D&D General The DM Shortage

[Micah Sweet]

The exception that proves the rule. Yes, if the referee is an idiot and drops all the monsters into fireball formation, you happen to hit a lot of monsters with a perfectly placed AoE and you happen to roll well enough to kill off most or all of them with one hit, then and only then will it matter. Short of that, not so much. Twice as many monsters means twice as many hit points, attacks, etc. Which means a longer fight and more resources used. You can include a heap of easy monsters (aka minions) to account for that.

Right. So instead of pointlessly fighting against that, you lean into it. That's the point. Instead of trying to force some AD&D style day-long attrition fest that's ultimately meaningless, you go the other way. The players want to be epic and badass fantasy superheroes...lean into that. They want to nova every fight...let them. The players are going to naturally want to long rest after every single fight...let them. Now dial up the difficulty to match. You crank up the difficulty of the fight to 2-3x deadly as a baseline...probably closer to 3-4x deadly per encounter...this replaces the medium encounter as the default.

That's what epic heroism is all about. You have one giant set-piece combat that is designed to drain more of their resources and stop worrying about balancing by the day. Balance by the set-piece encounter. The point is not to drain resources with lots of small, ultimately pointless encounters and make the players worry about having spells left over for the rest of the day...the point is to lean into the superhero fantasy that 5E has in place, only crank that up to 11.

What if that's not the game you want to run? Does only the players' opinions matter here?

 

[Clint_L]

I would like to see if WotC can put out a one sentence description of the DMG's purpose and intended audience. 'Cause I sure couldn't. I think it's always been kind of a nebulous thing, going right back to Gygax, and so we've sort of inherited this tradition of it being a kind of abstract tome that acts as a kind of talisman for those willing to take on the quasi-mystical role of Dungeon Master. I think it functions more as a symbol than anything else.

 

[Mort]

What if that's not the game you want to run? Does only the players' opinions matter here?

As always, the game runs best when everyone, particularly the DM, is on the same page.

 

[overgeeked]

What if that's not the game you want to run?

Then you don't use the epic heroism optional rule we're talking about.

Does only the players' opinions matter here?

No, but they'll fight you every single step of the way to get what they want out of the game. It's infinitely easier to adjust to their preferences than to constantly fight against them...endlessly...exhaustingly. If you want AD&D-style game play, play AD&D or some other old-school game or clone. If you want epic tactical minis combat, play 4E. If you want fantasy superheroes, play 5E. Trying to house rule 5E into something it's not is a counterproductive waste of time. So, instead, lean into what it's good at or play something else.

 

[James Gasik]

Overgeeked, it's not that I didn't think Epic Heroism didn't exist- it's that it doesn't do anything to solve the issue of casters being able to have "extra" resources for problem solving/shenanigans if you want to switch from 6-8 encounters to 2-3 setpiece encounters per game day.

Your response seems to be "yeah, that's the point, you don't try to balance anything, just throw everything but the kitchen sink at the players and let them feel godlike".

That's certainly a way to play the game, but that isn't what I was talking about at all- I said that WotC's rules don't reflect the style of play their own adventures espouse. You brought up Epic Heroism as a solution to the problem, but it doesn't adjust resource allocation (which was my point), it nukes the very concept from orbit.

 

[overgeeked]

Overgeeked, it's not that I didn't think Epic Heroism didn't exist- it's that it doesn't do anything to solve the issue of casters being able to have "extra" resources for problem solving/shenanigans if you want to switch from 6-8 encounters to 2-3 setpiece encounters per game day.

It does. You're just ignoring it.

Your response seems to be "yeah, that's the point, you don't try to balance anything, just throw everything but the kitchen sink at the players and let them feel godlike".

No, there's a few connected issues going on. One is the disparity between short-rest and long-rest resource classes. Another is the players constantly pushing against those limitation. Another is players constantly trying to nova and long rest after each and every combat. Epic heroism and cranking up the difficulty solves all of those in one go.

