This "resting at 9:05 AM" business

[AllisterH]

The problem is that you are suggesting that it can never be in-character, and making a pretty elitist statement about "real roleplaying" in the process.

Let's say the PCs are a group of adventurers -- and by that I mean, people who take great risks in hopes of great rewards. These are people that know that once they step into the breach, there's a good chance they might not come out again, but they are willing to do it because they want to find treasure, glory and/or power in those deep, dangerous holes in the ground. Let's say this group of adventurers just accidentally stumbled on the lair of an otyugh and although they defeated it, they took something of a beating. They could stop and rest, even though it is only 10 AM, but if they do that they lose a whole day. They could also press forward, knowing they aren't at the top of their game, taking it slow and careful and deciding what to do in each new (apparent) threat as they come upon it. Maybe, they'll find some treasure nearby, or be able to scout out the complex, or something else. maybe they'll get bushwhacked by a band of hungry cave trolls and get eaten. It is time to make a decision, and either one -- stop and rest or push forward -- is equally valid for these daredevil treasure hunters. For a "normal person"? Well, a "normal person" wouldn't have gone down there in the first place.

I actually do know real life adventurers. Spleunkers.

I'm honestly trying to imagine a scenario which isn't time sensitive when they would take such a big risk.

Unless you're stating that adventurers have a mental deficiency, the self-presevation instinct would cause adventurers to stop after an encounter since unless there is extenuating circumstances (time sensitive) there's no rush since the dungeon isn't going anywhere.

Using your own example of "pushing on", why push on when there is such a increasing likelihood of death when the smart thing is to camp and rest. Sure, they lose a day but why is this a problem when you have all the time in the world?

 

[Will]

I think my problem with spells is that 'we've run out of spells' sounds like such a weird, stupid reason to stop and rest compared to, say, 'we're seriously hurt/exhausted and need some downtime.'

I realize that, strategically, they amount to the same thing. But it just doesn't FEEL right to me.

Part of the problem is, of course, the fact that by 5th level, people can be healed to full after every battle unless they died or have some other long-running condition (blindness, curse, etc.).

A thought.. casters can refresh all spells, but it Fatigues them. And if they refresh while fatigued, exhausted!

Or something

 

[Hussar]

Only when people want to disparage "Old Skool" gaming. Don't get me wrong -- combat has always been a part of the game, and always will be. But, as someone pointed out upthread, Old Skool gaming is what originally created the "4 hours of work, 20 minutes of fun" bash because in Old Skool gaming, you might actually only spend 20 minutes of the 4 hour session fighting, with the rest exploring, roleplaying, solving puzzles and all sorts of other non combat stuff. just because the dungeon-crawling is a keystone to "Old Skool" gaming doesn't mean that there's nothing but hack and slash and loot to it. Quite the opposite, actually. The dungeon is an adventuring environment, and combat is only one aspect of adventuring.

And it is the developers in their blogs and articles that are pointing out how 4E design is centered entirely around combat and combat balancing, and how the definition of fun in 4E is going to be "PCs doing cool stuff and winning".

Actually, no.

The 20 minutes of fun in 4 hours comment was made in the early days of 3e by the wife of one of the developers after watching the game. The players sat around most of the time doing very little much of the time.

Sorry, no, your interpretation is mistaken. If the other 3 1/2 hours was taken up by role play etc, there would be no problems because everyone would be happy. Unfortunately, a large amount of D&D is spent with most of the group watching one person doing something fun. The thief gets to check for traps and whatnot while everyone else sits on their thumbs. The wizard shoots off his one sleep spell and goes to sleep in the corner because he's absolutely useless for the rest of the adventuring day.

Then again, looking at the vast majority of "Old Skool" modules and all I see are combat encounters. Trying to say that the ratio of combat to role play has changed in any edition is simply not true. It might be true for you, but, it is certainly not universal.

 

[AllisterH]

Sorry, no, your interpretation is mistaken. If the other 3 1/2 hours was taken up by role play etc, there would be no problems because everyone would be happy. Unfortunately, a large amount of D&D is spent with most of the group watching one person doing something fun. The thief gets to check for traps and whatnot while everyone else sits on their thumbs. The wizard shoots off his one sleep spell and goes to sleep in the corner because he's absolutely useless for the rest of the adventuring day.

.

Actually, this gets best seen in another game system. Namely Shadowrun and when it comes to hacking. Oh boy, talk about twiddling of thumbs for the non netrunner.....

 

[Imaro]

Actually, no.

The 20 minutes of fun in 4 hours comment was made in the early days of 3e by the wife of one of the developers after watching the game. The players sat around most of the time doing very little much of the time.

