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

[shoak1]

Presuming, of course, that such abilities are important to your game. That's where I find this particular discussion interesting. If you have so few encounters/combats in the game, why does the refresh rate matter? Why should the measure of a challenging day always be hit points and short/long rest ability usage? See, the reason I always say that balance isn't an issue (and largely not a concern for me) is that I don't measure success via those criteria. For us, the criteria is all about the characters and their goals. An encounter needs to work whether it's their first encounter of the day and they are at full strength, and when it's their last encounter of the day and they are not. I'm not concerned at all about the adventuring day, and thus the issue of balance is an encounter by encounter concern. Encounters are challenges, or steps along the way.

Great - so I assume then any such changes to official rules or some limited extra guidelines in modules would be unopposed by you since they don't affect you right?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

You state that the DM is the impartial one at the table - why? If I DM a game at my house, and thus by your definition am the impartial one, then I go over and play at Hawkeye's table, why would I suddenly become biased?

And why are accusations of bias exclusively the domain of players acting as arbiters? Can't a DM arbiter be accused by his players of being biased against them? Or just as badly, FOR them? Why are accusations against player bias worse than accusations of DM bias?

The DM in his role as monster/NPC player (if he is truly playing competitive against the PCs while wearing this hat) is just as capable of bias as a player playing a PC. Now maybe at YOUR table, the DM is the person most capable of resisting that bias - but it has nothing to do with the job - rather it is based on the individual traits of that person.

Big Story peeps might have a different view because Big Story DMs are more focused on fun, story, and adventure than on Big Challenge.

Can a DM be accused of it? Of course. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything. It's also possible that the DM actually is biased. But that would mean they aren't playing the game properly. The DM is supposed to be an impartial and unbiased referee, among other things. If I sit down at another table, my expectation is that the DM is impartial, and won't give a second thought to it unless something happens that would lead me to question it.

The monsters and NPCs are absolutely not impartial. Part of the job of the DM is to play them appropriately, with all of their flaws. If the party is fighting 1e barbarians, then the barbarians attack anybody wielding magic, because they hate it. But playing an NPC or a monster doesn't make a DM impartial, biased, or competitive. The DM is not competing with the players. The monsters and NPCs probably want to kill the characters. The DM doesn't have a vested interest in them doing so. Thus, no bias.

More importantly, its about not having a bias between players/characters, not between the adventure and the players. That is, the DM doesn't show favoritism to one player or character at the expense of another.

I'm not accusing the players as being biased. They are. If you are a player at Hawkeye's table, you have a vested interest in your character over the other characters.

Does that mean you can't be an impartial arbiter? Of course not. But it can complicate it. It's more dependent on the group of people at the table. Making rulings that are beneficial to your character aren't necessarily biased. But they may be perceived as such by the other players. By not having another player as the arbiter, you avoid such problems.

Regardless, that's not the question I was answering. The question I was answering was:

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".

And specifically the portion in bold. My answer is because it's D&D, and in D&D that's the job of the DM. To be an impartial and unbiased referee.

In 5e, it goes so far as to label one of the roles and an entire section of the DMG as "Master of Rules" and states, "Dungeons & Dragons isn't a head-to-head competition, but it needs someone who is impartial yet involved in the game to guarantee that everyone plays by the rules. As the player that creates the game world and the adventures that take place within it, the DM is a natural fit to take on the referee role."

I don't consider instructions within the DMG of pretty much every edition that part of the job of the DM in D&D is to be an impartial rules adjudicator, "tradition" or a "default assumption." It's the rules.

Should it be that way? In most cases I'd say yes. Keeps things simple. But it certainly doesn't have to be. It has nothing to do with Big DM, Little DM, Big Challenge, Little Challenge, or anything else like that. It's simply the design of the game. No judgement. No accusations. Just acknowledging the rules as written, and the reasons they've given for those rules over the years.

As always, use whatever works for you and your group.

 

[shoak1]

Don't worry, we'll flog it dead for you.

Shouldn't you put an asterisk on that comment?

