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

[outsider]

I became a DM partially because I was tired of other DM's not knowing the rules or making calls I disagreed with

Right, I'm proposing(and I think shoak1 is too) that you shouldn't -have- to become DM to address that problem. There are other ways than replacing the old tyrant with a new(theoretically benevolent) tyrant.

 

[Ristamar]

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.

Because mechanics and systems often intertwine with the plot/story (either planned or impromptu)? Unless you're running a prepared module with little customization or deviation, I'm not sure how you can run a proper game without some understanding and control of the underlying systems, the motivations of the monsters and NPCs, and other objects and forces at work within the game. A player, even one with the best intentions, will not hold the same views and values as the DM.

Unless by "running" you simply mean utilizing a player as a pro-active rules reference. I certainly wouldn't care for that, particularly when it comes to making rulings outside that which is clearly defined, but it might work for a fledgling DM that has requested assistance.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

There is definitely a lais·sez-faire-rules/balance-attitude among many Big DM, and to a lesser extent Big Story practitioners, that rankles DM Lights like myself. The idea that the Big DM wand heals all balance/rules issues might be fine to Big DM guys, but to those of us that actively seek to limit DM intervention in the game and its rules, it is an outrageous proposition. What rankles me the most though is that these same lais·sez-faire-rules/balance-attitude people are among the most strident opponents to the idea of official modifications to the rules or additional material in modules to fix balance and rules issues. This seems like such an easy point of compromise for Big DM peeps - just stop fighting a battle that has so little at stake for you......

It seems like every post by every guy complaining about balance is slammed by a barrage of "just have the DM fix it this way," "balance is subjective and therefore irrelevant at the game scale, its only relevant at the individual table level," and "ugh! why are you so worried about something as stupid as balance? just have fun!" posts. If its of little import for YOU what rules/balance the game has, why fight OUR attempts at it?

Perhaps it's because different folks have different priorities? My house rule PHB is a rewrite of the core rules, up to 130 pages (spells are in another book) and changes most classes, races, combat, and skills extensively. Perhaps you'd like to check it out to see if it's Rules Light. I think I'd be accused of being too complicated, with too many rules.

Maybe my rules would work for you, maybe not. I think you might be surprised. The difference is that I don't play the game to play the rules. I play the characters and use the rules to support that. An example is the dying mechanic. I like the mechanic. But I don't like the way people "game" the mechanic, not healing people until they are at 0 hp for example, because they know they'll be good as new after they are healed. That wasn't the case in AD&D for example. So I modify the rule to discourage this type of abuse.

Balance isn't subjective, balance is balance.

Deciding what is important to balance, however, is a different story. That's where things get very complicated. That's also where disagreements about balance arise. I prefer to approach it differently-decide what result I want and redesign to that. But when somebody insists that a rule is not balanced when many people play with it unaltered with no problem, then we'll probably disagreed. In that case it's probably not an issue with balance, but an issue with the rule not doing what you would like it to do.

Back to dying. With no assistance you have about a 60% chance of surviving in 5e. I don't mind the time it gives you, but I think that's too high. In my campaign, without assistance you have only a 25% chance of surviving. In addition, there are consequences, even with magical healing after being dropped to 0 hp.

Why? Because I want the to still have that safety net (and I think it's reasonably realistic) but I want them to fear getting reduced to 0 hp.

I suspect a lot of my rules would suit your campaign well, though. My rules ramp up the challenge, especially combat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Co-DMs are a thing that should probably be done more, especially in large groups. Have one person handling story, the other handling rules, and they split the monsters in fights and such.

When I was running for a 12-player table in a 2-hr time slot, I got a co-DM, sometimes un-planned, just 'hey, run the monsters for me,' sometimes by design, and we'd even split the table and run in parallel if it seemed warranted. (A similar tactic at encounters was to split a table if it got too many players to run officially one of the players would just step up, read that one chapter of the module and run it, then return to playing when there were enough DMs available.) I've also had or been a co-DM at convention games.

The closest I've come to using that technique since 5e was a 4e/5e hybrid session, a treasure-hunting scenario that crossed universes... It was fun, but...
[quo9te]That's actually kindof unfortunate. I find that the game runs more smoothly and enjoyably for everybody(including the DM) when the players are ultra dedicated and knowledgeable about the game.[/quote]

...for the most part, I don't see the 'everyone knows the rules super well and collaborates to help with some DM responsibilities' or the closely-related 'co-DM' techniques as a great idea in 5e. 5e depends on DM judgement at every turn, and taking the curtain off that judgement by discussing it with a co-DM in front of everyone or building a consensus undermines - trust isn't quite the right word - a sort of mystique or confidence that's of benefit when so much of what's happening all rests on the DM. The more the DM can create an illusion that there's a rule and/or roll and/or pre-written scenario factoring into resolution, the easier it is for players to accept & participate in the story he's telling. 'Seeing the wires' blows it.
In 3.x dedicated & knowledgeable was almost required, and could certainly work, as long as the players are pretty nearly exactly as dedicated & knowledgeable, or those that are higher on the system mastery scale exercise restraint and or tackle the challenge of building to & playing disfavored concepts that heavy optimization & skilled play merely brings up to the par or the rest of the group.
In 5e, so much of the resolution and balance of the system rests on DM rulings that, while it's certainly possible to have a campaign built around dedicated players of high-but-comparable system mastery (Celtavian's campaigns sound exactly like that from what he's recounted), it limits the DM's latitude in delivering the best possible experiences (and we get complaints the game is 'too easy' for instance).