Sorry, no, your interpretation is mistaken. If the other 3 1/2 hours was taken up by role play etc, there would be no problems because everyone would be happy. Unfortunately, a large amount of D&D is spent with most of the group watching one person doing something fun. The thief gets to check for traps and whatnot while everyone else sits on their thumbs. The wizard shoots off his one sleep spell and goes to sleep in the corner because he's absolutely useless for the rest of the adventuring day.

Then again, looking at the vast majority of "Old Skool" modules and all I see are combat encounters. Trying to say that the ratio of combat to role play has changed in any edition is simply not true. It might be true for you, but, it is certainly not universal.

You know this made me think about an interesting aspect of "old skool" modules that was tossed away and even disparaged by the designers of 3.0...mainly the puzzle. It's something all the player's can participate in and isn't decided by one die roll. I guess the argument that some wouldn't find it fun is valid, but then again some don't find extended combat after combat fun.

 

[Hussar]

BTW, that quote is from Ryan Dancy, and you can read it on Mike Mearl's blog here

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Actually, this gets best seen in another game system. Namely Shadowrun and when it comes to hacking. Oh boy, talk about twiddling of thumbs for the non netrunner.....

The same problem exists with Cyberpunk 2020 and every other game that I know of with the '80s "neon-tube dungeon" model of hacking. That's one sacred cow that needs to be slaughtered, dressed, barbequed and its hide turned into snazzy shoes.

As for the actual subject of the thread, the "nova problem" has been an issue in every 3.* campaign I've played; not a major issue, certainly, but still annoying and damaging to the suspension of disbelief. (And in my experience, low-level wizards have been useless or next to useless in BD&D and 2e AD&D; if anything, 3.* is an improvement, since it has a skill system and they can use crossbows instead of thrown darts.)

 

[Imaro]

BTW, that quote is from Ryan Dancy, and you can read it on Mike Mearl's blog here

I just read the post referenced above, and it seems IMHO, that Ryan Dancey is more commenting on an overabundance of rules that must be checked, out of game chatter and rules arguments, rather than player's having to stop and rest to replenish abilities( I don't see the problem with this since a DM can easily throw an encounter at the PC's while they're trying to rest if he wants to up the stakes...or handwave the time it takes to rest and move on.).

One thing I totally disagree with Dancy on is his assesment of rules light systems. I don't know what games he observed, but I can name quite a few that a new player could create a character in alot faster than the same newbie could create a character for D&D 3e...of course the opposite applies as well.

As far as running faster at the table, this is certainly more a dynamics of the group thing. I think that if a group trusts their GM/DM then the game is going to run faster and smoother regardless of the system used.

The problem with D&D 3e in this respect is that more power has been placed in the hands of players and it first; builds a sense of distrust between players and GM's especially if the GM makes a mistake or judgement call that one of the players knows the rules for.
Second; it promotes rules arguments as it grants the power of players to know more about the RAW, and why grant power if it isn't going to be exerted. Thus players feel more secure and justified in questioning the rulings of a GM.

 

[Phlebas]

ok, to so i have this clear in my own head

IMHO its perfectly acceptable for a bunch of adventurers to rest and recuperate so they always are at max after a big fight - people will not do dangerous activities when not at their best, its perfectly acceptable roleplaying without metagaming it.

if this is a problem for the players / DM the simplest solution is to apply a time pressure in game, (ensuring that you adjust the encounters CR if you have to plough through them in one hit). In this case the party have a reason to move forward even when not at their best

If you'd like a real world equivalent, a fire crew or ambulance finishing a job would probably love to put their feet up for a few hours after a job, and they would probably function a lot better after cleaning their kit, replenishing supplies and relaxing, but if the alarm goes off then they're on the road again regardless because otherwise people could get hurt. Its just one of those things...

IME this is pretty simple to do and gives the players another factor to worry about - namely resource conservation and the ticking clock.......

3e hasn't changed this basic rule - its helped a bit by giving all classes something to play with even if out of spells plus with cantrips / orisons and bonus spells even a low level wizard can keep casting for quite a while before reverting to - and i'm pretty sure 4e wont be able to change it fundamentally though their might be some tinkering. Until i see what tinkering their proposing then I'm not going to worry about it. If i like what i see in 4e i'll change, if not I'll stick on 3,5e. (personally i'd just go for more cantrips / orisons / low level spells for spell casters so they can fire them off and save the high level stuff for BBEG, but thats because i don't really see it as a major issue)

As for some characters getting sidelined during games - IME that is more of a factor of player involvement / tiredness and DM'ing style. If you mix combat with talkies with puzzles (like a classic dungeon should) then there shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

The PCs resting after one encounter has happened IMC, but it does not bother me. I have even had them attacked in their sleep before. But generally I would try and not over do it. If they were in a dungeon and they said they wanted to rest in a Rope Trick, I might very well just say, "Okay, you guys all rest and now are fully replenished" and not even have them move their minis from the position they are in and just have them continue on.