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

[Lanefan]

Generally, WotC's 4e adventure design was terrible. As in everything 4e and WotC, they got way better at it after it was too late.

The first few Zeitgeist 4e adventures are damn near perfect showcases of what the edition's adventures should be like, IMO.

Never saw those ones.

Re: Marauders of the Dune Sea

Oh man, that one was really terrible. I really, really hated it and refused to run it.

It played better than it read, to be sure. The set-piece in the town was way better than I expected from reading it, then between the party's own actions and my backstory the party ended up tasked with going into the endless sandstorm and stopping something (supposedly) happening there, but when they got there it had already been stopped by the local opposition. So the PCs decide to take on the local opposition, and wade into the dungeon - after having loads of headaches with the 'shockers' around the entrance. I'd added some extra passages and connections between the existing encounters within the dungeon so it wasn't as linear as designed, but didn't add any more encounters; and I think this helped a lot.

The final set-piece in there was pretty good too.

It is a harder process, yes. You can't just take a 1e adventure and put some orcs or bugbears in a dozen rooms and call it a day. (That is one reason Keep on the Shadowfell is such a terrible adventure to use for showcasing the edition. Hell, most of the HPE series - excepting H2 and P2 - are just plain terrible.)

KotS seemed to me to be written to (try to) showcase a few things: that you didn't need to stop or rest nearly as often as earlier editions, that level advancement was going to be very fast, and the idea of the big set-piece encounter. Its layout is better designed than some 4e modules, though still far from anything I'd call good as there's too many choke points and nowhere near enough vertical connections between the levels and-or outdoors.

Its biggest problem IMO is that it very obviously ran out of page count about 2 pages too soon, forcing them to leave out some blindingly obvious what-if answers around the final set-piece encounter with the BBEG. There's also next to no provision for how or if or when the occupants of that encounter area interact with those of the immediately preceding encounter area* even though they obviously would interact and-or come to each other's defense.

* - these final two are completely linear: you simply can't get to the BBEG battle without going through the first encounter.

(Yes, you can also run 4e as a sandboxy game, but still with the same questions - Does this fight mean anything? Is it in an interesting spot with interesting opponents? What will be accomplished, win or lose?

In a true sandbox two of those three questions are kind of irrelevant; as both the meaning and accomplishment of the fight might well be nothing more than earning the PCs some experience, and many encounters may well be random and ultimately meaningless beyond just the xp (and maybe treasure) they provide.

Interesting spot and-or interesting opponents might also vary.

Lan-"so far this campaign I've (converted and) run adventures from every edition except 2e; and the 3e ones are the trickiest to convert"-efan

 

[Ilbranteloth]

An angle to consider is how rests balance against map scale? Let me explain that. I'm running OOTA. Initially, my PCs were long-resting after each encounter. Consequences were typical -

• over-valued "recover on long-rest" features
• under-valued "recover on short-rest" features
• clear trend of alpha-striking
• consequent need to make each encounter lethal to keep them mechanically interesting (that's not to say we couldn't have narrative encounters, but only that mechanically an easy encounter that wasn't a narrative encounter became pointless)

The issue here was not inability for me as DM to introduce more encounters between rests. I can do that. But whereas in a dungeon the next event is minutes away down a corridor - so 8 hours is a long time - on a world map the next event is days away across the Darklake (or wherever) and 8 hours is a blip.

My goals as a DM therefore became

• I wanted to mix up encounters more so that there could still be lethal encounters, but could also be mechanically meaningful easy and medium encounters
• I wanted to be able to allow lengthy travel times and periods of downtime to deliver my vision of an open-world campaign

I felt drawn toward the gritty realism DMG option - one week long rests - and we may indeed go there in due course. But for now we're using 24 hour long-rests. Extended short-rests (8 hours+) still count for recovering levels of exhaustion and training days (we're using that option for downtime). My players accepted this without complaint once I explained that my goal was not to tax them beyond what their features were balanced against (6-8 medium to hard encounters between long rests) but only to map long-rests against the temporal and spatial scale of the campaign. Which got me thinking about this thread and wanting to draw attention to this finding.

As empowered DMs we can always drop in more encounters between long-rests (yes, it can stress our narrative, but we can do it). So that isn't the issue. And we aren't (or at least, I'm not) aiming to stress PC capabilities more than the designers' game balance intends (which is stated expressly in the DMG). Our issue is doing all that without bogging down our campaign, and that depends on our temporal and spatial scale. It accordingly makes sense to scale rests against that scale.

I feel like the DMG misleads in this regard because longer long-rests isn't mechanically about grittier realism at all. It's about whether my next encounter is a corridor or leagues away. A threat system such as the Angry DM advocates is kind of like a squashy balloon. When players push down on one part of the balloon, it swells up in another. So if they avoid challenge by dawdling, more challenge rises up elsewhere via threat. It alleviates to some extent the narrative stress of finding ways to keep them moving. However, to me it now feels like it fixes the wrong problem. I now feel like a DM needs to look at their temporal and spatial scale, and match their long-rests to that.

