PDA

View Full Version : Trying Out Angry's Time Mechanic



HidesHisEyes
2017-06-03, 11:39 AM
So the Angry GM has devised a system for tracking and using the passing of time in D&D: http://theangrygm.com/hacking-time-in-dnd/

I tried it out in a session yesterday and it went pretty well I thought. It was easier to make things like picking locks and searching rooms part of the actual gameplay, since each attempt adds a die to the pool and makes you that much more likely to get screwed over in some way, so searching a room thoroughly becomes a choice as opposed to an assumption. I did find I hugely underestimated the number of "bad events" I would need. I came up with four and was worried it wouldn't be enough, but in the end they only rolled for events twice and only got one. It took the length of this one single-session dungeon crawl to fill up and then clear the dice pool though - so they spent about an hour in the dungeon and had one random event. Seems about right.

Has anyone else tried out this system? What did you think? And do you have any thoughts on expanding it to work for wilderness travel or downtime? Angry has said he's going to do a big overhaul of wilderness travel soon, but there's no harm in beating him to it, right?

ExLibrisMortis
2017-06-03, 01:53 PM
I did find I hugely underestimated the number of "bad events" I would need. I came up with four and was worried it wouldn't be enough, but in the end they only rolled for events twice and only got one.
*Overestimated.

I haven't used this, but I like the idea. It reminds me of an Elder Evil's signs, on a much shorter scale. I think plot-related 'bad stuff' is a lot better than random minor setbacks (snake bites and whatnot), but if you have to add minor setbacks (some adventures do call for attrition, after all), it's best to do it mechanically, so the DM can be a neutral arbiter of misfortune, rather than the source.

noob
2017-06-03, 01:59 PM
there is also stories like "at the end of that day the world blow up"
Then you figure out the bbeg did prepare his castle by making it have 200 rooms(stronghold builder rules + a bunch of wall of stones allow to net that number of rooms in a few weeks)
you can not realistically explore them all.
Then you figure out that the bbeg was doing his ritual in a hidden room and you lost.
It sums up how most of the world ending situations would end if the world was realistic.

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-03, 02:02 PM
*Overestimated.

I haven't used this, but I like the idea. It reminds me of an Elder Evil's signs, on a much shorter scale. I think plot-related 'bad stuff' is a lot better than random minor setbacks (snake bites and whatnot), but if you have to add minor setbacks (some adventures do call for attrition, after all), it's best to do it mechanically, so the DM can be a neutral arbiter of misfortune, rather than the source.

Yeah, the real power of the system is in using the events to drive the story, but not every adventure is going to suggest such events so minor setbacks and yes even nuisance encounters are a good "generic" option I think. And yeah it's great as a way of providing setbacks and forcing players to consider time a valuable resource without falling back on some vague DM fiat approach.

Yes I of course meant overestimated, thanks for catching that!

Grod_The_Giant
2017-06-03, 08:17 PM
I actually really like the idea-- I've toyed with using a "doom pool" type mechanic before, and it's a nice way to build tension. Using a system like this has a major advantage over the conventional ticking clock in that it's immediate. "Oh, you have 60 days to rescue the princess" is too long, too abstract to really weigh on a player's mind. Sure, it'll discourage excessive 15 minute workdays, but only on the macro level. There's still not much incentive to not take your time poking around dungeons and other adventures en-route, because the DM is probably just counting days.

TripleD
2017-06-04, 11:22 AM
It's rough, but I may be more excited about this than any other mechanic Angry has introduced.

Like Angry said, D&D has dozens of actions and choices for which time is the primary drawback, but has never implemented a useful time mechanic. I really hope something like this is kept in mind for 6e some day (maybe even a variant rule in a hypothetical 5.5)

graymagiker
2017-06-04, 12:44 PM
I am glad to see it working. I am planing a 5e game (as soon as we can pool resources and buy the core books) and I am planning on using this mechanic from the beginning.

My first adventure is going to have a time limit in days, but multiple sites to explore/investigate. I think this will allow the characters to make interesting decisions: ie do we spend the whole day searching every room of the kobold warrens, or rush through it and get back to town before dark?

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-04, 05:06 PM
It's rough, but I may be more excited about this than any other mechanic Angry has introduced.

Like Angry said, D&D has dozens of actions and choices for which time is the primary drawback, but has never implemented a useful time mechanic. I really hope something like this is kept in mind for 6e some day (maybe even a variant rule in a hypothetical 5.5)

Good heavens yes. He's really got to the bottom of something the game is missing, I think.

graymagiker
2017-06-05, 11:59 AM
Yes. I think that Angry created an ideal mechanic, because:



D&D NEEDS a mechanic for handling the passage of time. But, the thing is, it isn’t really about time. It’s about dread. D&D really needs a mechanic to make the players DREAD the passage of time.


The simple solution is to go back to the old way of counting minutes and "turns" outside of combat. Angry considers this, and having run games this way, correctly rejects it.

Psikerlord
2017-06-05, 09:50 PM
Hmmm what Angry suggests really isnt anything new. Random encounters have always provided the incentive not to dawdle. Early D&D had random encounters like 30% chance of an encounter, roll every 15 mins in a dungeon or every 8 hours in the wilderness. How the party spent its time was important. Random encounters went out the window with 4e because combat took too long and that broke the time game. But they're back with 5e.

The trick is to make a custom random encounters list for your session - tailored to the adventure at hand. To borrow from Angry's example, include on the list for example (1) earthquake, (2) dragon starts to wake, (iii) child orc appears from around the corner, etc - interesting stuff other than fights. But also have fights. Including very dangerous fights. Random encounters should not be limited to quick, token fights. Sometimes they are deadly fights all of their own.

And that's it, you're good to go.

Talakeal
2017-06-05, 10:12 PM
Honestly I don't much see the point of this system.

Time management isn't really that much of an issue in games I play. I can see it being kind of annoying if players want to "take 20" on every action, but I find a far simpler fix to simply not allow people to take 20 when it doesn't make sense; either let them auto-succeed or tell them that their initial roll stands depending on the situation.


Now, the bigger issue with time in D&D has always been the whole recovering by sleeping / 15 minute adventuring day, which I really don't think this will do anything to solve. If players are allowed to sleep in the dungeon and recover all of their resources they will, and if it is possible it is always the right choice from a strategic perspective. The only system that stops this is one that interrupts them often enough that they can't go long enough to recover their spells, in which choice resting is no longer a valid option.

As the poster above pointed out, it is essentially just a long winded version of the random encounter table.

Lvl 2 Expert
2017-06-06, 02:32 AM
This might work well for stealth missions. Every time you make a sound/pass a camera/stuff a guard in a closet/something you roll for being detected, and on a pass a dice or modifier gets added that makes it just a it more likely you'll get detected the next time. It's mildly realistic, because a guard who's heard a few things that didn't quite ring an alarm bell or who's wondering how big a turd John is cooking up in that bathroom or a dog who's sniffed a few strange humans already or who thought he saw something from the corner of its eye (is that a thing dogs do?) could be a bit more on their guard. It even works for things like breaking in to a house with a sleeping resident. I wouldn't think it's weird if someone who's already slept through a few noises was easier to wake up, seems entirely reasonable. It also helps set a time limit without giving the players the luxury of knowing the exact limit, and it's not as random as a flat roll, giving a very minor to no chance for detection on the first "hit" which increases as the players stomp around too much.

Quertus
2017-06-07, 01:17 PM
Honestly I don't much see the point of this system.

Time management isn't really that much of an issue in games I play. I can see it being kind of annoying if players want to "take 20" on every action, but I find a far simpler fix to simply not allow people to take 20 when it doesn't make sense; either let them auto-succeed or tell them that their initial roll stands depending on the situation.

As the poster above pointed out, it is essentially just a long winded version of the random encounter table.

I mostly agree with the "long-winded random encounter table", but let's come back to that.

When would taking 20 not make sense? And why would you want to discourage someone from taking 20?

Angry seems to think that the answer is because it's not realistic. I much more cleave to the "S" in hated GNS, so I'm not going to argue with someone for claiming that this is a good reason to do pretty much anything.

I'm also a big fan of role-playing. Doing things that aren't in character seems wrong to me.

But here's the thing. IRL, let's say I hand you a gallon of nitroglycerin. Are you going to set it down gently, or just toss it in your backpack? When your life is on the line, are you going to be careful, or carefree?

I know that there are people IRL who can't take anything seriously; happily, in older editions, they almost never made it past level 1. That was one of the things I liked most about earlier editions. You learned through the most Darwinian of training methods to properly roleplay a skilled adventurer.

So, did Angry give us a system which maps and makes visible the passage of time, or how much attention the party has brought to themselves, coupled with appropriate consequences?

No.

Because we snuck quietly down the hall, we took more time, making it more likely for the dragon to wake up?

Because we searched for secret passages, there was an earthquake?

Because Angry hates people taking a 20, doing so produces no less than 3 rolls for random encounters, even though that should be quiet and take less time than some combats?

Seriously, Angry, WTF? This is just punishing players for thinking. This is "I get to laugh at you for setting off the trap, or laugh at you for waking the dragon by slowly sneaking through the fortress instead of busting down the doors like a proper adventurer". This is the worst type of DMing, given legitimacy by having rules.

So, no, I'm not a fan. :smallmad:

Yllin
2017-06-07, 02:19 PM
To Quertus

First, we should separate the mechanic itself from its application.

The mechanic has nothing to do with realism. Its goal rather is making spending time on something a choice. If a player can search for secret passages and traps all the time, then doing so is not thinking, it's the default. And this situation makes traps and locked doors and some other things less meaningful, and that's bad for gameplay - at least that's the reasoning behind the mechanic. Also, the earthquake or dragon awakening or other misfortunes is something that is destined to happen over time. It's consequences of players taking their time, not of being carefree. Bringing attention to the party is handled differently from passing of time - by choosing between adding a die or rolling when time passes.

So, if player want to experience fewer destined misfortunes, they will have to take the risk of missing traps or making noise while breaking doors, and here we begin to discuss the application of the mechanic. You called it "the worst type of DMing", but that will only be true if the mechanic is mishandled. Basically, if a DM applies it, they need to recognize the potential dilemma for the players and plan for it. For example, if players have some indication of how dangerous the traps are, and if there is some pattern to them, they will feel victory once they find a trap, but don't spend time in other rooms. There's nothing difficult to be that kind of "worst type" DM even without this mechanic, and i don't see why there can be no way to use it in an enjoyable way.

I'm not arguing that the mechanic is good by the way, I didn't try it, and I have my own doubts. I'm only saying that your understanding is flawed.

Quertus
2017-06-07, 06:27 PM
@Yllin

Ok, you've got a point - it's not as inherently horrible as I had read it to be. However, it's still "get bit by a random snake", or an earthquake, or other misfortunes roughly 18 times per day in the safest of forests. And heaven forbid you try to search said forest, because your added attention to detail will net you at least twice as many mishaps per day, and far more per journey.

It doesn't make this a choice. It doesn't even encourage haste. It encourages hiring untrained laborers to pave the forest between you and the adventure site. Then hiring a trebuchet crew to level the site. Then sending your undead minions to sift through the rubble, bringing it back to you bit by bit as you sit in safety.

I may not know how to encourage a proper amount of care for time spent, or even know exactly how much that proper amount is, but I suspect this isn't it.

noob
2017-06-07, 07:25 PM
I kind of like how making violent/noisy and visible activity is encouraged: it makes a roll of the dice pool instead of increasing it.
So if there is an horrible event at a result of 7(like the universe explodes violently when you do a 7) you just have to always be maximally noisy and visible so that there is never more than one dice in the dice pool(thus never risking to have 7 or more thus destroying the universe) and so you can take all your time as long as the team bard is using dancing lights and a giant musical anvil.
Unless I misunderstood the rules.

Beneath
2017-06-07, 08:43 PM
I kind of like how making violent/noisy and visible activity is encouraged: it makes a roll of the dice pool instead of increasing it.
So if there is an horrible event at a result of 7(like the universe explodes violently when you do a 7) you just have to always be maximally noisy and visible so that there is never more than one dice in the dice pool(thus never risking to have 7 or more thus destroying the universe) and so you can take all your time as long as the team bard is using dancing lights and a giant musical anvil.
Unless I misunderstood the rules.

The players don't get to know what the results might be ahead of time, like with any other random encounter table.

Also results aren't based on the total roll, they're based on any die showing a 1.


Ok, you've got a point - it's not as inherently horrible as I had read it to be. However, it's still "get bit by a random snake", or an earthquake, or other misfortunes roughly 18 times per day in the safest of forests.

To my understanding this mechanic is for dungeons. Forests are a different environment with a different mechanic (or at the very least different time-scaling; days or quarter-days rather than hours unless they're extremely dangerous), and in "the safest of forests" you wouldn't be using a mechanic made to make players dread the passing of hours anyway. It's not a thing you use everywhere, it's a thing you use in places that are dangerous enough that taking your time is a risk.

Thrudd
2017-06-07, 09:47 PM
"Never implemented a useful time mechanic" is not true. Keeping track of time used to be one of the DM's primary jobs, the game was organized around the passage of time in the form of turns, and everyone already pointed out that random encounter/wandering monster tables provide the "dread". Angry DM even knows this and mentions it, it's just that he feels this method was a "pain in the ass", which is by no means an objective or universal observation.
So he created a mechanic that he likes better than the original rules, which is fine, but not necessarily a thing the game was missing.

It is true that people who have only played 3e and later may not have had the importance of time emphasized in their play, and wandering monster tables stopped being a core mechanic, and this becomes a real issue. Of course, the easy solution is just to look at how the rules had always addressed the problem before WotC took over and completely missed important things that make the game work. Gygax's 1e DMG was very explicit about the importance of time keeping and the centrality of it to the game's functioning. I also think 5e is much better at addressing this than he is implying in the article.

That said, I do think this is a clever mechanic that could be engaging for the players and an easy way to adjust the probability of random encounters happening (using different sided dice in the pool). This is really just a visual for the players to indicate time is passing and reminding them that bad stuff can happen the longer they spend in the dangerous place, and an alternative for the DM to marking off dashes on a paper or using a clicker or whatever they normally do to track turns (which really isn't that much of a pain, that's my job as the DM, imo). My hesitations is in whether I'd want the players to have the information regarding the level of danger via the type of die I was using in the pool - a part of me feels like this is artificial "dread" that should be reserved for the actual appearance of "bad stuff". They will start feeling more dread when they get hit with a couple of wandering monsters in quick succession, and start anticipating. It might be better for the DM to keep the time pool behind the screen.

