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

[Ilbranteloth]

This forum needs thread caps.

Please. We haven't even reached 1,000 yet.

 

[OB1]

Big DM is fine with taking an amorphous ruleset and tweaking it to suit his preferences. DM Light is not. So my counter to your question is that if you see it as so easy and natural for a DM to do so, why not let us have our official changes and you just ignore them?

This Big DM is not fine with taking an amorphous ruleset and tweaking it to suit my preferences. I want a Light Ruleset with good guidelines, helpful inspiration, and that doesn't require constant reference during play by myself or my players. I've found exactly that in 5e. It's crunchy enough to make combat challenging and fair, while simple and loose enough to allow for a more wide open style of play outside of combat.

Let's see - a Rest guideline sidebar? half a page maybe? A linear path sidebar that keeps players on track? one page maybe? Suggested encounter changes for those looking for consistently balanced encounters? half a page? Can't you live with 6 pages of the history of Anywhereburg vs. 8 pages and throw us a few bones?

I would have no problem with this. Would any of the suggestions that have been made in this or other threads fit what you need? I'd be happy to help lobby WoTC for the inclusion of those options. Just keep in mind that those two pages that are removed mean that others aren't getting what they want, and that WoTC will have to balance the desire of a minority who want those types of rules against a majority of those who prefer what they are currently doing.

 

[shoak1]

This Big DM is not fine with taking an amorphous ruleset and tweaking it to suit my preferences. I want a Light Ruleset with good guidelines, helpful inspiration, and that doesn't require constant reference during play by myself or my players. I've found exactly that in 5e. It's crunchy enough to make combat challenging and fair, while simple and loose enough to allow for a more wide open style of play outside of combat.

I would have no problem with this. Would any of the suggestions that have been made in this or other threads fit what you need? I'd be happy to help lobby WoTC for the inclusion of those options. Just keep in mind that those two pages that are removed mean that others aren't getting what they want, and that WoTC will have to balance the desire of a minority who want those types of rules against a majority of those who prefer what they are currently doing.

I appreciate that. I have already house ruled most of the balance issues (though the work I have to do to make each module playable is still a significant task). I guess more than anything the point of all of this for me has been to try to bring about understanding that it wouldn't take much to make the game and its products more complete for Big Challenge peeps out of the box.

For modules, sidebars helping delineate a linear path and plausible railing mechanisms for it would be great. Some rest restrictions and/or ticking clocks that includes alternate balanced encounters based on those restrictions and linear path. Lets face it, there is a lot more Big Story stuff in 5e modules than there has been in 3.5 and 4e, so giving us a couple pages seems reasonable.

Maybe as an example I could do a write up for CoS that shows what I mean - let me work on that and present it here.

For the official rules, a few official modifications to some of the more commonly cited imbalanced feats like GWM seems like a fair compromise (since Big Story guys will take or leave these changes without much concern).

Most of all, when noob DMs post about balance issues, I'd like to see them not barraged so much about how they shouldn't be concerned about such things, or how Big DMs wand can take care of it. Instead focusing on the merits of the balance issue being raised.

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] has been saving me tons of typing again - thanks, by the way! - but there's a few bit I'd like to expand on...

To you "Big DM" is about the game after it begins. To me, "Big DM" would refer to the amount of influence the DM has as a whole (before and during the game). Or to put it a different way, how much the DM restricts the options, decisions, and actions of the players/characters.

So when a "Big DM" improvises on the fly new content, they aren't restricting the options of the characters. Instead of saying, "no, you can't do that" it's "OK, you can try to do that, and I need to have an answer if it works." It's the DM interacting with the world in response to the player's choice or actions. That seems much less intrusive, much less "Big DM" than, "no, you can't go there" or whatever.

Absolutely.
During the run of play there's many times where a PC (and thus player) may and must make choices, from the large-scale (what adventure do we tackle next, or where will our travels next lead us) to the medium-scale (we've found three entrances to what we assume is a dungeon complex so which one will we try first, or there's a room full of orcs ahead so do we fight them or try to sneak past) to the small-scale (do I attack the orc on my flank or do I try to get to their caster, or do I try to reason with this chamberlain or just beat him up).

Big DM restricts these choices (or denies them entirely, or makes them for us) while DMLight accepts that they're all in play, waits for us to decide, and is then both ready and able to react to whatever I or we decide to do.

These concepts are complex, and I don't want people to start reading into that that I don't think the DM should ever say no. One of the other current recommendations I see popping up frequently is, "The DM should say Yes" approach. The problem with most of the blog posts I've read is that they leave out the part that, "yes, you can try it, but there's a very low likelihood of success, or the risk of failure is high and the consequences severe," or many other variations.

From what I can tell, in a very generalized way, the "Say Yes" crowd also tend to eschew outright failure in favour of what they call fail-forward - and that's a whole nother can o' worms that has spawned threads in here every bit as long and involved as this one.

That said, "Yes you can try it" is never a bad response to anything, and rewards player creativity in ways that other game types (video, board, etc.) don't and can't by at least giving their idea - no matter how wacko - a run out and a chance to either work or not.