Check out "Adventures In Middle Earth" as they not only have different resting rules for overload travel (journeys) but also the design of the journey itself. I'm still not sure how much I might use in my campaign.

 

[Obryn]

Never saw those ones.

Re: Marauders of the Dune Sea
...
I'd added some extra passages and connections between the existing encounters within the dungeon so it wasn't as linear as designed, but didn't add any more encounters; and I think this helped a lot.

The final set-piece in there was pretty good too.

Ah good, yes, the linear structure was one of the biggest issues with the adventure.

KotS seemed to me to be written to (try to) showcase a few things: that you didn't need to stop or rest nearly as often as earlier editions, that level advancement was going to be very fast, and the idea of the big set-piece encounter. Its layout is better designed than some 4e modules, though still far from anything I'd call good as there's too many choke points and nowhere near enough vertical connections between the levels and-or outdoors.

Its biggest problem IMO is that it very obviously ran out of page count about 2 pages too soon, forcing them to leave out some blindingly obvious what-if answers around the final set-piece encounter with the BBEG. There's also next to no provision for how or if or when the occupants of that encounter area interact with those of the immediately preceding encounter area* even though they obviously would interact and-or come to each other's defense.

* - these final two are completely linear: you simply can't get to the BBEG battle without going through the first encounter.

I agree it's not the very worst HPE adventure. I think it's on the second tier - 'salvageable.' I think the biggest issue was that it was written to bring characters from 1st to the end of 3rd, and that it adhered way too closely to the XP levels. It felt overstuffed as a result. Over a more natural campaign, it might take longer to hit those levels, but there'd be time for stuff beyond kicking down the next door.

In a true sandbox two of those three questions are kind of irrelevant; as both the meaning and accomplishment of the fight might well be nothing more than earning the PCs some experience, and many encounters may well be random and ultimately meaningless beyond just the xp (and maybe treasure) they provide.

Well, for an example of how it can be done - and done really well, IMO - check out three 4e-era books. (1) Vor Rukoth, (2) the Gloomhaven box, and (3) the 4e Neverwinter Campaign Setting. All of these are designed for 4e-style sandboxing, where there's a dynamic environment and no set plot. They are three of the best-written sandbox supplements I've personally seen, for any edition.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Let me crystalize my point here re the path D and D has taken:

First, about me: I have played wargames, board games, rpgs, card, and computer games extensively beginning in 1976ish. First was D and D and wargames - then came the computer game versions of those along with Magic The Gathering. Then came extensive computer games and the strategy board games like Eurogames and Ameritrash. Played em all. I've gone to dozens of conventions of all genres and probably averaged playing 30 hours a week for the last 40 years. So I have extensive experience with gamers of all types.

Back in the day D and D was huge. But the influx of computer games and strategy board games started drawing peeps into Gamist mode, and they eschewed the Big Story and Big DM style of D and D. So you had an aging non-growing D and D fan base.

Then out came 4e to attract the gamists. But it went too far and alienated the D and D core. So in an effort to recapture that aging core 5e comes out proclaiming to be for everyone. The problem is that it was clearly made by Big DM and Big Story peeps who didn't really understand what really was needed to attract and keep the gamists (Big Challenge). Thus sales are big - of course they are - the core has returned. But its an aging core. And I can tell you that while 5e might have better sales than 4e (I have no idea actually), its nowhere near as dominant of a market share of games in general as it used to be. Its a sad remnant of its former self relegated to a niche market. Many of its supporters on this forum actually proudly proclaim that its not for everyone and actively encourage those detractors in this forum to take it or leave it - to go play a board game or computer/video game if you dont like Big DM and/or want Big Challenge !!!!

It's a shame really because 4e had the right idea - attract gamists and GROW!!! But they went too far and we had a revolution - and the revolutionaries are zealous in their grip on the game. These forums are a good example - dominated by Big DM and Big Story peeps (mostly old guard) - new players and DMs worried about balance get told they shouldn't keep their gamist thoughts and ideas like Big Challenge and DM Light ("Lemmee get this straight - you're saying our DM should just make stuff up and change rules as he thinks is best? What kind of game is this?!?!? DM Empowerment??? What about the players?!?!"). Now I see only two likely courses for D and D: a cycle of revolution counter revolution, or worse yet a slow and quiet death as the fan base ages.

Everything I see seems to indicate that this edition is reaching more new players (in addition to existing or returning players) than any other edition in quite some time. The online presence and the streaming phenomenon also seems to be broadening the audience, and the awareness of RPGs seems to be growing.