For a DM trying this out, I would want to remind them that movement must also add dice to the pool - it isn't just when the players take an action like searching or picking a lock or resting. You still need to keep track of how far the party can move in a ten minute period and how long their torches last. It isn't really all that different from keeping track of turns and rolling on the wandering monster table, it's just a little more visual/tactile.

His comment about connecting "bad things" to the plot and environment aren't really specific to this mechanic but just a general good practice for any random encounter table.

Psikerlord
2017-06-07, 11:45 PM
I mostly agree with the "long-winded random encounter table", but let's come back to that.

When would taking 20 not make sense? And why would you want to discourage someone from taking 20?

Angry seems to think that the answer is because it's not realistic. I much more cleave to the "S" in hated GNS, so I'm not going to argue with someone for claiming that this is a good reason to do pretty much anything.

I'm also a big fan of role-playing. Doing things that aren't in character seems wrong to me.

But here's the thing. IRL, let's say I hand you a gallon of nitroglycerin. Are you going to set it down gently, or just toss it in your backpack? When your life is on the line, are you going to be careful, or carefree?

I know that there are people IRL who can't take anything seriously; happily, in older editions, they almost never made it past level 1. That was one of the things I liked most about earlier editions. You learned through the most Darwinian of training methods to properly roleplay a skilled adventurer.

So, did Angry give us a system which maps and makes visible the passage of time, or how much attention the party has brought to themselves, coupled with appropriate consequences?

No.

Because we snuck quietly down the hall, we took more time, making it more likely for the dragon to wake up?

Because we searched for secret passages, there was an earthquake?

Because Angry hates people taking a 20, doing so produces no less than 3 rolls for random encounters, even though that should be quiet and take less time than some combats?

Seriously, Angry, WTF? This is just punishing players for thinking. This is "I get to laugh at you for setting off the trap, or laugh at you for waking the dragon by slowly sneaking through the fortress instead of busting down the doors like a proper adventurer". This is the worst type of DMing, given legitimacy by having rules.

So, no, I'm not a fan. :smallmad:
I personally dont allow take 10s or take 20s at all (I dont use PP either). When you roll, it's assumed you did your best at the time, there is no trying again - except in cases where it makes sense that you can progress in some way - eg bashing down a door, each time it's a little more damaged etc - but really, why roll at all then, unless there is a time pressure deadline.

Otherwise I only allow a retry if the circumstances have somehow signficantly changed. Eg: monster knowledge check, fails, cant try again until she examines the dead body of one, or researches in a library, or gains a level, etc. Otherwise ime take 20 is, frankly, quite broken really.

noob
2017-06-08, 04:49 AM
So now someone takes the feat that allows to take 10 on caster level checks while in a stressful situation do you tell him "no I will still not allow tens"
Or do you ban that feat and remove one of the main power rogue gets(the ability to take ten on some skill checks in stressful situations)
I guess that at your table when the players hear you forbid tens they just add ten more points to their skills and then just always have better than a ten.
Oh unless you are one of those gms who make that each time someone receive a boost in jump the chasm gets wider right in front of their eyes(like I cast guidance of the avatar oh no the pit got 6 feet wider)?
Then when the fighter rolls for attack on a pit fiend either he miss and will never hit him unless he trains again or he hits and will never miss?

Grod_The_Giant
2017-06-08, 08:29 AM
Taking 20 is, I think, the same basic idea as "don't roll unless there's an interesting consequence for failing." You can only do it when there's no time crunch and no danger if you screw up-- in other words, a failure isn't going to have much effect, so you might as well say "it works" and move on.

Nifft
2017-06-08, 08:49 AM
I actually really like the idea-- I've toyed with using a "doom pool" type mechanic before, and it's a nice way to build tension. Using a system like this has a major advantage over the conventional ticking clock in that it's immediate.

Same here.

My "Doom Pool" experience was entirely in Cortex+ (both Marvel Heroic and Leverage), but it was a good mechanic, and encouraged escalation in some really dramatic ways.

The basic mechanic described by Angry DM is like the Cortex+ "Doom Pool", and that means it's good -- however there are parts that need more work, specifically the conditions around removing dice / resetting the pool.

I mention this because I'm going to give a hard look at the Cortex+ mechanics to see what could be stolen for D&D. Their Doom Pool felt pretty polished when I played with it.


Taking 20 is, I think, the same basic idea as "don't roll unless there's an interesting consequence for failing." You can only do it when there's no time crunch and no danger if you screw up-- in other words, a failure isn't going to have much effect, so you might as well say "it works" and move on.

Yeah, but it does take the most time.

So, you get your "it works", but you pay for it using risk as a resource (+1 die in the Doom Pool).

(Granted, it might be the case that rolling a 1 does nothing more than cause a wardrobe malfunction (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0035.html), but that's getting off a bit light...)

The Cats
2017-06-08, 09:54 AM
I think this is pretty cool. I'll try it in my next session but I think with one adjustment: Instead of the 'danger-level' of the dungeon determining the size of the dice, I'll have it determined by what the players are doing with their time.

If they spend ten minutes searching a room in a fortress with regular patrols, and that room is on the patrol route: add a d4. If they spend a little extra time to sneak slowly through a hallway adjacent to a barrack full of sleeping goblins: add a d12. (Logic being: Something could still happen due to the passage of time, like a goblin just getting up to use the bathroom, but it's less likely to happen since they're actively trying to mitigate the risk.)

Does anyone see flaws with this change to the system that I am not noticing?

Tanarii
2017-06-08, 11:11 AM
He has revised and expanded his rules btw:
http://theangrygm.com/exploration-rules/

noob
2017-06-08, 11:20 AM
So I can no longer prevent the time pool from filling by shouting very strong and throwing rockets everywhere.
But I guess that I can instead have 11 minute duration buff last forever.
Glad that now shapechange or a persisted transcend mortality lasts forever as long as I do not go out of the dungeon.

Tanarii
2017-06-08, 12:09 PM
So I can no longer prevent the time pool from filling by shouting very strong and throwing rockets everywhere.
But I guess that I can instead have 11 minute duration buff last forever.
Glad that now shapechange or a persisted transcend mortality lasts forever as long as I do not go out of the dungeon.Where do you get that? Nothing about being noisy prevents the Time Pool from filling, nor durations from expiring.
The only thing that stops the time pool from filling is rushing at a task, but duration still expires in that case.
"If the party was rushing at a task, the GM also does not add a token to the Time Pool. However, in those cases, the GM still Advances Time and all applicable duration expire."

noob
2017-06-08, 12:30 PM
Where do you get that? Nothing about being noisy prevents the Time Pool from filling, nor durations from expiring.
The only thing that stops the time pool from filling is rushing at a task, but duration still expires in that case.
"If the party was rushing at a task, the GM also does not add a token to the Time Pool. However, in those cases, the GM still Advances Time and all applicable duration expire."
Being noisy enough prevented the time pool from gaining dice in the previous version and it is no longer true in the new one.
in the new one the thing is it says

When Time Advances, any effect with 10 minutes or less remaining of its duration expires. Other durations are not effected
So an 11 minutes duration effect is not effected so it stays at 11 minutes(else he would not say "are not effected" he would say "lose duration normally")
He was speaking of the durations not being effected and not of the effects not being effected.
(it was probably a mistake but it is 100% raw)

Tanarii
2017-06-08, 01:16 PM
So an 11 minutes duration effect is not effected so it stays at 11 minutes(else he would not say "are not effected" he would say "lose duration normally")
He was speaking of the durations not being effected and not of the effects not being effected.
(it was probably a mistake but it is 100% raw)
Oh hey, you answered something I had posted about on his site!

The reason other durations (more than 10 min) are not affected is that they expire when you Clear the Time Pool. That takes care of all durations of 11 min to 1hr.
If there are already six tokens in the Time Pool when Time Advances, the GM does not add another token to the Time Pool. Instead, it means that one hour of game time has passed and it is time to Clear the Time Pool.

After all effects with 10 minutes or less remaining of their durations expires as normal for Advancing Time, any effect with an hour or less remaining of its duration expires. Any effect with a duration greater than one hour remaining has one hour subtracted from its remaining duration. Then, the GM Rolls for Complications regardless of whether any attempted actions were loud or rushed. The GM should only roll six dice and not add any for the final advancement of time that caused the Time Pool to clear. Whether a Complication occurs or not, the GM then removes all tokens from the Time Pool.

It doesn't last forever if it's 11 min or more, it lasts until you clear the Time Pool.

However, that does mean you're abstracting and rounding up 11 min or more durations to be 1 hour. I'd have to comb through the book to find how many 5e durations are that are more than 10 min, but less than 1 hr. But there aren't many. So that might be why he did that. It'd be a pretty huge effect in any edition where the durations are 10 min/level though.

noob
2017-06-08, 01:43 PM
Or a 1 min per caster level: at cl 11 it becomes super long lasting.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-06-08, 05:10 PM
If you're using it for something with more varying durations, like 3.5, you could easily say "tick off 10 minutes of duration every time Time Advances."

Nifft
2017-06-08, 05:26 PM
It seems like this system would work better if effect durations were measured in more abstract time spans.

- - -

Thinking about the Doom Pool, it seems like it ought to have some kind of effect during the next (planned or random) encounter.

In the various Cortex+ games, the pool certainly had effects -- the GM could buy villain actions or special effects for Doom dice.

So, how could that translate into D&D?

- Pay one die for a chance of having pre-cast a buff spell on one or more monsters ("they heard you and were prepared").
- Pay one die for a chance of an extra monster ("they got help").
- Pay one die for a chance of there being a trap waiting for the PCs.
- Pay one die to give the monsters advantage on Initiative.

... what else?

Talakeal
2017-06-08, 06:40 PM
So now someone takes the feat that allows to take 10 on caster level checks while in a stressful situation do you tell him "no I will still not allow tens"
Or do you ban that feat and remove one of the main power rogue gets(the ability to take ten on some skill checks in stressful situations)
I guess that at your table when the players hear you forbid tens they just add ten more points to their skills and then just always have better than a ten.
Oh unless you are one of those gms who make that each time someone receive a boost in jump the chasm gets wider right in front of their eyes(like I cast guidance of the avatar oh no the pit got 6 feet wider)?
Then when the fighter rolls for attack on a pit fiend either he miss and will never hit him unless he trains again or he hits and will never miss?

If the OP is anything like me, he is doing this to make character choices matter more, not less.

I find that taking a 20 actually takes away something from the character.

Basically, if you are allowed to take a 20, that means there is no consequence for failure and you have all the time in the world to retry. Essentially, this means that the character's skill only functions as a binary "you must be this tall to ride". If we can across a lock that is difficulty 30 to pick, that means that someone with a +10 or higher will always succeed, assuming that take 20 is an option.

This means that there is no benefit for a having a skill of +11-+infinity, you won't be any better at picking the locks than the +10 guy.

Likewise if you have a +9 you are totally useless, no better than the guy with a score of -10.

I find it much more interesting if you either roll once, so each point of skill has a chance to matter, or simply say "the lock can / can't be picked" and is a bit of dungeon dressing rather than an actual game mechanic.


Also, combat is both time sensitive and opposed, there is drama and a consequence for failure. In such a situation forbidden retries would indeed be silly, and I don't think anyone ever suggested it, but they are not the same thing.

noob
2017-06-08, 07:28 PM
Still it makes some ridiculous situations like.
I have only 3 in climb and I tried to climb a rope(dc 5) I failed so I will never succeed in climbing ropes until I become better at climbing however I can climb smooth walls since I succeeded the needed 15.
Or:
Player:I try hacking the computer.
gm:well you do not succeed in the first four rounds.
Player:can I keep trying to hack the computer? I mean if I have more than four rounds I can do better?
gm:nope it is try and fail or succeed in the first attempt we do not allow taking 20 on this table.
I mean there is tons and tons of cases where taking 20 makes sense why forbid taking 20 in absolute?(taking 20 when hacking a computer would be starting to use all the stuff you know about hacking and starting internet research about how to hack for example and failing to climb a rope while succeeding to climb smooth walls either destroy suspension of disbelief or needs serious explaining)
also it Will make people try to abuse your rules for doing the equivalent of doing a 10:
The barbarian do not want to fail at climbing the smooth wall since he knows it would mean he can not come back without fly out of the dungeon.
So he removes his belt of strength and his gloves of climbing and attempts to climb.
He does a 1 he now puts on his belt of strength so now he is better at climbing and try again.
he rolls a 2 so he try again without the belt of strength and with the gloves of climbing.
he succeeds with a 15 and thus conclude that next time he wants to climb this wall and do not want to fail he will need to wear his gloves of climbing but should avoid having his belt too since that would risk enforcing another roll which might fail.(he fears that being too strong will make it not use properly the same path as before)

Now one other thing that is silly if you do not allows taking ten and twenty: you have an equally hard time climbing a rope out of battle and in a battle where there is a giant monster throwing nuclear missiles everywhere.
In fact you will have an easier time climbing the rope in a battle: out of battle you have only one attempt and one chance on four of failing(because you had 0 in climb) and then never have again an attempt but in battle since the rule about not having retries is removed you can try again climbing the rope and have 3/4 chance of climbing the rope each time(thus allowing to be nearly sure to climb the rope if you try to do this while a 3 round battle).

Tanarii
2017-06-08, 08:35 PM
5e has an automatic success rule. It's basically the equivalent of take 20. If the task can be done, and the only consequence of failure is time, then you take ten times as long and automatically succeed.

That works well with this because you can skip pointless skill rolls, like searching a room or picking a lock, but there is still an obvious cost to doing so. Time Advances, but you succeed. If you choose to instead rush it, make an ability check instead and get a consequence roll, but don't add a counter to the Time Pool. The choice of which to do has immediate consequences a player can consider in making the choice.

I like it. I do something similar using wandering monster checks, but this makes it far more visible to the players as they go. And is more versatile / generically applied. It's a global sub-system for handling time instead of just old-style wandering monster checks and independently tracking durations.

