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

[Imaro]

Really? You guys don't solicit player feedback when making rulings? Huh.

I do it all the time - I'll come up with something, and if it's particularly unusual, ask, "How's that work for you?" 90% of the time we're good, but the other 10% they may have seen something I missed (or understood the game-state differently) and we make a quick adjustment.

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.

Also put me down as expecting the designers to design a pretty well-balanced game. The 6-8 encounter standard in 5e is both (a) essential for game balance, and (b) comically unwieldy for a lot of campaign styles. That doesn't really work out for me, so if I were running it, I'd probably decouple game mechanic 'rests' from the narrative 'resting.' You know, give a short rest refresh about every 2 encounters with a very brief breather, and a long one every 6-8.

It's fair, though, to criticize the game design itself, even when you can come up with house-rules to fix it.

So they did actually balance it but it doesn't fit your particular, and specific, way you want it balanced (Even though with the amount of short rests over said encounters, the suggestion in the book for wave encounters, and the adventuring day XP totals I'm finding it hard to believe that it's all that inflexible... utilizing the provided tools it certainly hasn't been for me). More importantly that's not something to be "fixed", it's something that doesn't meet your specific preferences... but that doesn't make it broken.

More importantly I would think a group focused on balance, competition, DM taint, etc. as [MENTION=54380]shoak1[/MENTION] has expressed in this thread would just use the rules in the default manner the designers set forth. If those are the major points of playing for you, I'm having a hard time understanding why you would want to vary or change it?

 

[Obryn]

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...

That's just way outside my experience.

I do expect my players to advocate on their characters' behalf, though. That doesn't make their input worthless, you know?

So they did actually balance it but it doesn't fit your particular, and specific, way you want it balanced ... More importantly that's not something to be "fixed", it's something that doesn't meet your specific preferences... but that doesn't make it broken.

Yes, it is balanced out, but it's an unreasonable amount of encounters for most types of adventuring outside of the specific dungeon delve sort. Investigative, urban, cross-country exploration, hexcrawl, etc.

My issue is indeed the specific point at which it is balanced out, not the lack thereof. Heck; 4 encounters was already unwieldy for the adventure styles I mentioned above. Adding another half or doubling it would, therefore, be even less suitable.

 

[Imaro]

That's just way outside my experience.

I do expect my players to advocate on their characters' behalf, though. That doesn't make their input worthless, you know?

I never said it was worthless... in fact I said I ask for their input at times but a conflict of interest can certainly arise and during those times I tend to just make a ruling and move on. Which made me think of another reason... debate. I and most of my players don't want to deal with it in the middle of the game but when you go with group consensus you're bound to get it more (and thus more slow down in actual play) than you do when it's a singular decision.

Yes, it is balanced out, but it's an unreasonable amount of encounters for most types of adventuring outside of the specific dungeon delve sort. Investigative, urban, cross-country exploration, hexcrawl, etc.

So combine encounters in waves, halve the encounters using twice the XP budget and allow appropriate short rests between each, if you know it's only one encounter use the adventuring day, split it into waves and give the short rest characters their daily allocated powers all at once... 2-3 times usage... and ability to use healing surges during the fight or in-between waves. I guess my point is the building blocks are there (and even more flexible when you integrate the variants from the DM guide) and the math is pretty simple... I for one don't need them wasting the page count to spell out every combination that can be created using the ability recharge rates, rest period, encounter budgeting, etc.

My issue is indeed the specific point at which it is balanced out, not the lack thereof. Heck; 4 encounters was already unwieldy for the adventure styles I mentioned above. Adding another half or doubling it would, therefore, be even less suitable.

6-8 enc = 2-3 short rests

4enc (each equivalent to 2 encounters via XP budget so they still actually equal 8 ) = 3 short rests

3 enc (each equivalent to 2 encounters via XP budget so still actually equal to 6 ) 2 short rests

1-2 enc (use the adventuring day values and send them in waves) Just give PC's their short rest abilities with 2-3 uses i.e. make them daily powers, and allow them to spend hit dice in-between waves... or if you don't like the wave idea, allow them to spend hit dice as a free action in the combat.