* No actual animals were injured in the course of this forum exchange

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I'm probably in the middle when it comes to Big Story vs Big Challenge. I actually really want both from D&D, and I'm not sold on the idea that these are actually competing desires. I'm definitely in favor of DM Light though. When the DM is empowered to change, ignore, and make up rules on a whim, it damages my ability to enjoy the mechanical side of the game, and the mechanical side of the game is important to me. A certain amount of it is necessary, but a good ruleset to me tries to avoid it where possible, instead of encouraging it as the solution to everything.

Perhaps I can help, then. I don't think the DM should change, ignore, and make up rules on a whim - and I don't really think that's what 5e is about either, myself.

Once again, I will offer to send a draft of my rules to see if they might help.

 

[shoak1]

In the case of a game like [MENTION=54380]shoak1[/MENTION] seems to prefer, it's because the game is (almost) all about combat; which as a direct effect does put resting and refreshing front and centre.

Its been a long thread so I will forgive you for misquoting my position - see below:

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%.

 

[Imaro]

Perhaps I can help, then. I don't think the DM should change, ignore, and make up rules on a whim - and I don't really think that's what 5e is about either, myself.

Once again, I will offer to send a draft of my rules to see if they might help.

There seems to be this weird misconception by some that games of 5e are surreal story time where DM's don't use actual mechanics from the gamebooks but instead just make things up which change from encounter to encounter and player to player on the whim of the DM... honestly I've yet to see a game where this actually happens but that seems to be the impression of some... go figure.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Perhaps I can help, then. I don't think the DM should change, ignore, and make up rules on a whim - and I don't really think that's what 5e is about either, myself.
-- *emphasis added*

The DM absolutely must make rulings and should ignore, make up, and/or change rules, with the express purpose of running a better game for his players. And that's exactly what 5e - Rulings not Rules; DM Empowerment - is all about.

That's by design, it's probably the only way they could come as close as they did to meeting the goals they were set, and, with a good, well-intentioned DM, it's a great thing...

It's also possible that the DM actually is biased. But that would mean they aren't playing the game properly.

... and, with a bad, ill-intentioned DM, not so great. Obviously. Well, maybe not that obvious, unless everything's being played 'above board.'

The DM is not competing with the players. The monsters and NPCs probably want to kill the characters. The DM doesn't have a vested interest in them doing so. Thus, no bias.

A little bias towards the characters can be OK. The players are there to have fun, afterall, and the goal of delivering a fun experience can include a bias towards the characters (it can, alternately, include strict, formal impartiality, to facilitate a sense of a 'real victory' - depends on the group your running for).

More importantly, its about not having a bias between players/characters, not between the adventure and the players. That is, the DM doesn't show favoritism to one player or character at the expense of another.

In a way, that's a component of intra-party balance. The DM /can/ tilt things one way or another, if they're out of whack to begin with.

It's simply the design of the game. No judgement. No accusations. Just acknowledging the rules as written, and the reasons they've given for those rules over the years.

Interpreting those rules is the DM's job, again, so 'Rules as Written,' not so much, anymore. Thankfully.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I'll just say that I have run into players that will 99% of the time advocate for a ruling or house rule that falls in their favor. The interesting thing is I've seen the same players get upset when that same ruling or houserule they advocated for when it benefited them, gets used against them (even after I warned them it could also be used against them). So while there are times I as a DM ask the players what they think about something... there are also times where I feel I...

1. Have no specific character or agenda to advocate for so am not biased in the way the players are.
2. Can see what the long-term vs. short term effects of a rule could be.
3. Know more about the rules outside of their specific class and race than they do.

Sometimes those players end up being the DMs. Shoak wants to minimize that on his end.

 

[shoak1]

There seems to be this weird misconception by some that games of 5e are surreal story time where DM's don't use actual mechanics from the gamebooks but instead just make things up which change from encounter to encounter and player to player on the whim of the DM... honestly I've yet to see a game where this actually happens but that seems to be the impression of some... go figure.

I think there are some Big DMs like you describe, and yes, certainly that could draw peeps away from Big DM style. But DM Light is not just some reaction to heavy handed Big DMs. It's about not seeing the NEED for having someone decide stuff on the fly that could instead be done pre-game. The only player sacrifice in playing DM Light is that the players lose the freedom to roam - and my players are happily willing to sacrifice that (as they do in board games, computer games, etc.) in order to play in a world with less DM interposition between player cause and effect. It's why DM Light has traditionally always been a part of the D and D community.

 

[shoak1]

edit dup