Talakeal
2017-06-08, 09:13 PM
Still it makes some ridiculous situations like.
I have only 3 in climb and I tried to climb a rope(dc 5) I failed so I will never succeed in climbing ropes until I become better at climbing however I can climb smooth walls since I succeeded the needed 15.
Or:
Player:I try hacking the computer.
gm:well you do not succeed in the first four rounds.
Player:can I keep trying to hack the computer? I mean if I have more than four rounds I can do better?
gm:nope it is try and fail or succeed in the first attempt we do not allow taking 20 on this table.
I mean there is tons and tons of cases where taking 20 makes sense why forbid taking 20 in absolute?(taking 20 when hacking a computer would be starting to use all the stuff you know about hacking and starting internet research about how to hack for example and failing to climb a rope while succeeding to climb smooth walls either destroy suspension of disbelief or needs serious explaining)
also it Will make people try to abuse your rules for doing the equivalent of doing a 10:
The barbarian do not want to fail at climbing the smooth wall since he knows it would mean he can not come back without fly out of the dungeon.
So he removes his belt of strength and his gloves of climbing and attempts to climb.
He does a 1 he now puts on his belt of strength so now he is better at climbing and try again.
he rolls a 2 so he try again without the belt of strength and with the gloves of climbing.
he succeeds with a 15 and thus conclude that next time he wants to climb this wall and do not want to fail he will need to wear his gloves of climbing but should avoid having his belt too since that would risk enforcing another roll which might fail.(he fears that being too strong will make it not use properly the same path as before)

Now one other thing that is silly if you do not allows taking ten and twenty: you have an equally hard time climbing a rope out of battle and in a battle where there is a giant monster throwing nuclear missiles everywhere.
In fact you will have an easier time climbing the rope in a battle: out of battle you have only one attempt and one chance on four of failing(because you had 0 in climb) and then never have again an attempt but in battle since the rule about not having retries is removed you can try again climbing the rope and have 3/4 chance of climbing the rope each time(thus allowing to be nearly sure to climb the rope if you try to do this while a 3 round battle).

Keep in mind that by RAW you can only take a 20 if you aren't being opposed or threatened, have no time constrains, are allowed to retry in the first place, and there are no consequences for failure. Very few skill checks actually meet all of those criteria.

Climbing, for example, has a built in failure mechanic (falling if you fail by five or more) and thus you can't take a twenty on it anyway.


Now, I don't know about Psikerlord, but how I do it:

It isn't that you can't climb ANY rope, its that you can't climb that particular rope for whatever reason.

In the hacking example it wouldn't be "you can't succeed after four rounds and thus never" it would be "You try your based. Roll once. Based on how well you rolled that is how easy or hard a time you had doing it." Again, this is only for rolls where time isn't a factor.

The stuff with taking off your gear might work in a video game, but it won't fly with a real DM. While I would probably let someone try again if the situation changed to make it easier for them, but if you had a guy taking off his magic items in an attempt to "force me" into giving him extra rerolls I would just raise my eyebrows at him, tell him to get real, and that they are only going to get one shot at this, and that it is up to them whether or not they want to waste that one shot attempting it without their equipment.

The DM is free to modify the difficulty of a task based on circumstances, so if someone is "throwing nuclear missiles everywhere" they are going to be getting a huge circumstance penalties.

How I personally handle a situation where someone attempts an action during combat that would ordinarily take a long time is I have them roll once per round. If they get three success in a row (or succeed by more than 20) they are done with the task, but if they fail 3 times in a row they realize that the task is too hard from them and that further attempts are not going to make any progress. That's not in any way D&D RAW, but it is my house rule for how I handle such a situation.

noob
2017-06-09, 04:28 AM
Climbing, for example, has a built in failure mechanic (falling if you fail by five or more) and thus you can't take a twenty on it anyway.
You can take ten and I was speaking of this option to climb a regular rope.
You can have someone who trained for a week to climbing(one skill rank) and who have above average strength and he still have one chance on twenty to fail climbing a rope in a quiet environment just because you do not want people taking 10.


In the hacking example it wouldn't be "you can't succeed after four rounds and thus never" it would be "You try your based. Roll once. Based on how well you rolled that is how easy or hard a time you had doing it." Again, this is only for rolls where time isn't a factor.

except that skill checks always take a given time so if the rogue says "oh I have a book and 1000 lockpicking tools I want to lockpick the complex safe door" according to the rules he can take a 20 thus doing it in 20d4+20 rounds or throw one skill check and do that in 1d4+1 rounds but if he can not take 20 then it means that either he finds the right tools and the right lines to read in his book to do the check in 1d4+1 rounds or he never succeeds.
Why would lock-picking a complex door be so much different from hacking that you can not be better at it by trying more stuff and reading reference material while you can while hacking?

Also on removing the equipment and failing making you fail each time forever means that if I debuff an opponent and that he miss climbing the rope for reaching my team then that this debuff elapse he will still autofail climbing the rope toward my team and so we will have all the time we want to prepare since now that creature will never be able to climb the rope?
how is it different when debuffed and without equipment?
Can I instead consider the barbarian an opponent and debuff him so that when the debuff ends he can try again climbing the rope because I did set a precedent with monsters?

Also all my example of climbing the rope in battle was a short event : climb the 10 foot rope so all your new rules about long actions do not apply and you still get re rolls thanks to the magical boost of being in a battle.
In fact if the rope climbing check needed a 5 for you to succeed and that the battle makes you only a malus of 5 to your climbing roll and that you have three attempts you are more likely to climb so it means that all the battles must make more than 5 circumstance malus to all the skill checks(which is not indicated at all in the rules).
If you make the battles deal more than 5 malus to all checks and forbid taking ten it is close to removing 5 to all the skills permanently.

Talakeal
2017-06-09, 07:49 PM
You can take ten and I was speaking of this option to climb a regular rope.
You can have someone who trained for a week to climbing(one skill rank) and who have above average strength and he still have one chance on twenty to fail climbing a rope in a quiet environment just because you do not want people taking 10.

In this situation one should not roll the dice at all.


except that skill checks always take a given time so if the rogue says "oh I have a book and 1000 lockpicking tools I want to lockpick the complex safe door" according to the rules he can take a 20 thus doing it in 20d4+20 rounds or throw one skill check and do that in 1d4+1 rounds but if he can not take 20 then it means that either he finds the right tools and the right lines to read in his book to do the check in 1d4+1 rounds or he never succeeds.
Why would lock-picking a complex door be so much different from hacking that you can not be better at it by trying more stuff and reading reference material while you can while hacking?


Mechanically it doesn't matter. Unless you are pressed for time succeeding on your first try is exactly the same as needing to take a ton of time researching and trying every method you have at your disposal. Therefore it is a non issue.

IF you want character skill OR luck to matter than you can't allow infinite rerolls. And if you don't want luck or skill to matter, why put the obstacle in their path in the first place?


Also on removing the equipment and failing making you fail each time forever means that if I debuff an opponent and that he miss climbing the rope for reaching my team then that this debuff elapse he will still autofail climbing the rope toward my team and so we will have all the time we want to prepare since now that creature will never be able to climb the rope?
how is it different when debuffed and without equipment?
Can I instead consider the barbarian an opponent and debuff him so that when the debuff ends he can try again climbing the rope because I did set a precedent with monsters?

Again, I am not Psikerlord, but by RAW you cannot retry. I would personally let players retry if they improved, but that is generosity not obligation, and if the players were trying to exploit the system to their advantage I would simply withdraw that generosity.


Also all my example of climbing the rope in battle was a short event : climb the 10 foot rope so all your new rules about long actions do not apply and you still get re rolls thanks to the magical boost of being in a battle.
In fact if the rope climbing check needed a 5 for you to succeed and that the battle makes you only a malus of 5 to your climbing roll and that you have three attempts you are more likely to climb so it means that all the battles must make more than 5 circumstance malus to all the skill checks(which is not indicated at all in the rules).
If you make the battles deal more than 5 malus to all checks and forbid taking ten it is close to removing 5 to all the skills permanently.

I think you are misunderstanding. There is no "magic boost to being in a battle," I was merely saying that something like an attack roll has a built in penalty for failure and thus there is no reason to forbid trying it again.

Climbing is a standard action that has a penalty for failure, and so it can be retried as much as you want both in and out of battle, both by RAW and my house rules.

Now if we are talking about something like picking a lock in combat, as per my house rule you need three successes in a row, not you get three tries to succeed. It should have the same odds of success in or out of battle, but the time component matters.


I am not sure quite what you mean by the last bit, but I think comparing a numerical skill penalty to forbidding taking a 10 apples to oranges. Keep in mind that if a ten doesn't succeed forbidding taking a ten doesn't do anything. And, if you are going by RAW and keeping the difficulties secret you are actually helping the players by not letting them take a 10 when a ten would be an automatic failure, and if it is a skill that doesn't allow retries by RAW, well then by forbidding taking a 10 you are allowing them player to roll rather than auto failing forever.

Tanarii
2017-06-09, 11:00 PM
Again, I am not Psikerlord, but by RAW you cannot retry. I would personally let players retry if they improved, but that is generosity not obligation, and if the players were trying to exploit the system to their advantage I would simply withdraw that generosity.

Which edition RAW are we talking about here? 5e you can retry any task where the DM hasn't determined a failure state has occurred that prevents another check. Ie if the only consequence of failure is time. And it's worth noting that Angry wrote large chunks of this with 5e in mind. For example in responding to my questions on how duration worked, he noted durations are generally 10 min or at least an hour, which is a 5e thing. So you can attempt to pick a lock, or recall some info, of or search for something, until you succeed.

I don't recall 3e being different, but it's been a while. If I'm not misremembering, you fail to pick a lock, there's no reason you can't try again. Or attempt to start a climb again. Etc.

(If you were referring to a specific that includes failure resulting in a state change that prevents continuing, I missed it. You wrote a lot so I may have missed some context.)

D+1
2017-06-09, 11:59 PM
I can certainly think of a few downsides to the time mechanic in question.

The most obvious failing is that nothing good ever happens. Every hour BAD THINGS happen. Doesn't matter how cautious the players are, where they are, what they are doing. It only matters that they aren't doing whatever they are doing FAST ENOUGH (or that they are doing anything at all other than moving faster through the place in search of... The End of it all, I suppose. As a consequence, the mechanic dictates that a BAD THING must occur. Maybe it takes a few rolls of the dice pool for that to happen after filling it, but it WILL happen. The mechanic requires it to happen.

The supposed "dread" involved is simply dread of the INEVITABILITY of bad things happening. In a "normal" D&D game the players get to make smart decisions and devise good plans and thus prevent Bad Things, or actually cause Good Things to happen instead. They are REWARDED for taking the time to do those things. They TAKE TIME to look for traps - reward: you find and avoid the traps. They TAKE TIME to search for treasure and information/clues - reward: they find more treasure and obtain more clues and information that they can make use of. This mechanic dictates that the PC's must pay a price of a bad thing for every hour they spend doing anything of substance which takes time rather than speeding instantly along to the next... whatever. It promotes recklessness and haste that will only encourage an unwary DM to take advantage of IN ADDITION to the established endless stream of Bad Things.

This might be a good mechanic if time were the only concern. "We must retrieve the McGuffin from the bottom of the dungeon in X hours or less in order to save the city." That might be a good idea for ONE adventure - beat the ticking clock. But it ISN'T the important focus that is needed for EVERY adventure.

The author has drawn the wrong conclusion. What he describes is game circumstances creating a lack of verisimilitude - he wants the realistic thing to be the fun thing, and it just isn't and perhaps never will be. Originally D&D WAS a dungeon-exploration game and that's why it had time divided not just into 1-minute rounds, but 10-minute TURNS as well. In a TURN you can only move so far, search so much dungeon, or enjoy the benefits of so much of a spells duration. In fact, the FASTER the players tried to have their PC's move through the dungeon WITHOUT spending time on the tasks that the time pool says need to be curtailed or even eliminated, THAT was when the Bad Things would happen - undetected traps, missed opportunities for treasure, unseen or unsolved clues needed for solving puzzles or AVOIDING dangers up ahead.

Somewhere along the way that idea that INVESTING the characters time in the game in certain activities would bring more rewards was turned on its head and now time spent in-game on those tasks, dull and unexciting as they might be objectively, DID NOT bring rewards of any kind but only wasted time that was better spent on something else. What, I don't know really. More combat? More roleplaying conversations with a Giant Lynx? More planning how to mechanically optimize your PC better than the player next to you?

Once upon a time the dread of unnecessary random encounters seemed sufficient to encourage PLAYERS not to waste too much of their CHARACTER'S time, but players also didn't seem to feel it necessary to find ALL the treasure, find ALL the secret doors, uncover EVERY clue, map EVERY room and corridor. DM's didn't need a dice pool to tell them when to give the PC's a kick to get them moving again, to have their spells run out, or that their torches and lamps need to be replaced and refilled, or that they're making enough noise to attract unwanted attention. But they also seemed to know that if the players were having their PC's take the time to look for traps - they should find more traps and thus take less damage from them. If they spent time examining drawings on the wall and deciphering the strange script they'd get clues to the next adventure or a warning of the deadly contents of the room down the hall. If they moved slow enough to be quiet they could gain surprise advantages on opponents. If they searched a room thoroughly they'd find more of the well-hidden and most valuable loot and not just the EASILY found and less valuable stuff. If they took time to PLAN their actions the combats would tend to unfold more favorably for them. And yet if they moved TOO slowly the inhabitants of the dungeon would react and either come after the PC's directly; or flee - taking their loot with them; or have time to fully prepare for the PC's to break down the door and cause a more difficult and longer fight.

Talakeal
2017-06-10, 01:57 AM
Which edition RAW are we talking about here? 5e you can retry any task where the DM hasn't determined a failure state has occurred that prevents another check. Ie if the only consequence of failure is time. And it's worth noting that Angry wrote large chunks of this with 5e in mind. For example in responding to my questions on how duration worked, he noted durations are generally 10 min or at least an hour, which is a 5e thing. So you can attempt to pick a lock, or recall some info, of or search for something, until you succeed.

I don't recall 3e being different, but it's been a while. If I'm not misremembering, you fail to pick a lock, there's no reason you can't try again. Or attempt to start a climb again. Etc.

(If you were referring to a specific that includes failure resulting in a state change that prevents continuing, I missed it. You wrote a lot so I may have missed some context.)

3.5 and Pathfinder. In those editions most ability checks explicitly forbid retries.

I honestly wasn't aware 5e had rules for taking 10s or 20s, or said anything about retrying skill checks one way or another, and a quick glance at the PHB isn't revealing anything to me (and a Google search seems to imply the answer is no), but then again I am not very familiar with 5e as I can't find anyone who wants to play it for more than a single session so I might well be mistaken.