All of the above is just using the tools the game already provides you and simple math.

EDIT: Once I took the time to really understand the math behind the encounters it seemed pretty flexible to me, admittedly 1-2 encounters in a day is a bit of a hack but I think that's been true for nearly every edition.

 

[Obryn]

I never said it was worthless... in fact I said I ask for their input at times but a conflict of interest can certainly arise and during those times I tend to just make a ruling and move on. Which made me think of another reason... debate. I and most of my players don't want to deal with it in the middle of the game but when you go with group consensus you're bound to get it more (and thus more slow down in actual play) than you do when it's a singular decision.

Yeah, again, that's not really how it's worked in practice. It's not like, "Stop everything, let's figure this out." It's really rapid-fire; I lay out what I'm thinking, if there's feedback, it's quick, and I either work it in or not.

It's way less time than we'd spend on, say, looking up spell blocks if we were running a game primitive enough where we had to do that.

So combine encounters in waves, halve the encounters using twice the XP budget and allow appropriate short rests between each, if you know it's only one encounter use the adventuring day, split it into waves and give the short rest characters their daily allocated powers all at once... 2-3 times usage... and ability to use healing surges during the fight or in-between waves. I guess my point is the building blocks are there (and even more flexible when you integrate the variants from the DM guide) and the math is pretty simple... I for one don't need them wasting the page count to spell out every combination that can be created using the ability recharge rates, rest period, encounter budgeting, etc.

6-8 enc = 2-3 short rests

4enc (each equivalent to 2 encounters via XP budget so they still actually equal 8 ) = 3 short rests

3 enc (each equivalent to 2 encounters via XP budget so still actually equal to 6 ) 2 short rests

1-2 enc (use the adventuring day values and send them in waves) Just give PC's their short rest abilities with 2-3 uses i.e. make them daily powers, and allow them to spend hit dice in-between waves... or if you don't like the wave idea, allow them to spend hit dice as a free action in the combat.

All of the above is just using the tools the game already provides you and simple math.

EDIT: Once I took the time to really understand the math behind the encounters it seemed pretty flexible to me, admittedly 1-2 encounters in a day is a bit of a hack but I think that's been true for nearly every edition.

As I said a few posts back, you can definitely come up with house rules. I laid out one potential workaround in my first post this thread - Tying resource refreshes directly to encounter pacing rather than sculpting the narrative to juggle both encounter pacing and rests.

Encounter pacing is crucial to game balance, particularly if you have characters who are using different resource refresh schedules. You can hack things together as you see fit. But I was explicitly talking about the game's defaults, not whether or not it was possible to houserule up a solution in your own game.

(I am also skeptical about the claim that doubling the XP budget results in an encounter that's merely twice as difficult.)

And yep, this has without a doubt been an issue with D&D back since the early days of the 15 MWD. The differences are that in 0e-2e, everyone used the cleric's refresh rate because that's how you got back your HP. And in 4e, everyone shared the refresh rate, so at least all the PCs were on a pretty even playing field on shorter and longer workdays.

 

[outsider]

Sure, tell your DM that you aren't comfortable with them making house rules or rulings. You just don't trust them to know how the game works and you should handle it for them.

Tell me how it works out for you.

Sure, tell your players that you just don't trust them to know how the game works and you should handle it for them.

See what I did there? Why exactly did we decide that the DM is allowed to do that, and not the players?

 

[Tony Vargas]

So they did actually balance it but it doesn't fit your particular, and specific, way you want it balanced

No, it just doesn't fit the way he wants to pace his campaign, and he's implemented a house rule to circumvent it - which is exactly what 5e DMs are supposed to do.

More importantly that's not something to be "fixed", it's something that doesn't meet your specific preferences... but that doesn't make it broken.