I don't have any hard data to back that up, but just looking at sales figures and the popularity of streaming shows and so on....I really think your assessment that it may die a slow death is a bit off. Certainly premature.

Its really not such a strange choice to support the current edition, even if you find it's not as good in some way. There is the benefit of engaging with the community in a positive way. DMing takes a certain energy and being part of that can help keep it charged, if that makes any sense. Also, addressing the games weaknesses helps to overcome them, in the immediate sense of finding solutions that work for you, and helping others find the same, and in the broader sense of awareness of them, which could, conceivably contribute, indirectly to the game improving over time. It also makes sense to introduce new players to the current face of the game, to keep the hobby growing & vibrant - or at least from fading into oblivion.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that, necessarily....I was just asking Shoak1 about his personal reasons for it.

Perhaps I would not entirely agree about supporting a product you don't like. I tried 4E and bought the core three books and then the first couple of additional splat books before my group decided to call it quits. I honestly wish I had stopped sooner.

For all the above reasons, there really don't need to be, 5e could be strictly inferior to 4e in every way, and it still wouldn't make sense to support it at the expense of 5e - because you really can't support a dead ed that can't be legally cloned & supported.

The choice is harder with PF, and potentially more about Paizo and it's much better support for both cloned game and 'rebellious' fans. Just have to follow your conscience on that one. In term of systems I find it hard to make a case for PF or 5e over the other. 3.x/PF has far more player choice and PC customization, and much more voluminous support, 5e has the classic feel and DM Empowerment. I often think the ideal would be to run 5e, but play PF, which has an obvious downside of everyone did it.

Sure, but I wasn't talking about "supporting" so much as playing. For instance, I'm reasonably sure that 5E will be my final edition of D&D. I don't really see the need for another edition at all. Obviously, that could change with time, but I really don't expect to need another version of the game.

For someone who really liked AD&D or 3E or any prior edition....they can still play those games, if that is what they prefer. I know folks who do that.

Now, if you want to talk about supporting the hobby and to try and keep it going....then I woudl agree with you.

Because too little challenge is....boring - if you are a Big Challenge guy. And too high an EL is not a challenge either, its a wipe.

I used to agree with this, and found that every fight was a tough fight that pushed the players and the characters to their limits.

I eventually found this to be more detrimental than helpful. Kind of makes every fight similar, and really solidifies player expectations that will be the case. And there's also the question of "boring" for who. Sometimes, it can be fun for the players to just curb stomp some bad guys. They get a kick out of it, and it kind of helps affirm their progression in power and ability. Such a combat need not take more than a few minutes, but it can be fun, and can help out in other ways.

Likewise with an extremely tough encounter...one that is almost assuredly beyond the ability of the PCs. I find having the possibility of such encounters makes my PCs more cautious, and less likely to rely on combat as their only option. Sometimes they have to figure out another way to succeed than to simply kill the things in their way.

Adding both of these kinds of encounters into the mix really helps out in a lot of ways. Even just the possibility of these kinds of encounters can help. It makes fights different, and more importantly, it makes players think a bit more....they don't just automatically assume "the DM put this here for us to fight, clearly we can defeat it".

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because too little challenge is....boring - if you are a Big Challenge guy. And too high an EL is not a challenge either, its a wipe.

Doesn't mean they can't be placed, there's just not much point to going through the motions of resolving them. You hand-wave the former, and offer a Skill Challenge to avoid/escape the latter.

Even just the possibility of these kinds of encounters can help. It makes fights different, and more importantly, it makes players think a bit more....they don't just automatically assume "the DM put this here for us to fight, clearly we can defeat it".

The possibility of them is much more useful than actually playing through them, yes. One thing BA has done (and murky encounter guidelines abet it), is made it more plausible to play through a badly mismatched encounter, because the trivial encounter could still result in the odd hit/crit & minor HP attrition, and the PCs theoretically have a chance to do something even when wildly overmatched. Mostly likely the trivial fight will be trivial and the overwhelming one a TPK, of course... but sometimes the designed-to-be-trivial fight will hit harder than planned, or the overwhelming one turn out to be a paper-CR tiger.

Everything I see seems to indicate that this edition is reaching more new players (in addition to existing or returning players) than any other edition in quite some time. The online presence and the streaming phenomenon also seems to be broadening the audience, and the awareness of RPGs seems to be growing.

Reaching? Probably. Social media, meetup, play videos and the like were already out there when Encounters got rolling, and I did see the heightened interest at that time. Now we have the surge in interest in boardgames going, as well, drawing more folks into the FLGS. We no longer have the profound negativity of the edition war mitigating against all that, either. So, yeah, it's fair to think more people might be trying (or, especially, returning to) D&D lately.