Edit: Ok, apparently the DMG says that if you are willing to take 10 times the normal amount of time, you automatically succeed at any task. So again, yeah, if time is an issue you should not be rolling a task in the first place.

Now, I personally give the dice a lot more power than Angry does; I prefer to let the dice determine whether or not something is possible and narrate the scene accordingly, but Angry feels that doing so robs the DM of a lot of his control over the world, so it makes sense that he would implement a system which maintains the ability to auto succeed at skill checks out of combat but still punishes people for wasting time, that just isn't how I like to DM as I like the surprise of the dice acting as a third party and source of creative inspiration.

TripleD
2017-06-10, 03:05 AM
Was thinking about this mechanic today and realized that, if applied to your game as a whole, could provide a nice buff to the Ranger class.

One of the Ranger's "things" is supposed to be mastery of their environment, and this is an environmental effect. Maybe you could add the ability to negate a single 1 result once per short rest when in a favoured environment? Or something to that effect.

Elysiume
2017-06-10, 03:32 AM
3.5 and Pathfinder. In those editions most ability checks explicitly forbid retries.Skill checks only forbid retries if the block explicitly says so:

Try Again: Any conditions that apply to successive attempts to use the skill successfully. If the skill doesn’t allow you to attempt the same task more than once, or if failure carries an inherent penalty (such as with the Climb skill), you can’t take 20. If this paragraph is omitted, the skill can be retried without any inherent penalty other than the additional time required.Climb (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/skills/climb.html), for example, doesn't have such a paragraph. Disable Device (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/skills/disableDevice.html) explicitly allows retrying if you failed to unlock a lock. In fact, only the following ban retries entirely or via heavy time constraints:
Appraise: Retrying always gives the same result
Diplomacy: Cannot retry on an individual within a given day
Knowledge: Can't retry a specific knowledge check
Sense Motive: Can't think back and re-sense motive on a previous bluff
Spellcraft: Can't re-identify a spell, need to wait a week if you fail to learn a spell

A lot of them have stacking penalties (failing Intimidate increases the DC by 5). Some have conditionally blocked retries (can't Disable Device again on a trap if you whiff by 5+, can't reroll Handle Animal specifically for rearing an animal). Most can be retried, in most circumstances. It's fine if you're house ruling it, but it's not RAW in Pathfinder.

Talakeal
2017-06-10, 03:53 AM
Skill checks only forbid retries if the block explicitly says so:
Climb (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/skills/climb.html), for example, doesn't have such a paragraph. Disable Device (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/skills/disableDevice.html) explicitly allows retrying if you failed to unlock a lock. In fact, only the following ban retries entirely or via heavy time constraints:
Appraise: Retrying always gives the same result
Diplomacy: Cannot retry on an individual within a given day
Knowledge: Can't retry a specific knowledge check
Sense Motive: Can't think back and re-sense motive on a previous bluff
Spellcraft: Can't re-identify a spell, need to wait a week if you fail to learn a spell

A lot of them have stacking penalties (failing Intimidate increases the DC by 5). Some have conditionally blocked retries (can't Disable Device again on a trap if you whiff by 5+, can't reroll Handle Animal specifically for rearing an animal). Most can be retried, in most circumstances. It's fine if you're house ruling it, but it's not RAW in Pathfinder.

Agree 100%, indeed I read that very section before making my post and explicitly said that climb and open locks can be retried freely by RAW several times.

My only disagreement is what "most circumstances" means.

Of the 34 listed skills in the PhB five are always no, 11 are always yes, seven are yes but with a penalty (and thus not eligeable for take 20), and eleven depend on the circumstances.

At first glance it does look like most skills can be retried, However, in my oppinion the skills that sometimes allow rerolls say no far more often than yes (for example bluff allows retries, but ONLY when feinting in combat, all other uses is a no) and about half of the always yes skills are ones which are attempted each round and retrying doesnt negate previous failures such as ride, concentration, or move silently.

Elysiume
2017-06-10, 03:59 AM
Agree 100%, indeed I read that very section before making my post and explicitly said that climb and open locks can be retried freely by RAW several times.

My only disagreement is what "most circumstances" means.

Of the 34 listed skills in the PhB five are always no, 11 are always yes, seven are yes but with a penalty (and thus not eligeable for take 20), and eleven depend on the circumstances.

At first glance it does look like most skills can be retried, However, in my oppinion the skills that sometimes allow rerolls say no far more often than yes (for example bluff allows retries, but ONLY when feinting in combat, all other uses is a no) and about half of the always yes skills are ones which are attempted each round and retrying doesnt negate previous failures such as ride, concentration, or move silently.Bluff falls into the category of stacking penalties: "Try Again: If you fail to deceive someone, further attempts to deceive them are at a –10 penalty and may be impossible (GM discretion)." Looks like we agree, and we're just falling on either side of what a GM should consider impossible for retries. I'll let the thread get back to the time mechanics. :smalltongue:

Talakeal
2017-06-10, 04:14 AM
Bluff falls into the category of stacking penalties: "Try Again: If you fail to deceive someone, further attempts to deceive them are at a –10 penalty and may be impossible (GM discretion)." Looks like we agree, and we're just falling on either side of what a GM should consider impossible for retries. I'll let the thread get back to the time mechanics. :smalltongue:

Yeah, that and I am reading from the 3.5 PHB ehole you from the PF core book which seems to be a bit more liberal with the retries.

goto124
2017-06-10, 09:11 AM
What sort of penalties should be associated with using up time? Wandering monsters makes same sense in a dungeon, with the idea being that the players must choose between passing the checks and having to waste resources on battling monsters. In an inflitration, the PCs have the possibility of getting caught by a guard if they spend too much time trying to unlock a door.

Would these sort of time-based penalities be a good way to ensure players don't resort to take 10 and take 20 for all skills, which would make skill levels useless?

Tanarii
2017-06-10, 10:15 AM
Nothing wrong with taking various automatic success rules (which vary by edition). That doesn't make improving ability scores and proficiencies useless. It just means they're important for when you're under pressure, not when you judge that you can spend some time. What this does is make players actually aware of the importance of time. It's often an ephermal thing to them, since they aren't getting tired. (Usually. They might be in a 4+ hour session. :smallwink:)

Of course, if the passage of time wasn't important in your D&D games before, you were already throwing all sorts of things out of whack, not just skill use.

Quertus
2017-06-10, 11:58 AM
What sort of penalties should be associated with using up time? Wandering monsters makes same sense in a dungeon, with the idea being that the players must choose between passing the checks and having to waste resources on battling monsters. In an inflitration, the PCs have the possibility of getting caught by a guard if they spend too much time trying to unlock a door.

Would these sort of time-based penalities be a good way to ensure players don't resort to take 10 and take 20 for all skills, which would make skill levels useless?

Growing old and dying? :smalltongue:

Taking 20, skill ranks still matter. Yes, it's more of a pass / fail situation. But it's actually, I can't yet, or I need more of an advantage. It turns skill checks from a roll, at the whim of RNG, to either a quick pass, or a minigame. I can't move the boulder... How about with rope? And a pulley? And grease? Ok, now I can move it.

Telok
2017-06-10, 12:21 PM
I can certainly think of a few downsides to the time mechanic in question.

The most obvious failing is that nothing good ever happens. Every hour BAD THINGS happen. Doesn't matter how cautious the players are, where they are, what they are doing. It only matters that they aren't doing whatever they are doing FAST ENOUGH (or that they are doing anything at all other than moving faster through the place in search of... The End of it all, I suppose. As a consequence, the mechanic dictates that a BAD THING must occur. Maybe it takes a few rolls of the dice pool for that to happen after filling it, but it WILL happen. The mechanic requires it to happen.

From having skimmed the article I got an impression that this was more of a random encounter pacing mechanic with the option of being used as an adventure timing tool. As a timing tool for things like a dungeon filling with water it's fine, that's not what you're talking about. You're concerned that the random encounters are always punishments.

That isn't a concern with the time mechanics it's a concern with your view of random encounters. If random encounters are always hostile monsters that initiate resource draining fights with no rewards... Yeah, then the time mechanic is always a countdown to a bad thing (pointless and dull combat). If you have random encounter tables that go beyond just having monster attacks then it's not an automatic punishment.

That said the entire mechanic is meant to penalize people for spending too much time on things that slow down play. Searching for traps/secret door everywhere and resting up after every little scuffle slows things down and changes the game away from adventuring.

Quertus
2017-06-10, 03:25 PM
From having skimmed the article I got an impression that this was more of a random encounter pacing mechanic with the option of being used as an adventure timing tool. As a timing tool for things like a dungeon filling with water it's fine, that's not what you're talking about. You're concerned that the random encounters are always punishments.

That isn't a concern with the time mechanics it's a concern with your view of random encounters. If random encounters are always hostile monsters that initiate resource draining fights with no rewards... Yeah, then the time mechanic is always a countdown to a bad thing (pointless and dull combat). If you have random encounter tables that go beyond just having monster attacks then it's not an automatic punishment.

That said the entire mechanic is meant to penalize people for spending too much time on things that slow down play. Searching for traps/secret door everywhere and resting up after every little scuffle slows things down and changes the game away from adventuring.

Slow down play? Back in my day, that was play! We didn't have character skills to roll against set DCs, we had to rely on the "exacting details" minigame to pass this hurdle. You kids and your "Take a 20 on a Search check" don't realize how good you've got it. That's positively the lightning munchkinry power leveling counterpart to ye olde grognard search routine.

And, in the end, searching now makes solving the puzzle / understanding the adventure later so much easier, that it's really the people who blow through without paying attention to the details that need to be punished for slowing down play and otherwise hurting the gaming experience, IME.

Mendicant
2017-06-10, 03:44 PM
I really like this as a rough outline. It incentivises risk-taking and makes more of their decisions interesting choices.

It's definitely geared towards inevitabilites like a steadily filling tidal cave. You could make it more flexible and widely applicable by adding a way for PCs to clear the time pool without anything bad happening. For instance, if you catch and neutralize the sentry who got away, the "patrol" and "strike team" entries on the random encounter table get removed: when rolled, nothing happens.

Telok
2017-06-10, 06:14 PM
And, in the end, searching now makes solving the puzzle / understanding the adventure later so much easier, that it's really the people who blow through without paying attention to the details that need to be punished for slowing down play and otherwise hurting the gaming experience, IME.
I don't understand what you're getting at. I was replying to someone and what you're saying doesn't seem to be connected to that. Could you re-read and explain?

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-11, 03:08 AM
To the concern that the system punishes players for taking their time, I'd argue they're not bein actively punished so much as having to face natural consequences that should have been there all along. Pausing to thoroughly search a room isn't "bad adventuring", and neither is rushing through the dungeon trying to beat the clock. Both are valid approaches that always should have had consequences, and with this system they do. Not saying it's perfect, but it does seem to mean the players are constantly making choices and balancing thoroughness/prudence against speed, and they can SEE the time they are using up as it accumulates. The effect of all this is that the various elements of dungeon exploration OTHER than combat become real gameplay elements.

I also don't think it punishes them to the point that it's annoying. I've run one session - a self-contained one shot dungeon adventure - with this system, and as I mentioned I was surprised by how few Complications there were. At least one an hour is pretty close to guaranteed. Our session lasted pretty much exactly one in-game hour as far as Angry's system was concerned and they just had the one encounter when I cleared the dice pool. I think I only rolled the dice once before then - because while the pool is building up they can avoid triggering dice rolls by not making noise or drawing attention to themselves. Again, they're making choices about this stuff now where they weren't before.

Pugwampy
2017-06-11, 07:13 AM
For me , I usually roll a d4 if players ask how much time has past .

Tanarii
2017-06-11, 10:34 AM
It seems like it needs a tie in for combat. That's definitely a loud, careless action on the part of adventurers. Much more so than almost anything else they can do. I have combat immediately cause a wandering monster check, even if it's out of normal time.

If I adopt this, I'll probably have combat Advance Time loudly, unless the players indicate they're rushing to another expected combat before time on short duration (10 min) spells expire. In which case I'll add one complication roll ON TOP of the the one for Advancing Time loudly after the second combat.

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-11, 11:35 AM
It seems like it needs a tie in for combat. That's definitely a loud, careless action on the part of adventurers. Much more so than almost anything else they can do. I have combat immediately cause a wandering monster check, even if it's out of normal time.

If I adopt this, I'll probably have combat Advance Time loudly, unless the players indicate they're rushing to another expected combat before time on short duration (10 min) spells expire. In which case I'll add one complication roll ON TOP of the the one for Advancing Time loudly after the second combat.

That makes sense. For me it's one step too far into simulationist territory, I think. The reason I'm so on board with Angry's whole "modes of play" idea is that it can provide gameplay elements to areas of the game that don't currently have many. Having these areas or modes of play mix or interact with each other adds another level of complexity that's not necessarily, erm, necessary - for the apparent goals of the system.

Tanarii
2017-06-11, 11:55 AM
That makes sense. For me it's one step too far into simulationist territory, I think. The reason I'm so on board with Angry's whole "modes of play" idea is that it can provide gameplay elements to areas of the game that don't currently have many. Having these areas or modes of play mix or interact with each other adds another level of complexity that's not necessarily, erm, necessary - for the apparent goals of the system.
Eh, there's certain levels of simulation I want in a combat as war campaign. And one of them is that if you start a fight in a busy / dangerous area, it's possible to bring down the entire local area on your head. So pick your goals & methods, and combats, wisely.

For example, one thing I keep in mind when designing the set piece encounters of an adventure area is the likelihood of drawing nearby areas attention. Although I did recently have to adjust after several threads on the possible volume levels of combat, and resulting research into decibel levels, some roughy napkin calculations show a reasonable 'audible' range is somewhere around 90ft, assuming some yelling and loud clashing as loud as a lawnmower. Around 30 ft if it's pretty quiet, ie washing machine volume. (Edit: that's much less than I had previously assumed. Also note those distances are where the noise is the equivalent of a creature next to you talking. It can be heard as a whisper at twice that range or more.)

But that's still got to be louder than almost any 'loud/careless' action under this system. In other words, if you're already making a mechanical consequence tied to the action loudness/carelessness, it's already a simulation, and you now have an inconsistent simulation system if it doesn't also apply to combat.

Rabidmuskrat
2017-06-11, 12:45 PM
Tried it out today. Works great even without the combat integration. Honestly, combat does the same thing, just seperately. You know there is going to be combat, so you already checked to see if its going to draw attention when you set up the encounter. No need to check twice.