A DM saying "no" IME is most often confined to instances where a player is trying - intentionally or not - to break or twist or stretch an established rule.

As you've said, "everything" is dependent upon the planning. In my campaign I'd say that includes things like the basic relationships between the races, knowing some of the more prominent plots and schemes, and other setting/story-based stuff that makes it possible to make a good judgement call if/when the time comes. Kind of like an umpire learning what the strike zone is, and practicing how to see a 90 mph ball pass through it. That way, when it comes to game time, you can do your job.

And here, in the pre-campaign design and worldbuilding phases, is where I will happily agree that Big DM is a good thing. I'm in the camp that holds that it's the DM's world, set out for the PCs to then make whatever mess of they can while in theory trying to fix it.

Where I see the problem (which I changed) is that people tend to equate "adventuring day" with "day" largely because a long rest = a night's rest. That's not entirely true, since you technically don't have to sleep

That right there is one blatantly-easy-to-fix issue that might make some of the headaches - well, if not go away, at least back off a bit: state that a long rest must include sleep; and that your sleep (whether overnight or not) always counts as a long rest. This means:

- you still only get one a day, and it can still happen anytime (thus if a party has good reason to adventure during the night and rest/sleep during the day it still works)
- it becomes more intuitive for all involved, and more realistic in some ways for those as wants such
- it becomes easier for a DM (or module) to prevent long-resting if desired by simply creating an environment where sleep is difficult or impossible

Yep. I just prefer the focus to be on the content of the game, rather than the mechanics. More importantly, even though D&D is far from a simulation game, I like the actions that are taken within the content of the game to be somewhat representative of reality and based on the content of the game, rather than driven by the mechanical rules, so I like to treat it that way.

Completely agreed. I prefer it when the rules set a framework and then as far as possible get out of the way.

Lan-"sometime just for kicks I'll have to chuck a particularly overbearing NPC into the party, named Bigdm (pronounced 'Bigdom')"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

At that point, why not just take the next, logical step and remove any reference to a 24-hour day at all?

Because if you do, what is used instead to limit how often a long rest may be taken?

Or are you suggesting no limits on long-rest frequency at all?

Lanefan

 

[Obryn]

Because if you do, what is used instead to limit how often a long rest may be taken?

Or are you suggesting no limits on long-rest frequency at all?

Lanefan

No - structuring it around encounters. Two, get a short rest. 6 or whatever, get a long one. (With at least token in-game rests to signify them, but not being strict about the actual durations)

It keeps encounter balance while leaving adventure structure open and flexible.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yep, that's what I like about D&D. I'm a programmer by trade. There's nothing I enjoy more than taking a bunch of numbers, variables, equations, and formulas, and creating something with them. There's a certain beauty to it, and I consider it a form of art.

I can certainly see that, sure. A system caters to that kind of enjoyment by providing many options to the player. 5e does have options, if the DM opts into them...

When the DM is empowered greatly over the rules, I feel as though the tools the game gives me to express myself are being taken from me, and it instead becomes a social game of trying to convince the DM to allow me to do things. Even if the DM always says yes to me, it's just not very satisfying to me.

It's a different skill set and different form of artistic expression and enjoyment. Equally legitimate, of course.

And, in 5e, arguably favored due to the heavy emphasis on DM Empowerment.

Just as system mastery was heavily favored in RAW 3.5, of course.

So, you could just see it as a pendulum swing, from one edition supporting one style to another supporting an opposite style.

But, the same latitude 5e gives the DM to run roughshod over the rules, allows him to establish firmer rules, and stick to them. So it can be taken either direction - The whole 'make the game your own' thing.

The above paragraph seems a little more dramatic than I intend, but I think the basic points are there and I'm too hung over to go back and retype it.

Don't worry about it - and stay hydated...

 

[outsider]

It's a different skill set and different form of artistic expression and enjoyment. Equally legitimate, of course.

And, in 5e, arguably favored due to the heavy emphasis on DM Empowerment.

Just as system mastery was heavily favored in RAW 3.5, of course.

Yeah, hopefully I haven't actually come out and said that 5e is objectively bad. I'm not an edition warrior, and I don't think it's objectively bad. I strongly prefer 4e, but it's also perfectly reasonable to strongly prefer 5e. I've had an edition that is probably as close to perfect for me as D&D will ever be, it's just ultra frustrating to see the next edition do a 180 in direction from it.

 

[Lanefan]

No - structuring it around encounters. Two, get a short rest. 6 or whatever, get a long one. (With at least token in-game rests to signify them, but not being strict about the actual durations)

It keeps encounter balance while leaving adventure structure open and flexible.

Ah, so uncoupling it from sleep or in-game character downtime completely and making it a purely game-mechanical thing.

Could work, I suppose, but I'd rather go the other direction and tie it to character actions (as in, sleeping).

Lanefan

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, hopefully I haven't actually come out and said that 5e is objectively

Yeah, last thing we need as we work towards a 1000-post thread is objectivity...