Retaining? OT1H, I'm not seeing the phenomenon of new players becoming DMs in the next Encounters season, or an Encounters table of new players becoming a regular table, then spinning off to a home game, anymore. OTOH, I'm not seeing returning players getting confused or turned off and bouncing to Pathfinder so much, either.

....I really think your assessment that it may die a slow death is a bit off. Certainly premature.

The thing about slow deaths is they take a long time.

Perhaps I would not entirely agree about supporting a product you don't like. I tried 4E and bought the core three books and then the first couple of additional splat books before my group decided to call it quits.

That's at least /some/ support. There were 4e tables that bought no books and all shared one DDI, so you did your bit more than they did.

Sure, but I wasn't talking about "supporting" so much as playing.

Playing is supporting, especially participating in organized play - at least, if your attitude is positive.

For instance, I'm reasonably sure that 5E will be my final edition of D&D. I don't really see the need for another edition at all. Obviously, that could change with time, but I really don't expect to need another version of the game.

I agree. 5e seems like it could very easily be the last ed of D&D.
Then again: After 2e had been out for a bit, I felt like it hadn't really been that necessary. I certainly felt like there'd be no need for rolling revs after D&D went all open-source as d20. So, I'm used to being wrong on that topic.

For someone who really liked AD&D or 3E or any prior edition....they can still play those games, if that is what they prefer. I know folks who do that.

They can even /also/ play those games, in addition to playing the current ed. For instance, an old ed as a home campaign, and the current version in organized pay.

 

[Lanefan]

Ah good, yes, the linear structure was one of the biggest issues with the adventure.

What's really odd about that is it was written by the same guy who in 1e days wrote what I consider, for its dungeon part anyway, to be one of the best-designed modules ever: L1 - Secret of Bone Hill.

 

[Obryn]

What's really odd about that is it was written by the same guy who in 1e days wrote what I consider, for its dungeon part anyway, to be one of the best-designed modules ever: L1 - Secret of Bone Hill.

Yeah, I have no idea what went wrong there.

For my group, it was a $10 battle map. (A very useful battle map, though, I gotta say, on both sides. I got my mileage out of it. Although now there's a running joke that the same two broken-down wagons just happen to be in every single stretch of desert.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

What's really odd about that is it was written by the same guy who in 1e days wrote what I consider, for its dungeon part anyway, to be one of the best-designed modules ever: L1 - Secret of Bone Hill.

Designing a great adventure for 1e or 3e (I don't find a lot of agreement with this opinion, but I think Heart of Nightfang Spire was an ideal 3.x module), like running a great game from a place of DM Empowerment, includes playing to the strengths of the system, away from it's weaknesses, and even compensating for it's flaws. HoNfS, for instance, had a series of reactions by the BBEG as time progressed, providing the time pressure that is so vital to making D&D work - it probably wouldn't be a terrible template for a 5e adventure, for that matter. When you convert a module that plays away from weaknesses that have since become strengths or vice-versa, or that compensates for flaws that have been fixed, things can go pretty wrong - same for designing a new ed's first adventure when you've honed your skills on prior eds.

Besides, like HotDQ, KotSf was designed even as development continued on the new edition, so there were glitches, to put it mildly - and with similar piles-of-dead-PCs consequences, even.

 

[Lanefan]

Designing a great adventure for 1e or 3e (I don't find a lot of agreement with this opinion, but I think Heart of Nightfang Spire was an ideal 3.x module), like running a great game from a place of DM Empowerment, includes playing to the strengths of the system, away from it's weaknesses, and even compensating for it's flaws. HoNfS, for instance, had a series of reactions by the BBEG as time progressed, providing the time pressure that is so vital to making D&D work - it probably wouldn't be a terrible template for a 5e adventure, for that matter. When you convert a module that plays away from weaknesses that have since become strengths or vice-versa, or that compensates for flaws that have been fixed, things can go pretty wrong - same for designing a new ed's first adventure when you've honed your skills on prior eds.

Note however that Marauders of the Dune Sea, which is the one we're looking at, was far from the first 4e module.

Besides, like HotDQ, KotSf was designed even as development continued on the new edition, so there were glitches, to put it mildly - and with similar piles-of-dead-PCs consequences, even.

Ah, nothing wrong with a few dead PCs - builds character!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Note however that Marauders of the Dune Sea, which is the one we're looking at, was far from the first 4e module.

I was sure I'd seen KotSf and/or HotDQ mentioned in the exchanged, guess I was mistaken.

Edit: oh, no, KotS did get a fairly extensive mention up-stream, I miss-attributed the 'linear' comment to it, since KotS was linear.

Same thing applies, though - doing good work in a previous edition can set up up for issues in a new one, if you don't take into account what's been fixed/broken/changed this time around...

Ah, nothing wrong with a few dead PCs - builds character!

Ironic, that.