As for random encounters, if it makes sense that two different entities are going to hang around THAT close to one another, sure, but usually the fact that you found something or encountered something is because you ran into THE thing in the immediate area. Otherwise they would have ran into each other and you would not have had a random encounter, but found two random things duking it out. This even works for guard patrols or such, as they tend to be spread out a bit to cover more area (no point putting two guard patrols right next to each other, that might as well be a single patrol).

Quertus
2017-06-11, 03:29 PM
Eh, there's certain levels of simulation I want in a combat as war campaign. And one of them is that if you start a fight in a busy / dangerous area, it's possible to bring down the entire local area on your head. So pick your goals & methods, and combats, wisely.

Yeah, if combat were called out as, "add 5 dice to the pool, then roll the pool", or were otherwise worse than spending an hour quietly searching an out-of-the-way room (complete with posting a guard, etc), then I might start to consider the system acceptable.

But it just breaks my suspension of disbelief hard as it stands.

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-11, 05:30 PM
Eh, there's certain levels of simulation I want in a combat as war campaign. And one of them is that if you start a fight in a busy / dangerous area, it's possible to bring down the entire local area on your head. So pick your goals & methods, and combats, wisely.

For example, one thing I keep in mind when designing the set piece encounters of an adventure area is the likelihood of drawing nearby areas attention. Although I did recently have to adjust after several threads on the possible volume levels of combat, and resulting research into decibel levels, some roughy napkin calculations show a reasonable 'audible' range is somewhere around 90ft, assuming some yelling and loud clashing as loud as a lawnmower. Around 30 ft if it's pretty quiet, ie washing machine volume. (Edit: that's much less than I had previously assumed. Also note those distances are where the noise is the equivalent of a creature next to you talking. It can be heard as a whisper at twice that range or more.)

But that's still got to be louder than almost any 'loud/careless' action under this system. In other words, if you're already making a mechanical consequence tied to the action loudness/carelessness, it's already a simulation, and you now have an inconsistent simulation system if it doesn't also apply to combat.

Well the entire game is a simulation in the sense that it simulates something, in the same sense that Monopoly simulates the cut-throat world of the London property market. But it doesn't have to simulate it perfectly because D&D is, like Monopoly, a game first and foremost. Now I accept that different people have different tolerances for suspension of disbelief, and that's fine. It's fine if you want to houserule that a sling does 4d8 damage if you're proficient with it because the fact is a sling was a pretty ****ing deadly weapon in the right hands. But in that case a heavy crossbow should be doing about 8d10 damage and in that case game balance is out the window. And if you really care so much about decibel levels and whether someone down the hall hears the players killing a goblin then make all the corridors 300 feet long. That is to say, design your scenario around the game mechanics instead of twisting the game mechanics to fit the scenario. Alternatively, allow for a certain level of abstraction and suspension of disbelief. It seems to me that if you can get such rich and enjoyable gameplay out of it then it's worth the loss of realism - unless you actually don't consider D&D to be a game first and foremost, in which case crack on.

Quertus
2017-06-11, 09:28 PM
Well the entire game is a simulation in the sense that it simulates something, in the same sense that Monopoly simulates the cut-throat world of the London property market. But it doesn't have to simulate it perfectly because D&D is, like Monopoly, a game first and foremost. Now I accept that different people have different tolerances for suspension of disbelief, and that's fine. It's fine if you want to houserule that a sling does 4d8 damage if you're proficient with it because the fact is a sling was a pretty ****ing deadly weapon in the right hands. But in that case a heavy crossbow should be doing about 8d10 damage and in that case game balance is out the window. And if you really care so much about decibel levels and whether someone down the hall hears the players killing a goblin then make all the corridors 300 feet long. That is to say, design your scenario around the game mechanics instead of twisting the game mechanics to fit the scenario. Alternatively, allow for a certain level of abstraction and suspension of disbelief. It seems to me that if you can get such rich and enjoyable gameplay out of it then it's worth the loss of realism - unless you actually don't consider D&D to be a game first and foremost, in which case crack on.

It is difficult, for me, to, you know, roleplay my character, as this is a role-playing game, if the rules are in opposition to all sense, as I understand it. As such, I cannot condone the creation of nonsense rules. Why force the game to condone to nonsense, when sense is an obviously superior alternative?

Tanarii
2017-06-11, 10:40 PM
And if you really care so much about decibel levels and whether someone down the hall hears the players killing a goblinI don't really. It was something I dug into after several threads about thunderwave and hearing combat, because I got curious. That's when I found my assumption was probably too generous. It stuck because in my current campaign, it matters. (Btw Knock and Thunderwave in 5e specify they are audible to 300 ft.)


then make all the corridors 300 feet long. That is to say, design your scenario around the game mechanics instead of twisting the game mechanics to fit the scenario. Why would I do that? I *want* a combat to draw 'nearby' creatures, often reinforcements, in many locales. It's not so much about verisimilitude, as adding another tactical challenge aspect for the players to consider in an explicitly Combat as War campaign.

In fact, the entire underlying concept of Time mattering does that, which is why I like this system so much.


Alternatively, allow for a certain level of abstraction and suspension of disbelief. It seems to me that if you can get such rich and enjoyable gameplay out of it then it's worth the loss of realism - unless you actually don't consider D&D to be a game first and foremost, in which case crack on.
Eh. I'll get more rich and more enjoyable gameplay in my current campaign out of intergrating 'combat' as a loud action into this system. And I'm definitely going to try it out in a few Tier 1 sessions, to see if I want to make it global for all my sessions. Given that players already know combat risks alerting nearby enemies, including wandering monsters, it wouldn't be a significant change. (To be clear, I'm not saying everyone should integrate combat. I'm saying I want it integrated if I use the system in my current campaign.)

In fact, the entire system would primarily be integrating wandering monster checks (already have) with random events (new) and tracking logicistical durations for spells/light/supplies. I already do the latter, but it's a pain in the ass sometimes to figure out how long has passed. This would make it quicker. And note I'd be happily abstracting it more by using this system. :smallwink:

goto124
2017-06-12, 01:40 AM
Sound levels and the possibility of drawing reinforcements in the middle of combat just by the sounds of a battle... I'm not sure how old or new this is, but it's a mechanic I have never seen before.

Psyren
2017-06-12, 01:49 AM
I like this idea.



Ok, you've got a point - it's not as inherently horrible as I had read it to be. However, it's still "get bit by a random snake", or an earthquake, or other misfortunes roughly 18 times per day in the safest of forests. And heaven forbid you try to search said forest, because your added attention to detail will net you at least twice as many mishaps per day, and far more per journey.

You're vastly missing the point. Notice how some of his "Bad Things" can be things the player never even sees? Like "The dragon is waking up" or "the cultists complete ritual step X of Y?"

The point is the feeling of dread, which is caused by one thing and one thing only - the dice pool being visible, so that the players think there is a consequence to dallying. Even if there isn't one. You can max out the dice pool, roll it, and then if there's at least one 1, scribble something in your notes and deduct that die from the pool. Anything, doesn't matter. Write down your grocery list if you want. You don't have to keep coming up with endless encounters and annoyances to plague the forest. Just the fact that you're rolling and writing things down is going to cause the players to start feeling doubt, second-guessing themselves, and actually be careful about where they choose to spend their time. Just like their characters would in-universe. That is roleplaying.

This reminds me of the Telltale adventure game series, where you make a conversation choice when talking to X and the game tells you "X will remember that." They do this in many different conversations, including several that don't end up mattering one bit. The key is that you have no way of knowing (without cheating or replaying the game) which ones truly matter and which ones don't. The end result is that you're always careful about which choices you make, instead of the standard "roleplaying game" dialogue tree where you blithely hit every single dialogue button in sequence to be sure you didn't miss any content - which in this analogy, is identical to taking 20 on every stretch of wall and every stick of furniture. In other words, exactly the kind of behavior he's trying to curtail.

Pugwampy
2017-06-12, 07:02 AM
Time is a relative concept . The Dm can judge as he likes as far as i am concerned .

Tanarii
2017-06-12, 09:14 AM
Just the fact that you're rolling and writing things down is going to cause the players to start feeling doubt, second-guessing themselves, and actually be careful about where they choose to spend their time. Just like their characters would in-universe. That is roleplaying.
Technically roleplaying is making decisions for your character, and they were already doing that. But this is introducing a VISIBLE way to see time, and thereby incite meaningful and interesting decisions based on time. Decisions the player should have always been making. But they usually don't, because the DM either doesn't track time in a meaningful way at all, or only tracks it in their head.

I mean, I use wandering monster rolls, and the players know exactly what causes me to roll them, and I do it in the middle of the table and they can all see the result of the roll. So they get tense each time I roll it, and are aware time has passed. But this is even better, because it immediately associates 'time has passed' with the actions as they are taken.

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-12, 04:11 PM
I don't really. It was something I dug into after several threads about thunderwave and hearing combat, because I got curious. That's when I found my assumption was probably too generous. It stuck because in my current campaign, it matters. (Btw Knock and Thunderwave in 5e specify they are audible to 300 ft.)

Why would I do that? I *want* a combat to draw 'nearby' creatures, often reinforcements, in many locales. It's not so much about verisimilitude, as adding another tactical challenge aspect for the players to consider in an explicitly Combat as War campaign.

In fact, the entire underlying concept of Time mattering does that, which is why I like this system so much.


Eh. I'll get more rich and more enjoyable gameplay in my current campaign out of intergrating 'combat' as a loud action into this system. And I'm definitely going to try it out in a few Tier 1 sessions, to see if I want to make it global for all my sessions. Given that players already know combat risks alerting nearby enemies, including wandering monsters, it wouldn't be a significant change. (To be clear, I'm not saying everyone should integrate combat. I'm saying I want it integrated if I use the system in my current campaign.)

In fact, the entire system would primarily be integrating wandering monster checks (already have) with random events (new) and tracking logicistical durations for spells/light/supplies. I already do the latter, but it's a pain in the ass sometimes to figure out how long has passed. This would make it quicker. And note I'd be happily abstracting it more by using this system. :smallwink:

Fair enough. It's a good sign if the system can be adapted easily to different types of game with different goals.

Psyren
2017-06-12, 05:30 PM
Technically roleplaying is making decisions for your character, and they were already doing that. But this is introducing a VISIBLE way to see time, and thereby incite meaningful and interesting decisions based on time. Decisions the player should have always been making. But they usually don't, because the DM either doesn't track time in a meaningful way at all, or only tracks it in their head.

I mean, I use wandering monster rolls, and the players know exactly what causes me to roll them, and I do it in the middle of the table and they can all see the result of the roll. So they get tense each time I roll it, and are aware time has passed. But this is even better, because it immediately associates 'time has passed' with the actions as they are taken.

I don't think we disagree.

Wandering monsters don't do as much as this does though. If a monster shows up, at best you lose a minute of time, and with monsters come rewards too. That's a far cry from "the cultists are X of Y successes closer to winning the game and the players losing." (Even if you don't actually have any plans of going through with that.)

Tanarii
2017-06-12, 06:50 PM
I don't think we disagree.Sorry, no, we don't. I was agreeing that the value lies in affecting player decision making, albeit something that should have already been affecting it, and it does so by making it more visible, thus entering their awareness better than it did before.


Wandering monsters don't do as much as this does though. If a monster shows up, at best you lose a minute of time, and with monsters come rewards too. That's a far cry from "the cultists are X of Y successes closer to winning the game and the players losing." (Even if you don't actually have any plans of going through with that.)If wandering monsters are giving rewards, they're not doing their job right. For starters, they should give no, or massively reduced, XP in comparison to overcoming a set-piece encounter and/or XP for gold in hoards.

But yes, I also agree that this system is superior to wandering monsters alone in regards to affecting player decision making in regards to the passage of time.

Kane0
2017-06-12, 07:02 PM
Neat, Imma try it out.

Does anyone have a link or list of potential complications handy by any chance?

Psyren
2017-06-12, 09:39 PM
Sorry, no, we don't. I was agreeing that the value lies in affecting player decision making, albeit something that should have already been affecting it, and it does so by making it more visible, thus entering their awareness better than it did before.

Yep.



If wandering monsters are giving rewards, they're not doing their job right. For starters, they should give no, or massively reduced, XP in comparison to overcoming a set-piece encounter and/or XP for gold in hoards.

Even if you curtail the extrinsic rewards though, combat is inherently rewarding. It's fun, that's why the game is built around it (or vice-versa.) And so bored players will go right back to searching under every rock and behind every tapestry - even if they fail to find the plot, the worst case scenario is that beasties spawn to break up the monotony and they get to use all their characters' cool abilities. Not to mention that, if you throw something challenging at them (or several challenging things) and then declare "No XP!", you're going to breed resentment pretty quickly.



But yes, I also agree that this system is superior to wandering monsters alone in regards to affecting player decision making in regards to the passage of time.

Yep.

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-13, 02:53 AM
Yep.



Even if you curtail the extrinsic rewards though, combat is inherently rewarding. It's fun, that's why the game is built around it (or vice-versa.) And so bored players will go right back to searching under every rock and behind every tapestry - even if they fail to find the plot, the worst case scenario is that beasties spawn to break up the monotony and they get to use all their characters' cool abilities. Not to mention that, if you throw something challenging at them (or several challenging things) and then declare "No XP!", you're going to breed resentment pretty quickly.



Yep.

I would have thought that would be the case but actually the time pool seemed to change the dynamic of the in-between-combat exploration sections to the point where they simply weren't monotonous. Just knowing that something bad could happen because of their choices turns the exploration sections into gameplay. Yeah the combat is still fun but they also know that every lost hit point could have been neatly avoided. It's early days, I've only done one session with the system, but so far I think it's working as intended.

Psyren
2017-06-13, 06:27 AM
I would have thought that would be the case but actually the time pool seemed to change the dynamic of the in-between-combat exploration sections to the point where they simply weren't monotonous. Just knowing that something bad could happen because of their choices turns the exploration sections into gameplay. Yeah the combat is still fun but they also know that every lost hit point could have been neatly avoided. It's early days, I've only done one session with the system, but so far I think it's working as intended.

I know that the time pool does that. I was speaking specifically to Tanarii who said that just rolling for wandering monsters has the same effect; I was saying that it doesn't, that the time pool's wider array of "bad stuff" performs this function much better.

