirror his own, which would be made in the moment and not when he woke up that morning.

Taking away that ability to decide in the moment and to instead dictate behavior ahead of time...isn't that the DM exerting a stronger influence here?

I personally would lrefer to have an idea about the NPC, which would then inform my decision in play. Something like "the Moon Priests of Draj are aggressive and will likely pursue fleeing enemies to take as slaves, if possible." This way, you have enough information in order to make a decision during play.

 

[shoak1]

So you choose to perceive that people play games without referees because they have something against referees. I don't see the connection at all.

People don't play Monopoly or Life because there isn't a referee. They play them because they like the games. And the games just don't happen to have referees. You know what games more people play than any of these? Sports. Most of which have referees. They don't play them because they love referees any more than people play Monopoly because it doesn't. It's flawed logic. To me, that's fundamentally obvious.

So we'll have to agree to disagree.



In my perception it's not ignoring D&D history because it's based not only on the design of the game, but also the writings of the very people that designed it.



I was wrong when I said you're not playing D&D, and much of that post. My point was intended to be that the hobby encompasses a lot of playstyles and games evolve from other games, and that your adventure sounds pretty amazing. Not my cup of tea to play all the time, but pretty amazing. I got way off my point, and that's my bad. I apologize. Based on what you had been describing in some of your other posts, it sounds very much like a video game to me. I'm not saying you try to "twist" it into one, nor do I view that as a negative thing. Just like I don't think that Dungeon World molding a play style of OD&D into a Story Now game is a bad thing. It was intended to be a compliment of how you've been able to take the base of D&D and turn it into something new and different that most of us can't do. If you take offense, that's not my intent. My post clearly didn't portray that.

I used the term board game as a description of your style of playing, because that's the term you used. I didn't know it was used as a derogatory term in the past, and don't know if you took offense. Since I wrote the post you're quoting, Tony recapped his understanding of what your play style is, and it's very different from what I understood.

At the time you were describing your game as one that you "liked to play like a board game" and that you didn't want the DM to make decisions during the course of the game, that they were all decided before the game. That sounds very much like board game and video game design to me. No offense is meant by that.

My point was never to stifle, trivialize, or belittle you or your play style. I can see that I missed that big time in this post.

I haven't said once that you needed to do something differently, or that you were wrong in how you play the game. My objections are entirely about statements like the one that started this post: "More people play games without referees, therefore people hate referees." I also object to the term "DM taint." That term in particular really bothers me.

I've acknowledged multiple times that I don't think my play style is a majority in any sense, and that the most common approach is most likely that of the casual gamer, that picks up an AP and plays it with the core rules, and a DM that assumes many roles. I don't think that approach is close to yours or mine, we're both outliers in a very broad hobby (from my perception). I'll work to do better.

Likewise bud

 

[shoak1]

I'd like to expand that a bit:

The players need to find a tomb lost for a thousand years, so we know it should be hard to find. With a fixed, DM agnostic pre-placed tomb, you run some risks. To highlight two extremes:

1) The players wander forever, not finding the tomb (whether to bad rolls, or lack of 'getting' the clues)
2) The players find the lost tomb immediately

In case 1, the players could become quite bored and the game derails. In the DM agnostic approach (Aside: Dm Deism? DMeism? lol) your stuck looking for the tomb, or you do something else.
in case 2, sure, yay, here is the "lost tomb" *snicker*. Its history, its 1000 years of antiquity are trivialized by the (from the players perspective, even if just dumb luck) giant red neon arrow saying "TOMB HERE"

The important point is indeed that the PCs find it, but in such a way as to live up to its reputation as a "lost" tomb. The Player agency is in the looking: how they look, where they look. Whether or not its in hex AB101 or AC101 is irrelevant. Whether or not its found by 6 successes in a skill challenge, or when the DM decides they've searched enough and its time to move the plot is irrelevant. The PCs searched. The tomb was found. Player agency happened.

Great example for illustrating playstyles. Definitely to me both 1 and 2 are not fun. Plus I like the PCs' skills to determine if they find it, not their player's brains. So I use the skill challenge concept from 4e. I have skill challenges for searching the wilderness, pursuit, gathering info in a town, negotiation, investigation, research, and many many others. Want to find some magic items to buy? Roll the Trade skill challenge and utilize your party's appropriate skills. Roll some dice, then find out whats available - maybe the result is to draw 10 magic items from the deck that are currently available.