1. 1e and earlier didn't care nearly as much about encounter balance.

And class balanced was already eff'd on purpose, as 'imbalance over levels equal balance.' So, if a party did rest as much as possible at low level, and, consequently, the magic-user used his 1 spell in more encounters and shone more brightly, it was really just bringing him up from virtually worthless to merely under-performing. Likwise, through the 'sweet spot's, approximate balance/greater playability, shorter days might just mean harder combats and casters clearly being more important. Once out of the sweet spot, casters were going to dominate, regardless.

2. Resting in 1e didn't give back nearly as much as it does now. Spell recharging was about it, really - you didn't get back much at all by way of h.p., for example - and so this often meant a party might be resting for more than just one night. An overnight rest to reload the healer, then a day of only curing and resting, then another overnight to reload the healer was and sill is fairly common IME. Which leads to...

Which meant more resting rather than less, and those very early levels with only 1-3 spells make more sense in retrospect...

3. The expected pace of play is different. In 1e it was no big deal if a party went into a dungeon, did what they could, then pulled back and rested for a week before trying again - bursts of in-game action interspersed with long periods of in-game quasi-downtime. But now the expectation has gone more towards more action more of the time, coupled with less downtime - which puts resting rules front and centre along with driving the game towards both giving more resources back on a rest and making resting easier via the short rest.

It's been a good week for me, confirmation bias-wise. First someone else finally remembers the 'caller' concept, now someone else finally remembers old-school 1e pacing the way I always have.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I thought I should say that what you two say is irrelevant, and doesn't matter, has been relevant to me from time-to-time in my RPGing.

At the moment, in the systems I'm running (4e, Burning Wheel, MHRP/Cortex+), there generally isn't a very well-established where as to the location of the tomb. But there is definitely a well-established how - the placement of the tomb will be in response to the resolution of player action declarations.

If those action declarations fail, then the PCs may not find the tomb. And that connection between mechanical failure and story failure matters. It's not open to me, as I run those systems, just to decide that "they've searched enough and it's time to move the plot forward". (The plot will move forward whether or not they find the tomb.)

Umm, I thought that's what I said...

Looking at it I see I find that include a point that says it's still possible to not find the tomb.

My point was simply that there are other methods to searching for a tomb than placing it on a map and hoping the PCs stumble across it. Such as a mechanical one based on research, skill, and a little luck (dice).

And I was, in fact, thinking back specifically to some of the concepts I learned from your posts when posting it.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I'm not sure I want the DM making the house rules either, if he's not the most knowledgeable about the rules. He can handle design, leave development up to the rules guy, if that makes sense?

As far as why the DM is often not the most knowledgeable about the rules, it's because he has to dedicate his non-session D&D time to story, adventures, settings, etc. A mechanically minded player is going to spend that time reading rules, researching what people do with them, etc. If the DM is substantially more dedicated to D&D than any of his players, then yes, he might be more knowledgeable. That's often not the case though.

That makes perfect sense to me. Although in my experience I am always that guy and almost always the DM. Sure, I've had my fair share of munchkinizers and rules lawyers but none of them knew the rules as well as I do, and where to find them.

But to me it's never really about who knows the rules, it's about how the table wants to apply those rules. That my players see me as knowledgeable, fair, and impartial means most of the time it's up to me. But the table consensus generally gets the final vote.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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".

Well, different game designs have different answers to that question.

But in D&D one reason is that the DM is the impartial one at the table. That's why they are sometimes referred to as a referee. It avoids players accusing other players of ruling in their own favor.

 

[outsider]

Although in my experience I am always that guy and almost always the DM. Sure, I've had my fair share of munchkinizers and rules lawyers but none of them knew the rules as well as I do, and where to find them.

Yeah, I think personal experience has alot to do with this. Some people's perspective is that they've been running the same campaign for 30 years, with people cycling in and out every year or two, often complete newbies. My experience is that I've been playing off and on for 25 years, moving around from campaign to campaign, in recent years DMed by people who've been involved with the game for a much shorter time than I have. The primary reason I don't DM is I find it extremely hard to shift personalities at the drop of a hat. To rp a character well, I need time to dig in and figure out what makes them tick.

 

[shoak1]

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...

In your case it definitely seems the DM should stick with doing the rulings. I have played with players ranging from 14 to 52 and there are definitely some who cannot be fair and unbiased. Certainly age seems a dominant factor, though not the only one. Perhaps we could agree that the qualifications for arbiter should include rules knowledge coupled with fair handedness.

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.

1. Aren't you playing the bad guys? Why is it reasonable for you to be unbiased while playing them but not reasonable for players to be unbiased when playing their PCs? Is it because you don't see the game as competitive while they do? If so we differ in that regard.
2. Again, we should add this as a qualification of arbiter. So that means we now have rules knowledge, ability to think long term, and fair handedness as qualifications.
3. This is rules knowledge and that is not the exclusive domain of the DM.

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?

Big DMers can work with the amorphous unstructured RAW because they don't mind being....Big DM. DM lights want more structure in the rules themselves, as well as guidelines in the modules because they don't like being....Big DM. So writing stuff for DM Light seems the logical way to go since the Big DM can just ignore that added structure if he likes.

 

[shoak1]

Well, different game designs have different answers to that question. But in D&D one reason is that the DM is the impartial one at the table. That's why they are sometimes referred to as a referee. It avoids players accusing other players of ruling in their own favor.

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.