Tanarii
2017-06-13, 09:52 AM
I know that the time pool does that. I was speaking specifically to Tanarii who said that just rolling for wandering monsters has the same effect; I was saying that it doesn't, that the time pool's wider array of "bad stuff" performs this function much better.
Not really. Players know that wandering monsters are a waste of resources, and combat risks death.

I mean, players on their first character might think 'woo hoo combat, now the FUN begins'. But smart players who are trying to keep their third of fourth character alive long enough to make it up to Tier 2 don't. They want to stay alive long enough to get the treasure back out of the adventure site, or accomplish whatever else the goal is with surgical precision and get out. Not mess around risking their lives for no good reason.

If you're handing out significant XP and Treasure for wandering monsters, and making fighting combat a sport - sure. I can see your players looking forward to it. If you're making it a challenge to be faced only when necessary, and to be avoided if at all possible ... a disaster when it happens - then no. Your players won't mess around until wandering monsters pop up.

heavyfuel
2017-06-13, 09:53 AM
After reading through the 5000+ words, I can't help but to think that the "dread" created by the time pool will go away in about 2 sessions.

Here's how I imagine it playing out:

DM: Ok, the pool is full, time to roll!
*Players anticipate with dread*
*DM rolls (out in the open, I assume) and they get a 1*
DM: Oh, we got a 1. So, Pete, your lantern runs out of oil!
Pete: That's it? Ok, I get more oil from my haversack, I have like, 10 more litres of it

*More dice are added to the pool as time passes*

DM: Ok, since you decided to cast a non-silent fireball, the noise from your verbal component and the fireball explosion drew a lot of attention as the sound echoes through the dungeon, so we have to roll the pool.
*Players still dread a little bit, maybe last time they just got lucky*
*DM rolls out in the open and, again, they get a 1*
DM: Another 1! Guess this means you now have to face a group of 8 CR1/3 goblins! (remember he said the encounters should be easy)
Players: Really? You DO know are like, level 6 and these represent no threat to us whatsoever, right?

And they will never, ever dread the time pool ever again. The problems it presents are too easily solvable, and as soon as the players understand that - something that will not take longer than 2 sessions - the purpose of it is defeated.

Sure, you still have a neat to keep track of time, but now you're just wasting everyone's time with problems that will either be solved with line from a character or with 2 rounds of combat.

I guess this is a little worse for caster that might have 10 min/level spells active as now they know when the spells will run out, but still it seems so completely pointless. Or maybe I'm missing the point.

Tanarii
2017-06-13, 10:09 AM
*
*DM rolls (out in the open, I assume) and they get a 1*
DM: Oh, we got a 1. So, Pete, your lantern runs out of oil!Lanterns run out of oil as a part of Time Advancing and Clearing the Pool. They already have durations associated. (Or do you not do logistical resource tracking?)


Players: Really? You DO know are like, level 6 and these represent no threat to us whatsoever, right?
Easy encounters are supposed to represent little threat individually. It's the combined weight of them on top of all the other encounters that makes them dangers. If your players aren't still 'dreading' them because they're only looking at them individually, then that's on them. Or it's on you, if you don't have balanced adventuring days.


Sure, you still have a neat to keep track of time, but now you're just wasting everyone's time with problems that will either be solved with line from a character or with 2 rounds of combat.

I guess this is a little worse for caster that might have 10 min/level spells active as now they know when the spells will run out, but still it seems so completely pointless. Or maybe I'm missing the point.How often do you play D&D as Combat as Sport? I'm guessing quite a lot. In that case, yeah, this system isn't going to do you much good.

heavyfuel
2017-06-13, 10:38 AM
Lanterns run out of oil as a part of Time Advancing and Clearing the Pool. They already have durations associated. (Or do you not do logistical resource tracking?)


Fair enough, I misread as this being one of the things that happened on a 1 after rolling. But, tracking every players every resource? No I don't do that. But then again, who does?

Do you count every non-special arrow your ranger has? This just creates an annoying situation that now he has to get an eraser and remove 3GP from his treasure every time he goes into town to restock any of 500 arrows he may have used during combat. Don't think he has 500 arrows? Past level 5 they should extra dimensional space and this problem becomes trivial and before that they only weigh 75lbs. Same goes for oil, and other mundane resources. Keeping track of those is as efficient as keeping track of spell components.

Isn't it just so much easier to assume that as soon as the lantern oil starts running low they just fill it back up? I mean, this type of thing should be obvious, but apparently, it isn't and you need to tell it to your players and waste everyone's time with trivial stuff.



Easy encounters are supposed to represent little threat individually. It's the combined weight of them on top of all the other encounters that makes them dangers. If your players aren't still 'dreading' them because they're only looking at them individually, then that's on them. Or it's on you, if you don't have balanced adventuring days.


Except these encounter might cost them, what, one charge from their wand of lesses vigor? Maybe two? These things aren't a problem for adventurers. Spell slots might be a bigger problem, but will the wizard even bother to cast a spell on goblins? I'd probably get my light cross bow and go to town, with +3 BAB and +2 Dex, the wizard has a pretty good chance of killing one of them.


How often do you play D&D as Combat as Sport? I'm guessing quite a lot. In that case, yeah, this system isn't going to do you much good.

I really don't understand what you meant by that. Can you elaborate?

Tanarii
2017-06-13, 10:58 AM
But, tracking every players every resource? No I don't do that. But then again, who does?Lots of people. Especially common for people that play Combat as war.


Do you count every non-special arrow your ranger has?Yes, when I'm running that style of campaign. As I am now.


Past level 5 they should extra dimensional space and this problem becomes trivial and before that they only weigh 75lbs. Same goes for oil, and other mundane resources. Keeping track of those is as efficient as keeping track of spell components.Yes, extra dimension capacity helps with mundane resources. And encumbrance as a whole, for that matter.

And I've tracked components when the edition required it and that was the style of game we wanted. (5e doesn't, btw.) I've also ignored it when it wasn't. I've also ignored time when it didn't matter to the style we wanted. I'm just aware that:
1) It's a playstyle choice to do so.
2) If I'm ignoring something the game assumes is part of it, I'm changing the play experience. Often dramatically.


Isn't it just so much easier to assume that as soon as the lantern oil starts running low they just fill it back up? I mean, this type of thing should be obvious, but apparently, it isn't and you need to tell it to your players and waste everyone's time with trivial stuff.Yes. That's the point. it's easier. We don't want it easier. We want more challenging. And we don't consider it a waste of time or trivial, otherwise we wouldn't do it. The fun comes from it being part of the tactical challenge of the game that needs to be accounted for and dealt with. Just as time can be a part of the tactical (or strategic) challenge of the game that needs to be accounted for and dealt with.

The reason you're not seeing the point is you clearly don't see where the fun is in that playstyle. Fair enough. But your attitude that it's a waste of time or trivial isn't fair enough. Because those aren't facts. They're just your personal perception.


I really don't understand what you meant by that. Can you elaborate?
Ah. This explains everything.
Here, try reading these, then you might understand why this is important to some people. Even if you don't personally like it, because you've only played the other way previously. I'm so used to cribbing the shorthand 'Combat as War' vs 'Combat as Sport' at this point that I forget not everyone is up on commonly used terminology.
(short version) http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-combat-as-sport-versus-combat-as-war.html
(original post) http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles

Note that not every game is purely Combat-as-War or Combat-as-Sport. Most are somewhere in between. I ran over a decade of Combat-as-Sport games from AD&D 2e Combat & Tactics through D&D 4e, getting into more extreme versions of it as time passed. I've discovered that D&D 5e run with the Theatre of the Mind style is very suited for running a grognard-y Combat-as-War style, especially if you start strict logistical tracking. The 'adventuring day' thing is a little more difficult to handle, given that a core assumption of strict CaW is that players won't necessarily face balanced encounters, but rather ones on them. So far the best way I've found the best way to police the 'adventuring day' and prevent a 5 min workday is to provide a sandbox with zones that are for a small level range (aka dungeons), with time driven goals and wandering monsters.

That's why I'm so interested in this system. It's incredibly useful for a strict CaW style of game play under those circumstances and with this edition.

Edit: (Rephrasing, because Angry isn't a CaW guy specifically, and would probably object to the terminology as meaningless. )
A:smallwink:ngry obviously thinks time, and wandering monsters, and random events, are important. He's designing a megadungeon right now, so he is fully aware of the potential 5e issues with Wandering Monsters, Time, and Resting. This system is designed to integrate with that project.

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-13, 11:04 AM
I know that the time pool does that. I was speaking specifically to Tanarii who said that just rolling for wandering monsters has the same effect; I was saying that it doesn't, that the time pool's wider array of "bad stuff" performs this function much better.

Ah, sorry, didn't read your post properly. Yeah I definitely think the time pool has an advantage over standard random encounter rolls for this reason. It's all about putting some crunch into the non-combat areas of the game.


Fair enough, I misread as this being one of the things that happened on a 1 after rolling. But, tracking every players every resource? No I don't do that. But then again, who does?

Do you count every non-special arrow your ranger has? This just creates an annoying situation that now he has to get an eraser and remove 3GP from his treasure every time he goes into town to restock any of 500 arrows he may have used during combat. Don't think he has 500 arrows? Past level 5 they should extra dimensional space and this problem becomes trivial and before that they only weigh 75lbs. Same goes for oil, and other mundane resources. Keeping track of those is as efficient as keeping track of spell components.

Isn't it just so much easier to assume that as soon as the lantern oil starts running low they just fill it back up? I mean, this type of thing should be obvious, but apparently, it isn't and you need to tell it to your players and waste everyone's time with trivial stuff.



Except these encounter might cost them, what, one charge from their wand of lesses vigor? Maybe two? These things aren't a problem for adventurers. Spell slots might be a bigger problem, but will the wizard even bother to cast a spell on goblins? I'd probably get my light cross bow and go to town, with +3 BAB and +2 Dex, the wizard has a pretty good chance of killing one of them.



I really don't understand what you meant by that. Can you elaborate?

I think the reason a lot of groups don't bother with logistical tracking is because it's not worth the effort if you're playing the game the usual way. But the reason we play it that usual way is because the mechanics to make any other play style compelling simply aren't there. We don't bother with checks to search rooms or pick locks because failing at such a check has no mechanical result 95% of the time. That's exactly what the time pool system addresses. I still don't think it would get me to track arrows but light sources, at least at early levels? Sure. I'd abstractify lantern oil and torches and tell players they can only carry x minutes' worth of them at a time (I don't honestly care about the realism concerns of having an arbitrary limit on how much oil you can carry, not if it results in compelling gameplay).

Resource tracking is a secondary mechanic to complications though, as I see it. Yes, complications could be nuisance encounters - that is, encounters that are not hard enough to threaten death but are hard enough to drain the party's combat resources somewhat. If goblins were too easy for a sixth-level party then I'd use slightly harder enemies. But you can equally find other cool and interesting ways to slightly mess up the PCs' day. As the article explains, it's a chance to be imaginative with the environment and even to make the narrative come to life. After a bit of practice with the system I would quite happily give the PCs a hard time limit after which they fail the mission if they haven't done what they set out to do.

All of this can be done without a specific system for it - but to do it in a way that's compelling and transparent enough to the players that they can properly engage with it is quite difficult in my experience, especially when you have limited time to plan sessions.

heavyfuel
2017-06-13, 12:21 PM
Ah. This explains everything.
Here, try reading these, then you might understand why this is important to some people. Even if you don't personally like it, because you've only played the other way previously. I'm so used to cribbing the shorthand 'Combat as War' vs 'Combat as Sport' at this point that I forget not everyone is up on commonly used terminology.
(short version) http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-combat-as-sport-versus-combat-as-war.html
(original post) http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles



So, I read the long version, and it struck me as a very controversial. Let me quote from it




This was really driven home by one comment from a Combat as Sport partisan talking about how ridiculous and comedic it would be PCs to smuggle in all kinds of stuff in a bag of holding so they could use cheap tactics like “Sneak attack with a ballista!” However, sneak attacking with a ballista is exactly what happens in Chapter Forty-Eight of Shadows Linger (the second Black Company book) and the Combat as War side think that’s exactly the sort of thing that D&D should be all about.

[...] Things like tracking rations, torch usage, rolling for wandering monsters, etc. are important for this kind of gameplay since they make time a scarce resource, which is vital for strategic and logistical gameplay



So, I get to carry a ballista in my bag of holdings, but I don't get to carry enough ration and oil to last me 30 days?

How does that make any sense?

If any DM ever makes these mundane resources a problem, the absolute first thing I'll do as soon as reach any civilization (and I'm not above stopping in the middle of a dungeon and going back to a city just to do this) is buy some extra dimensional space and fill it to the brim with stuff like quivers, oil and food. I'll get an item of 3/day Create Water, and these things will never be a problem ever again.

Past the very low levels, when these things aren't available (and if they aren't, neither are ballistas inside bag of holdings), these things CAN never be a problem.



Yes. That's the point. it's easier. We don't want it easier. We want more challenging. And we don't consider it a waste of time or trivial, otherwise we wouldn't do it. The fun comes from it being part of the tactical challenge of the game that needs to be accounted for and dealt with. Just as time can be a part of the tactical (or strategic) challenge of the game that needs to be accounted for and dealt with.

The reason you're not seeing the point is you clearly don't see where the fun is in that playstyle. Fair enough. But your attitude that it's a waste of time or trivial isn't fair enough. Because those aren't facts. They're just your personal perception.

When I said that's easier to handwave this, I meant that any player with half the correct wealth by level and half a brain will simply reply to "You're running out of food" with "Ok, I get more food from my nigh unlimited stock"

I fail to see how an obvious statement replied with the most obvious of answer isn't a waste of time.

I'm not saying strategy isn't important, and my games often require the PCs to not choose a full frontal assault. But if I ever make them count how many pints of oil the have, they'll rightfully roll their eyes and go to a city to buy 50 of them. Then one of them will say "Ok, every time we enter a city after going to a dungeon, I'll subtract 3 GP from my treasure and we now always have 50 flasks of oil because screw you, Heavyfuel, for making us do this"



I I'd abstractify lantern oil and torches and tell players they can only carry x minutes' worth of them at a time (I don't honestly care about the realism concerns of having an arbitrary limit on how much oil you can carry, not if it results in compelling gameplay).

So the half-orc barbarian with a Str score up his wazoo can't get himself an extra bag with oil and arrows because you don't care about realism? What do you mean he can't do something that will be so useful for the survival of the group?