That's certainly a way to play the game, but that isn't what I was talking about at all- I said that WotC's rules don't reflect the style of play their own adventures espouse. You brought up Epic Heroism as a solution to the problem, but it doesn't adjust resource allocation (which was my point), it nukes the very concept from orbit.

In the DMG the designers flat out state what their assumed daily progress would be. Long rest, 1-2 combats, short rest, 1-2 combats, short rest, 1-2 combats, long rest. If you limit short rests to no more than two per long rest (as the designers stated in one of the books, Xanathar's I think), the resource disparity is solved...as long as the players don't nova and push for a long rest. Which they always...always...always will. So you need to also either artificially enforce a set number of fights between rests...or condense the "adventuring day" with epic heroism, thus sidestepping that problem entirely.

If you don't like the solution, cool. Don't use it. But it's still a solution.

No solution will ever be perfect, so if your response is "but it's not perfect" well, I don't know what to tell you. Nothing ever is. It's worth noting that 4E doesn't have this problem at all. If it's a major concern for you, try 4E.

 

[MNblockhead]

I opened a game this Christmas, I don't remember which one*, and it said "reading the directions is the worst way to learn how to play a game follow this link to a video explaining the game."

Pet peeve triggered.

I have nothing against watching how to play videos, but they should not be an excuse for poorly written game rules. I also don't like the "worst way" language. Worst for who? Different people learn better in different ways.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In cases of specific stories, though, I think it might be better to hear from the original writer as to what their method is.

True, but good luck getting JRRT to write about adapting LotR to D&D!

Except that, as I said before, a newbie isn't going to know where to go to find decent info

Very true, and that why I said the important thing is to get it collated and referenced, and linked too via official D&D websites and in starter sets.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Pet peeve triggered.

I have nothing against watching how to play videos, but they should not be an excuse for poorly written game rules. I also don't like the "worst way" language. Worst for who? Different people learn better in different ways.

You are correct about different learning techniques, but @pogre was clear they were quoting, not endorsing.

And there is a big difference between "the rules" and "how to play". You can write the rules of chess on a single page, but there are libraries full of books on how to play.

It is generally considered that good teaching will take a multimedia approach, to cater to all types of learner*. I.e. including text, illustrations, video and interactivities. But, in addition to personal inclination, there is also the factor of "what you are used to". People learn how to learn. Older folk will be used to learning from textbooks, but these days most UK classrooms have an interactive whiteboard, and most lessons have at least an element of video. And the funds that would formally have been spent on textbooks is now spent on the tech. And most modern textbooks ship with a DVD of interactive content and video. They also have much lower text density than older textbooks. So, assuming you are targeting 10-20 years olds as the primary age range of the people you want to teach to be DMs, you will need to reflect the kind of teaching they are accustomed too. If you are targeting older players, then you would need to adapt your teaching methods accordingly.


*I'm very visual, I like diagrams, but dislike text and (spoken) video. This is an example of turning a text into a diagram.


NB, I did my MSc on this.

 

[MichaelSomething]

It does. You're just ignoring it.

No, there's a few connected issues going on. One is the disparity between short-rest and long-rest resource classes. Another is the players constantly pushing against those limitation. Another is players constantly trying to nova and long rest after each and every combat. Epic heroism and cranking up the difficulty solves all of those in one go.

In the DMG the designers flat out state what their assumed daily progress would be. Long rest, 1-2 combats, short rest, 1-2 combats, short rest, 1-2 combats, long rest. If you limit short rests to no more than two per long rest (as the designers stated in one of the books, Xanathar's I think), the resource disparity is solved...as long as the players don't nova and push for a long rest. Which they always...always...always will. So you need to also either artificially enforce a set number of fights between rests...or condense the "adventuring day" with epic heroism, thus sidestepping that problem entirely.

If you don't like the solution, cool. Don't use it. But it's still a solution.

No solution will ever be perfect, so if your response is "but it's not perfect" well, I don't know what to tell you. Nothing ever is. It's worth noting that 4E doesn't have this problem at all. If it's a major concern for you, try 4E.

Bring back the five minute work day!!!