Oh, he fixed it, he just also broke it, first, by not using it as directed. ;P

More importantly I would think a group focused on balance, competition, DM taint, etc. as [MENTION=54380]shoak1[/MENTION] has expressed in this thread would just use the rules in the default manner the designers set forth.

They still need to be modded/adjusted to some to work for that purpose, of course, they just need to do it ahead of time, and stick to it, rather than using the more flexible rulings-over-rules philosophy, or RaW, it's house-rules-as-stipulated-to, I guess.

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).

That's just way outside my experience.

I do expect my players to advocate on their characters' behalf, though. That doesn't make their input worthless, you know?

While my experience/expectations are closer to yours than Imaro's, his is hardly implausible, and illustrates why the DM having the greatest mastery of the rules, the DM consistently exercising his 'authority'(Empowerment) to make rulings, and taking as much resolution as practicable behind the screen are each (or all) good practices, in 5e, as they were in the classic game.

I think 3e proved to us all that no matter how hard you try to have a rule for everything, it just can't be done.

I'd say* it confirmed GURPS's validation of Rolemaster's confirmation of 1e AD&D's proof that you can't have a rule for everything...

...at least, not in a list-based system.

And D&D, unlike a videogame, doesn't have hard-coded limits that can't be crossed - which means once those limits do get crossed someone has to determine what happens, or what happens next...and that's what the DM is for.

Oh, you mean limits like the edge of the screen. D&D has plenty of limits, that get crossed all the time. That was even the point you were making.
Its limits aren't respected or enforced.

Then you've had some less than stellar DMs, as part of what makes a DM any good is that her rules knowledge ideally should be the best in the room

That depends on the system and the style. Traditiona & 5e D&D runs best from behind the screen, the players must have complete confidence in the DM for that. If you're running a system that works well enough 'above board,' then, while the DM still has final say, players as rules knowledge resources are just fine, and system mastery isn't needed from the DM - the bar is much lower. Of course in adversarial play it's good to be closely matched.











* And I'm leaving out a lot of other games that seemed to try the a-rule-for-everything design.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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".

I tend to think of the more important element of DM abdication not being about the rules so much as the results of actions and the like. In my game, anyone can comment about the rules if a question comes up, and we discuss and decide as a group. If it's taking too long to decide, then the DM will likely make a call so we can move along, and then we can make an official ruling after 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.

Gotcha. Again, I don't think our styles are all that different here. I think the only difference is that you write down all the "if-thens" ahead of time, while I just kind of go by what I feel is right.

When it comes to something like the illusion example you gave, I will rarely use random rolls to help determine what happens. Sometimes, but rarely. I think in the example you gave I'd have the bad guys make saves against the illusion, and then make a call about the results.

 

[Caliban]

Sure, tell your players that you just don't trust them to know how the game works and you should handle it for them.

See what I did there? Why exactly did we decide that the DM is allowed to do that, and not the players?

Because the DM is the one running the game, not the players. How is this even a question?

If you want to tell me that I'm not the final rules arbiter at a game I'm running, well, you can either DM it yourself (I'm more than happy to be your rules guru) or go find another game. It's pretty simple.

But again, this isn't really about me.

Please, try your approach in real life, with a real DM whose game you are going to be a player in. I'm curious to hear how it works out.

 

[Caliban]

Really? You guys don't solicit player feedback when making rulings? Huh.

I never said that. I solicit feedback all the time, if it's something ambiguous or I'm thinking about introducing a new house rule or game mechanic.

But during the game session, I'm the final arbiter of the rules (if I'm the DM). And if it's my campaign, I'm the final arbiter of any house rules.

 

[outsider]

Because the DM is the one running the game, not the players. How is this even a question?

Why was it decided that the person telling the story is also the one running the game? Telling a good story and having a good understanding of game mechanics are two different skillsets. I don't believe this needs to be the same person.