It's artificial difficulty. You present the players with a problem and when they find a solution for it you say "Sorry, I'm not letting you do that because I'm the DM and I want you guys to suffer a little bit"

Tanarii
2017-06-13, 12:37 PM
When I said that's easier to handwave this, I meant that any player with half the correct wealth by level and half a brain will simply reply to "You're running out of food" with "Ok, I get more food from my nigh unlimited stock"WBL is specific to one edition of D&D. And your "half a brain" comment is based on your personal preference for playsytle, insulting to people that find other styles of play meaningful and challenging, and just shows your closed mindedness on the subject.


I fail to see how an obvious statement replied with the most obvious of answer isn't a waste of time.Because your 'obvious statement' and 'obvious answers' are neither.


I'm not saying strategy isn't important, and my games often require the PCs to not choose a full frontal assault. But if I ever make them count how many pints of oil the have, they'll rightfully roll their eyes and go to a city to buy 50 of them. Then one of them will say "Ok, every time we enter a city after going to a dungeon, I'll subtract 3 GP from my treasure and we now always have 50 flasks of oil because screw you, Heavyfuel, for making us do this"That's your players, and your player action is based on a whole bunch of assumptions. Like unlimited resources, and no consequences for carrying that much oil, or some time spent locating the ability to carry that much oil, etc. This goes for all logistical problems and attending solutions. Some DMs and players prefer to just handwave it away. Others want to deal with it. That's a style preference.

Thrudd
2017-06-13, 12:59 PM
Keeping track of expendable resources goes hand in hand with time-tracking, just as does wandering monsters/random encounters and XP for treasure. This is the logistical element of the game, it's an area where player choices should have consequences.

This is the original game, and keeping these elements makes everything make a little more sense. Now there is actually a decision to make regarding dumping strength in favor of dexterity - strength is directly connected to the party's ability to gain experience via carrying capacity.

That the players might someday find a bag of holding does not obviate the need for tracking resources. Even a bag of holding has limited space, and at higher levels a lot more treasure is required to gain levels. Yes, every arrow should be tracked because it makes a big difference if the party finds itself out of ammunition for ranged attacks. It makes a big difference if they are out of light sources and are fumbling in complete darkness or relying on just a couple spell slots worth of light spells. It makes a difference how encumbered they are when the strongest guy needs to carry an unconscious companion and they need to decide if they can risk loading everyone else down with treasure or should leave some behind so they can get out of the dungeon faster. These are the sorts of decisions I want my players to have to debate in my game sometimes. I want tenser's floating disk to be a spell wizards are excited to find, and a bag of holding is a prized possession.

I am not in love with completely abstracting time-keeping, but I think this dice pool system has some promise. The thing I don't want to lose is that encounter checks should be happening at a regular interval regardless of what the players are doing. A check can be made out of interval if they are especially noisy. However, their caution should also allow them an easier time dealing with an encounter, rather than reducing the chance of one occurring - the wandering monster check is an environmental effect not really connected to their activity - their activity should just determine the nature of the encounter when it happens. A cautious party will not be surprised, might have more chance of seeing something coming and avoid it or set up an ambush. A party that is noisy or moving quickly has more chance of being surprised and attacked, less choice of where and how to engage. The drawback to moving slowly and cautiously is that you are spending more time in the dungeon where bad stuff happens, and even though you might not get surprised as much, luck will catch up with you. You won't be able to avoid everything, you won't always avoid being surprised, and you will face a greater number of potential encounters relative to the amount of area you explore and treasure you find.

Psyren
2017-06-13, 01:05 PM
If you're handing out significant XP and Treasure for wandering monsters, and making fighting combat a sport - sure. I can see your players looking forward to it. If you're making it a challenge to be faced only when necessary, and to be avoided if at all possible ... a disaster when it happens - then no. Your players won't mess around until wandering monsters pop up.

Does the game truly encourage that mindset? Going by the 3.5 DMG, combat encounters that are supposed to be "disasters to be avoided" comprise 5% of encounters at most. I don't know what 5e has to say on the subject, but I'm guessing it's not all that different either. Generally, players can be expected to stand and fight unless you metagame to them that they shouldn't, particularly since it's usually a fool's errand for the party as a whole to run or hide once a monster has come upon them.

This is not to say that you can't run a more difficult or lethal game than what the game expects. But I don't think Angry was writing for DMs like you in that case. His advice was targeted at GMs who want consequences for dallying, without requiring multiple time-consuming (and likely frustrating) character rerolls as the only consequence.

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-13, 01:18 PM
So the half-orc barbarian with a Str score up his wazoo can't get himself an extra bag with oil and arrows because you don't care about realism? What do you mean he can't do something that will be so useful for the survival of the group?

It's artificial difficulty. You present the players with a problem and when they find a solution for it you say "Sorry, I'm not letting you do that because I'm the DM and I want you guys to suffer a little bit"

So here's the way I see it. D&D is a game that simulates adventures. It has highly developed and carefully constructed rules for the combat aspect of adventures, but for other aspects such as the logistics and timing of exploring dangerous places, it had hardly any rules at all. What rules there are - carrying weight rules for example - seem geared towards creating a realistic simulation rather than a fun game. As you point out, using these rules as written leads to a situation where players get frustrated and simply find a way to bypass the whole thing. The rules themselves don't appear to make any effort to stop this from happening.

Your solution is to simply ignore the rules altogether and not have that aspect of adventuring be part of the game. That is fine, and to be honest it is what I've always done too. But *if I can* I would like to find or create a set of rules that makes them part of the game again, something players have to make choices about.

In fact logistics and resource-tracking is a secondary concern for me but I picked up on it because it's roughly the same principle. But *time* is a massive concern because there's so much you can do with it to make the game about the overall experience of having an adventure and not just the combat. And I want a bigger overall experience. I want a bigger game.

If making time (and in theory resource-tracking) a real part of the game requires abstracting it and imposing some (seemingly) arbitrary limits then I am happy to do that, yes. Such limits can be abstracted too, for example by ruling that "there's only such much oil you can feasibly bring with you on an adventure, no matter how strong you are". Ways to cheat the limits, like extra-dimensional space, can be subsumed into the same system so that they exist as game elements that give the players an advantage without trivialising the issue.

It's artificial difficulty, yes, but no more artificial than any other part of D&D. Think about combat for a moment. Why doesn't it model the high likelihood that hitting someone with a sword will kill them outright regardless of how many times they've been hit already? Because fights would end suddenly and unpredictably and it wouldn't make for good gameplay, that's why. So it's abstracted to the point where it works from a gameplay perspective, and explained with the idea that "hit points represent fighting spirit and stamina, not how many times you can survive getting stabbed". We all seem to be perfectly ok with this kind of thing in combat. What's the problem with extending the same philosophy to other aspect of the game?

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-13, 01:27 PM
Does the game truly encourage that mindset? Going by the 3.5 DMG, combat encounters that are supposed to be "disasters to be avoided" comprise 5% of encounters at most. I don't know what 5e has to say on the subject, but I'm guessing it's not all that different either. Generally, players can be expected to stand and fight unless you metagame to them that they shouldn't, particularly since it's usually a fool's errand for the party as a whole to run or hide once a monster has come upon them.

This is not to say that you can't run a more difficult or lethal game than what the game expects. But I don't think Angry was writing for DMs like you in that case. His advice was targeted at GMs who want consequences for dallying, without requiring multiple time-consuming (and likely frustrating) character rerolls as the only consequence.

I think he was writing for DMs like me!

But as I said before, I think with a bit of consideration the time pool can probably be adapted to a few different play styles.

heavyfuel
2017-06-13, 02:34 PM
WBL is specific to one edition of D&D. And your "half a brain" comment is based on your personal preference for playsytle, insulting to people that find other styles of play meaningful and challenging, and just shows your closed mindedness on the subject.


As a last comment regarding this specific topic, I'll just say that if your character absolutely needs something for survival - food, water, light, weapons, etc - and your character deliberately goes through steps to not have these things ready whenever they might need them, you are indeed playing a character with half a brain.

It's not about personal preference or close mindedness, it's about characters doing the one thing all living things do. Survive.

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-13, 02:51 PM
As a last comment regarding this specific topic, I'll just say that if your character absolutely needs something for survival - food, water, light, weapons, etc - and your character deliberately goes through steps to not have these things ready whenever they might need them, you are indeed playing a character with half a brain.

It's not about personal preference or close mindedness, it's about characters doing the one thing all living things do. Survive.

Sorry to respond to your last comment, but the premise of logistics gameplay seems to include that "surviving" is inherently difficult when you're wandering into underground spaces inhabited by hostile creatures often far from civilisation. Rather than assume they automatically manage it, why not incoportate their attempts into the gameplay? Again, think about combat. Do their survival instincts switch off during combat? No? Then why not just handwave combat too?

Tanarii
2017-06-14, 09:37 AM
It occurs to me this system adds additional value. 5e non-combat encounters are supposed to reward XP based on difficulty, which in 5e is measured by espected amount of resources to be expended. If you're measuring resources as character resources (HP, HD, features/spells, magic item uses) then the vast majority of non-combat challenges are Easy (no significant resources expended). That's in spite of them often requiring significant player decision making (aka roleplaying) and accompanying outcomes and consequences. In other words, non-combat challenges are things that matter, but don't necessarily take resources.

This makes Time a clear resource to be expended. I mean, technically for many games it already was. But if it wasn't, or if it just wasn't clear, it is now. How to judge it in terms of how significant a resource it is for difficulty/XP purposes would be up to a DM, but it's definitely a resource. If players will need to take an hour to overcome a section of an adventuring site (dungeon, whatever) as part of a non-combat puzzle, that's more resources than if they're going to take 10 min.

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-14, 02:50 PM
It occurs to me this system adds additional value. 5e non-combat encounters are supposed to reward XP based on difficulty, which in 5e is measured by espected amount of resources to be expended. If you're measuring resources as character resources (HP, HD, features/spells, magic item uses) then the vast majority of non-combat challenges are Easy (no significant resources expended). That's in spite of them often requiring significant player decision making (aka roleplaying) and accompanying outcomes and consequences. In other words, non-combat challenges are things that matter, but don't necessarily take resources.

This makes Time a clear resource to be expended. I mean, technically for many games it already was. But if it wasn't, or if it just wasn't clear, it is now. How to judge it in terms of how significant a resource it is for difficulty/XP purposes would be up to a DM, but it's definitely a resource. If players will need to take an hour to overcome a section of an adventuring site (dungeon, whatever) as part of a non-combat puzzle, that's more resources than if they're going to take 10 min.

Totally agree. In my games, until now, time is something I always *wanted* to be a real resource for exactly this reason, but making it one was very difficult. I feel I have to constantly contrive ways to create definite time pressure. The most definite forms of time pressure - dungeon filling up with water, cultists doing a ritual etc - are intrinsically things that you can't use in every adventure without it becoming painfully obvious what you're up to. Less definite ones - if you take too long then the big bad escapes or their plan advances to the next stage, or the monsters have time to prepare - are still fiddly to organise and track. This system provides what we always had for combat and not for anything else: a structure. Now when I'm using my handful of available hours for planning a D&D session I can think about this stuff in terms of that structure and I think it's going to make things MUCH easier - on top of the excitement and tension it hopefully creates for the players at the table.

Mendicant
2017-06-14, 06:42 PM
How to judge it in terms of how significant a resource it is for difficulty/XP purposes would be up to a DM, but it's definitely a resource. If players will need to take an hour to overcome a section of an adventuring site (dungeon, whatever) as part of a non-combat puzzle, that's more resources than if they're going to take 10 min.

Exactly, and there's no need for those resources to be arbitrarily limited to something. The complaint that flasks of oil shouldn't be a real concern whenever portable holes become available is irrelevant--the system makes no demand that resource expenditure be capped at some arbitrarily low level, any more than normal encounters.

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-15, 12:44 AM
Exactly, and there's no need for those resources to be arbitrarily limited to something. The complaint that flasks of oil shouldn't be a real concern whenever portable holes become available is irrelevant--the system makes no demand that resource expenditure be capped at some arbitrarily low level, any more than normal encounters.

How come? If they're not limited then surely players can just load up with an amount that's not going to run out, as Psyren suggests. This way the time pool tells them when they have to pause to put more oil in the lantern, which is something, but the oil itself still isn't a finite resource.

Mendicant
2017-06-15, 12:59 AM
How come? If they're not limited then surely players can just load up with an amount that's not going to run out, as Psyren suggests. This way the time pool tells them when they have to pause to put more oil in the lantern, which is something, but the oil itself still isn't a finite resource.

My point is that tracking a specific resource like lantern fuel (or not) is a perfectly valid gameplay choice, but the dispute doesn't reflect on this particular time mechanic one way or another. Torches and rations are hardly the only party resources a DM can stress with a time pool. If lantern oil stops being a meaningful cost, that's fine, but the game escalates with the characters, and you can start hitting other resources in the deadlier dungeons they visit.

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-15, 01:13 AM
My point is that tracking a specific resource like lantern fuel (or not) is a perfectly valid gameplay choice, but the dispute doesn't reflect on this particular time mechanic one way or another. Torches and rations are hardly the only party resources a DM can stress with a time pool. If lantern oil stops being a meaningful cost, that's fine, but the game escalates with the characters, and you can start hitting other resources in the deadlier dungeons they visit.

What resources do you have in mind? Light sources, rations... what else is there? I know there are crowbars and climbing equipment and similar, but even if they are a part of the game they don't really get used up.

As far as I can see, the potential of the system is in making time itself an intrinsically meaningful resource, and it does that by tying the passing of time to the chance of random setbacks. You won't worry about running out of lantern oil if you're carrying around another twenty gallons of it, but now you know that wasting time just generally leads to bad stuff happening.

Mendicant
2017-06-15, 01:53 AM
What resources do you have in mind? Light sources, rations... what else is there? I know there are crowbars and climbing equipment and similar, but even if they are a part of the game they don't really get used up.

As far as I can see, the potential of the system is in making time itself an intrinsically meaningful resource, and it does that by tying the passing of time to the chance of random setbacks. You won't worry about running out of lantern oil if you're carrying around another twenty gallons of it, but now you know that wasting time just generally leads to bad stuff happening.