Again my emphasis is on reducing the need for the DM to have to decide things. You want magic items? Increase your Arcana and Investigate skills and you'll have better luck. Whining to DM Light won't get you anywhere, because he's not the decision maker lol.

 

[outsider]

If I'm understanding shoak1 correctly, I share similar preferences. Light DM is more important to me than Big Challenge though.

I've often questioned the need for a rules adjudicator over the years. The more well designed the system is, the less adjudication should be necessary. But, if we do assume that such an adjudicator is necessary, why exactly must it be the storyteller? Wouldn't it make ALOT more sense for the person most knowledgeable about the rules to be the one to adjudicate them? In my experience, the person telling the story is usually -not- the one most knowledgeable about the rules. Yet, the default assumption is what he says about the rules goes. Why is it that way, and should it be that way? My answers would be "tradition" and "no".

 

[shoak1]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I think it's a good example to illustrate some of my thoughts on preparing versus deciding in play. To decide for the NPC ahead of time seems odd since the NPC would decide to pursue or not depending on many factors we would only know through play. What if he's the only NPC standing when the PCs flee? What if the PCs are fleeing only because their cleric went down, but the other PCs are largely okay? I would think that the "purest" decision the DM can make for this NPC would mirror his own, which would be made in the moment and not when he woke up that morning....I personally would prefer to have an idea about the NPC, which would then inform my decision in play. Something like "the Moon Priests of Draj are aggressive and will likely pursue fleeing enemies to take as slaves, if possible." This way, you have enough information in order to make a decision during play.

My pursuit notes usually read something like this for example: "Will pursue 75% of the time if it appears they have overwhelming force, as long as Izek survives." So your "What ifs" would already be addressed. But remember - DM Light is not against making decisions that need to be made - he just tries to avoid doing so as much as possible. For example, what if the fleeing PCs cast an audio illusion to the far side of the cave that sounds like the cavalry is coming to save them? In a case like that I would typically say to my players -

"OK guys, how about on a low number, say 6 or less, they focus on the illusion instead of you? Sound good? Ok, I rolled a 2 - they bit HARD!! Now I'll roll to see whether they adopt an offensive or defensive posture against the percieved threat - how about low they are offensive, high they are defensive? What's that George - oh you think they should be more likely to be offensive because of the cult they are in? OK good point, how about 13 or less? Great! I rolled a 2 AGAIN lol!!!!! Ok, they sound the charge bugle and all go running off to fight the "cavalry!!!!"

So in other words, when I DO have to make rulings, I try to (assuming there are no spoilers or secret info they dont know about) do it as a team - players and DM Light together. Again the point is to avoid Big DM interjecting himself between player-generated cause and effect.

 

[shoak1]

If I'm understanding shoak1 correctly, I share similar preferences. Light DM is more important to me than Big Challenge though.

I've often questioned the need for a rules adjudicator over the years. The more well designed the system is, the less adjudication should be necessary. But, if we do assume that such an adjudicator is necessary, why exactly must it be the storyteller? Wouldn't it make ALOT more sense for the person most knowledgeable about the rules to be the one to adjudicate them? In my experience, the person telling the story is usually -not- the one most knowledgeable about the rules. Yet, the default assumption is what he says about the rules goes. Why is it that way, and should it be that way? My answers would be "tradition" and "no".

Agreed, the best qualified guy should do that job - our group has a rules guy (Albert aka The Computer) that makes rulings on anything not requiring secret info to decide. Occasionally he will get overruled by consensus or me, but DM Light doesn't like doing so.

 

[shoak1]

We probably spend more time in combat, ultimately. Probably like 65%.

That surprises me, I would have thought your number would be lower - our number is probably 70%.

Combat is probably equally important to the PCs success as the other game elements. So if we went with the whole combat/interaction/exploration, then it would be an equal 33%.

I would say combat 50%, player non combat decisions 20%, PC skills and their use 30%.

As for how careful I am in balancing and structuring encounters, that's hard to say. I do try to pace things, and I try to challenge the PCs. But I don't ever use XP budgets and CR and all the related encounter design mechanics. I just design encounters, or modify existing ones from a module. In the case of Curse of Strahd, we played the entire module with the PCs starting at level 6 amd ending at level 8. So I had to beef up some of the earlier encounters since they were higher level to start.

I always use XP budgets and strive to make each adventuring day challenging. I have no use for really weak encounters that don't tax PC resources (like many of those in the castle), nor for encounters where the PCs are expected to run, unless it is reaallly obvious that the baddies are OP. So always level appropriate at my table.