Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8392757" data-attributes="member: 71699">The 5th edition approach seems to be to make rests awkward. Characters don't take long rests just anytime because... they're easily interrupted (albeit, they are hard to interrupt)? I think your solution goes in a thoughtful direction. My current questions with rests take a similarly positive rather than negative view, i.e. we value what ability refreshes do for our game play, therefore...<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">What has to happen, rather than not happen, for a full ability refresh?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">What might occur while characters are refreshing abilities, so that it matters in the game world that they took that break?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Why are we counting a pause to refresh abilities in hours, given that the difference between 6 and 8 hours on our imaginary clock is next to nothing (do we differentiate consistently between 6 and 8 hours? and what about between 6 hours and 7 hours?)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Is there a price that might be paid, or leverage over the narrative that might be given up (e.g. your proposal), to gain an ability refresh?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Why even bother with it (which I believe is contended by the RAI, but which goes against the benefits that I discussed - incompletely - above)</li> </ol>Of course the issue with 4. is always going to be that the dominant strategy will be whatever is mechanically favoured. It's actually for that reason that I prefer what I call "narrative rests," meaning that the cost is felt in what happens in the emergent story. I feel at minimum we would want anything like adrenaline to be strongly differentiated from refreshed abilities in terms of the leverage on offer.There are maybe five classes of solution that you commonly see<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mechanically forced, e.g. you count encounters, with no short rest possible until the count is 2+ and no long rest possible until the count is 6+</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Difficult, e.g. requires an easily interrupted period of downtime (note the obvious tension with the RAI)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Costly, e.g. you have to pay or give up something for the rest</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Sporting agreement (with players) to not rest too often</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ignore it (in effect, the most supported by the RAI)</li> </ul>Something to notice about difficulty and costs, is that the former relies on a DM to make it difficult. In theory, the RAI still requires rests. In practice, it so softens difficulty (the class of solution chosen by 5th edition) that it amounts to either sporting agreement or ignoring. The latter on the other hand divides into costs that are felt in the leverage players will have over the emergent narrative, and costs that are felt in the progression of the emergent narrative by the DM. I suspect that costs felt in leverage will on the whole feel more gamey, hence for the time being I am more interested in costs that are felt in how the DM might plausibly advance the narrative. Although I am not necessarily seeking a pure solution - a hybrid might be what is strongest.</blockquote>

Verification