Resources don't have to be so mundane. For instance, extra-planar locales where elemental protection is required can burn through spell slots or wand charges, and if you run out you start burning HP. Or maybe there's some kind of magical storm or parasite that hits you with random, targeted dispels. Ability scores, consumable items, your supply of the plot ammo you need to kill the big bad, and bunch of other things can all be expendable resources. I ran one adventure where the PCs were trapped on a plane where they couldn't sleep unless they drank a thimbleful of its water. The water couldn't be carried in normal vessels, so when they wanted to move far from a well, they had to shepherd their supply of vials and really carefully decide who slept when. In that context even extremely minor random encounters were very problematic. You could build a dungeon where you get a big supply of magic gems midway through. Get the gems out of the dungeon and they're worth a fortune. The only problem is that for every 1 you roll when you're clearing the time pool, a gem detonates. It does minor damage if you don't mitigate it, and much more importantly to a greedy adventurer, money gets flushed right down the toilet.

I could go on, but the point is that while basic supplies might or might not be a serious concern depending on playstyle, you can use this mechanic regardless.

Segev
2017-06-15, 09:30 AM
Best I can tell, it looks like a reasonable way to handle somewhat abstracted time passage when your primary pressure is random complications.

If you're already running a game with a living world where time's passage means changes in response to the players' actions, and they're in a hostile area with the ability to react to them, time passing is its own threat. Same is true if they're on a time-sensitive mission of any sort.

This may or may not be useful for increasing the tension felt by the players, for transmitting to them the urgency they "should" be feeling. I don't know.

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-15, 09:41 AM
Resources don't have to be so mundane. For instance, extra-planar locales where elemental protection is required can burn through spell slots or wand charges, and if you run out you start burning HP. Or maybe there's some kind of magical storm or parasite that hits you with random, targeted dispels. Ability scores, consumable items, your supply of the plot ammo you need to kill the big bad, and bunch of other things can all be expendable resources. I ran one adventure where the PCs were trapped on a plane where they couldn't sleep unless they drank a thimbleful of its water. The water couldn't be carried in normal vessels, so when they wanted to move far from a well, they had to shepherd their supply of vials and really carefully decide who slept when. In that context even extremely minor random encounters were very problematic. You could build a dungeon where you get a big supply of magic gems midway through. Get the gems out of the dungeon and they're worth a fortune. The only problem is that for every 1 you roll when you're clearing the time pool, a gem detonates. It does minor damage if you don't mitigate it, and much more importantly to a greedy adventurer, money gets flushed right down the toilet.

I could go on, but the point is that while basic supplies might or might not be a serious concern depending on playstyle, you can use this mechanic regardless.

Point taken. I had been thinking in terms of fixed resources that will be a standard part of a whole campaign in the same way hit points are, but the idea of situational resources for individual adventures makes a lot of sense.




If you're already running a game with a living world where time's passage means changes in response to the players' actions, and they're in a hostile area with the ability to react to them, time passing is its own threat. Same is true if they're on a time-sensitive mission of any sort.

I think it's a great way to *create* such a game.

I've always struggled a bit with the "living world" idea. People assert that it's awesome, or even obligatory, but you rarely see much practical advice on how to create one. I find the amount of information I need to juggle to create the illusion of a living world at the table is overwhelming. This system gives you a structure to work with and some simple rules to follow, making it much easier.

D+1
2017-06-17, 11:48 AM
You're concerned that the random encounters are always punishments.Correct. In Angry's system it is punishment for just one thing - not moving through the dungeon/adventure fast enough. His stated concern is that the better strategy (taking lots of time) leads to a worse play experience. Time is a pain in the ass for the DM to track movement, spell and effect durations, and handle tons of added dice rolling for all the search attempts. Time otherwise has no value to the players although it is a currency they are allowed to spend – the PC's have all the time in the world so it means nothing for them to spend it recklessly. His solution?

It’s about dread. D&D really needs a mechanic to make the players DREAD the passage of time.

That isn't a concern with the time mechanics it's a concern with your view of random encounters. If random encounters are always hostile monsters that initiate resource draining fights with no rewards... Yeah, then the time mechanic is always a countdown to a bad thing (pointless and dull combat). If you have random encounter tables that go beyond just having monster attacks then it's not an automatic punishment.
No, it's Angry's view of his own mechanic. Every adventure, every dungeon gets a ticking clock with his dread mechanic:

The GM can find the thing in an adventure that hooks into the passage of time and use that to advance the plot. Or rather, to provide a setback for the players.
Even if the dungeon isn't flooding or the cultists aren't conducting a ritual that will summon a demon soon, something else that is an equivalent will happen. At any point where “time passes” (because the PC's do something that requires time – searching for traps, looking for clues and loot, solving puzzles, opening doors or chests, resting, etc.) more dice are added to the pool (valued at 3-10 minutes each) until the limit of 6 dice (about an hour) is reached, whereupon at EVERY point where “time passes” the pool will be rolled trying to make Something Bad happen. Rolling 6 dice looking for a 1 on just one of them it won't be long before the dungeon floods, the demon is summoned, or some other bad thing happens because: Too Much Time.

Every adventure becomes ALL about time. It's not just a new way to track when torches go out, spells expire, or how far the party has moved down a corridor. It's about driving the PC's further, faster, and with less caution, fewer clues, less treasure, and NO time allowed to spend on any of it except at a cost plainly intended to be higher than its worth. Because, again:

It’s about dread. D&D really needs a mechanic to make the players DREAD the passage of time.
At this the Time Pool is quite successful, but it doesn't solve the problem he initially said he recognized – that the better strategy (spending time) led to a worse play experience. I don't see how giving the players NO time to spend and an inevitable ticking clock on every adventure always leads to a better experience.

If there was a flaw in the original “system” it was in thinking that players would attempt to avoid monsters and traps and other "time wasters" to get just the treasure because the treasure was worth more, but because the xp from the monsters was also of value to the PC's it became a not-uncommon goal to kill as many monsters as possible just for the XP even though there would be no little or no treasure to go along with that fight. The random encounter that takes place in the corridors or somewhere unexpected which was intended to remind them to not waste TOO much time, would often be as welcome as the planned fight in the next room, so it would lose its usefulness as a prodding tool.

That said the entire mechanic is meant to penalize people for spending too much time on things that slow down play. Searching for traps/secret door everywhere and resting up after every little scuffle slows things down and changes the game away from adventuring.
Time is a currency for the players and their characters and they need to be able to spend it AT THEIR DISCRETION. The consequences for “passing time” can't just ALWAYS be bad. If they spend more time searching for secret doors they should find more secret doors rather than the ones they just blunder into without having to pay an added price for wanting to find the secret doors. If they spend time searching for treasure they should find more hidden treasure without having to fight more monsters ONLY because the search takes time and spending time must be punished.

Outside of the Time Pool system, unless the DM DOES assign a ticking clock to a dungeon, time is a ridiculously easily renewed resource for the players. It doesn't much matter - and shouldn't - if they spend 4 hours getting through a dungeon or 4 days. If there is no ticking clock there isn't a reason to rush - other than the DM wanting them to rush. Rushing means the PC's are then in a constant state of being incautious and being forced to overlook valuable gains that they would otherwise spend time accumulating. They miss secrets, clues, and loot because Bad Things will constantly happen with each hour they remain in the dungeon. Time spent by the players means things get worse, not that they get benefits and advantages from the time they spend. They are being intentionally driven to get in fast, get out with the least interaction with anything there, and go home. To spend more time is always Bad. Spending LESS time isn't even necessarily Good, it's simply less likely to result in more Bad.

A CSI forensic search of every square foot is indeed not something that either DM or players want. It does lead to a more dull play experience, even though it otherwise results in benefits “in game”. My conclusion has long been that if players are searching areas that they have no reason to be searching that is more likely a failure of the DM or the adventure designer – a failure of repeatedly putting vital and valuable things to be found in places where there was otherwise no clue that something was there TO be found. If players were failing to search areas where they ought to have been searching and thus missed clues, secret doors, treasure, etc, then that was as much or more likely a failure of the players to adequately describe to the DM what they were searching for, where they were looking for it, etc.

If a DM wants something to not be found then it is simplicity for the DM to arrange for it not to be found. If a DM wants players to have their PC's spend less time searching then the DM needs to give them less to search FOR and not waste their own time in tedious handling of what they KNOW will be a fruitless search. It is NOT bad form for a DM to simply state, “You search but find nothing,” without rolling a single die, without looking at the adventure key, without consulting a single table. If you want the PC's to spend less time searching for secret doors – include fewer secret doors. If you don't want them searching every square inch of a dungeon for treasure stop hiding it in places where it will require searching every square inch of a place TO FIND IT. If you want them to stop searching every square inch for traps stop slowing the game down with traps that require searching a dungeon to find.

The Time Pool is not the magic-bullet solution to the problem he stated that he identified.

Thrudd
2017-06-17, 01:03 PM
If there was a flaw in the original “system” it was in thinking that players would attempt to avoid monsters and traps and other "time wasters" to get just the treasure because the treasure was worth more, but because the xp from the monsters was also of value to the PC's it became a not-uncommon goal to kill as many monsters as possible just for the XP even though there would be no little or no treasure to go along with that fight. The random encounter that takes place in the corridors or somewhere unexpected which was intended to remind them to not waste TOO much time, would often be as welcome as the planned fight in the next room, so it would lose its usefulness as a prodding tool.


In the original original system, you'd want to avoid wandering monsters because your characters could die, and fairly easily, and healing was slow. That's where the dread comes from. If you win the fight, you get some XP, yes. But every roll of the dice is a...roll of the dice. Every combat is a gamble with your character's lives, and if you play enough the house always wins. The system falls apart when this threat is missing.

Tanarii
2017-06-17, 01:55 PM
It's worth noting again: Angry is in the middle of designing a Megadungeon. In that Megadungeon project, he has already decided that wandering monsters / random encounters will be worth just a small fraction of a set-piece encounter. He also has strongly implied there will be many adventure specific environment-related 'complications' that will occur along the way. Some will be triggered by specific player actions to further the adventure 'plot' (players releasing undead into the dungeon, players removing flooded areas, etc). But the complex environment and 'plot' easily allow him to have time-progressing random 'complications'.

And given its a dungeon, he's already noted the desire to be able to handle players deciding to take time (or not) and do 'noisy' things in regards to that project.

From that perspective, it makes perfect sense for him to have designed a Time sub-mechanic that encompasses more than just random encounters, and makes Time a highly visible and progressing resource for the players to take into account.

Telok
2017-06-17, 02:57 PM
Every adventure becomes ALL about time... I don't see how giving the players NO time to spend and an inevitable ticking clock on every adventure always leads to a better experience.\

I think this is the part where you see things differently than I and some others do. I don't consider the time pool thing to be something that I have to use in every dungeon ever, without regards to what the purpose of the dungeon is. For me some dungeons and adventured may have time limits, others have wandering monsters, there may be intelligent inhabitants that fortify or set up ambushes in they know adventurers are around, and a few may not have any of those.

These sorts of things aren't "you must always do this without any flexibility", they're another tool in your DMing toolbox to be used when it's appropriate.

Mendicant
2017-06-17, 06:15 PM
another thing that this mechanic does is reward certain skills more than they currently are, and it rewards spending resources to progress more efficiently. If picking a lock is a pass/fail when taking 20, or whatever the 5e equivalent is, it takes some of the fun out of being a master locksmith. Making a lockpicking check with this mechanic comes with a bit of tension and added satisfaction, since it can get you past that door without making time pass. Busting the door down gets you through but forces a roll against the pool. Casting knock gets you through but eats a resource. Taking 20 gets you through but costs a lot of time. How you move through becomes an interesting choice.

Similarly, if you've got a racial ability that lets you check for secret doors for free, that's now more valuable than if you could just declare you're giving every inch a thorough thrice-over without consequence.

HidesHisEyes
2017-06-18, 07:22 AM
Time is a currency for the players and their characters and they need to be able to spend it AT THEIR DISCRETION. The consequences for “passing time” can't just ALWAYS be bad. If they spend more time searching for secret doors they should find more secret doors rather than the ones they just blunder into without having to pay an added price for wanting to find the secret doors. If they spend time searching for treasure they should find more hidden treasure without having to fight more monsters ONLY because the search takes time and spending time must be punished.


I've now used the system twice and so far it is nothing like what you suggest. Firstly, you make it sound like the "punishments" for taking your time are a much bigger deal than they turn out to be. PCs don't get a complication every time they slow down; the chance of future complications just gradually increases no matter what, and they can control the rate at which it increases to some extent by deciding how much to rush things. The attitude this seems to foster is not "keep moving, never slow down otherwise we ALL DIE!!" but "let's think about how much time we want to spend on this task..." That is, exactly the concern that is usually missing from D&D.

Secondly, spending more time to search for secrets and treasure absolutely DOES result in finding more secrets and treasure. The secrets are already there. Taking more time to search for it is a trade off: it increases the chance of something going wrong but in return you find that treasure or secret area. Time passing only has bad effects in the system because the good effects of being thorough and cautious are already inherent in the game. The time pool introduces COSTS, not punishments, and in doing so it introduces cost/benefit decisions that create actual gameplay and roleplaying where before there were just blithe assumptions.

Segev
2017-06-20, 10:01 AM
As others have commented, a reverse side of the coin is that players WANT to take all the time in the world (when there's nothing pushing them) because they hate to miss things. Whether it's missing the trap that they could have disarmed before it goes off, missing the secret chamber behind the hidden door, or missing the clue that tells the more complete or alternative take on the background and lets them have more options for resolving the final conflict, players feel like they've missed out if they fail to find these things. And rightly so! Completionism is a thing in cRPGs for a reason!

Worse, sometimes GMs feel bad when their players miss things. Especially if they're things the GM felt were vital to understanding what's going on. "But," you might say, "that's the GM's own fault for making it possible to miss!" And you're right, but at the same time, the GM running a sandbox/living world with NPCs trying their best to achieve their goals can only leave clues so many places before it's unbelievable that nobody else figured it out already.

Now, what players don't know can't disappoint them, so a combination of ensuring that nothing CRITICAL to understanding what's going on is hidden behind a "succeed or fail" check of some sort, and not telling them when they miss things (as I've seen some DMs do, which always leads to sourness in the players; they feel like their victory has been robbed from them by learning they really failed) can help with this.

In fact, never telling the PCs they've missed something will probably go a long way towards helping make the "CSI crawl" less likely. They won't feel like failing to engage in it is being punished. You can also potentially make hidden prizes available later in the game as rewards that are harder/more dangerous to earn but unlikely to be missed. The secret safe in the mage's bookshelf holds a cool staff. But if the PCs don't find it early on, maybe the mage himself is WIELDING it against them later. They have a more dangerous foe who is using up charges in their loot, now! But they still can get that loot.