Why do many DMs propose rest rules that drive behavior opposite of what they want?

[Deathtongue]

A lot of DMs say that they want resource models that prevent the wizards and paladins and the like from going into every other battle at full efficiency. To do this they make resting take longer. The idea is that crises happen and 'resolve' faster than it takes to get up to full strength, so that in order to stop the princess from being eaten / town from being raided / caravan from being lost the party can't take long rests unless they want to risk mission failure.

Fair enough. A lot of games I respect do it that way.

However, what I don't understand is how DMs then don't recognize that by doing things this way, they're actually driving behavior opposite of what they claim to want! That is, parties of heroes braving personal danger and doing jaw-dropping heroics instead of taking the choice of 'I don't want to die and lose this character, guess the princess gets eaten'.

Let's talk about Shadowrun for a bit.

Characters in that game are glass cannons and any resource depletion is punishing. Getting just a couple of wounds can take you out of the fight for days. So can just upgrading your gear or restocking on consumables. However, the game is also quite lethal. Moreover, any kind of disadvantage makes it quadratically harder to win due to the way the dice system handles penalties and bonuse.s

This incentivizes the players into holding up in their bunkers / secret hideouts / pleasure palaces, leaving only to do the bare minimum of resource acquisition, until it's time for the next mission. They give that one mission their all. They have to, because if they do it haphazardly they're brown bread. So if they're trying to replenish their resources and something juicy comes along? They ignore it. I mean, if it's juicy enough, they might take a risk, but if the risk fail (as it often does in such a lethal system) that's what happens man. Anyway, even if that opportunity passes, there will always be another one. So WHAT if those orphans will die if you don't drop everything and go to Chicago right now? I took some serious wound penalties three days, I'm operating at half-efficiency and can't even shoot right. Those orphans can go take a hike into hell.

Shadowrun's resource management system drives the kind of behavior it wants from PCs. It wants them to be paranoid penny-pinchers who scoff at doing feel-good missions if it puts them at great risk. If Shadowrun gave people more incentives to take on missions when they weren't at full capacity (by making spellcasting and hacking less taxing, by letting people carry better gear on missions, by letting them heal faster, etc.) it'd drive riskier, more altruistic behavior.

So my question is: why do so many D&D DMs propose resource models (i.e. it takes a week's downtime to recover your spellslots) that encourage Shadowrun behavior from their PCs?

[Boci]

A lot of DMs say that they want resource models that prevent the wizards and paladins and the like from going into every other battle at full efficiency. To do this they make resting take longer. The idea is that crises happen and 'resolve' faster than it takes to get up to full strength, so that in order to stop the princess from being eaten / town from being raided / caravan from being lost the party can't take long rests unless they want to risk mission failure.

Fair enough. A lot of games I respect do it that way.

However, what I don't understand is how DMs then don't recognize that by doing things this way, they're actually driving behavior opposite of what they claim to want! That is, parties of heroes braving personal danger and doing jaw-dropping heroics instead of taking the choice of 'I don't want to die and lose this character, guess the princess gets eaten'.

DMs not understanding player motivation and behavior may be a factor, or they could be collatoral damage in an attempt to nuke the 15 minute adventuring day. But there could also be better reason, first and formost:

Hard descisions. The DM wants the players to:
a. not nova too quickly
b. think of non-combat ways to resolve encounters
c. be faced with the descision of delaying time and recouperating, or acting in a timely manner. You mention D&D being heroic. Heroes often went into fights they weren't entierly ready for simply because if they waited, innocents would suffer. In a roleplay heavy group, what you describe as discouraging heroic behavior could in fact make it all the braver. However, if the DM imagines this and the players don't, it will only leave to problem.

[malachi]

From what I've seen people saying, the primary reason for increasing rest time (gritty variant) is to make the resource management portion of the game function with a certain balance between long and short rest characters for a certain narrative pacing. You don't have 3 fights against the mid-range to elite soldiers before fighting the champion (and don't have to figure out how to safely rest for an hour somewhere between fights 1 and 3); instead, you can widen it out so that the players pick off two squads on Monday, travel to the enemy base of operations on Tuesday, and fight the third squad and the champion on Wednesday.

So I don't know that I would agree with your premise that longer resting times drive players to conserve all of their resources, but that's probably because I have a different outlook, and partly because I think your metaphor is a little off. In your Shadowrun metaphor, simply recovering resources has a risk of bad things happening, and it is expected that things will happen while characters are simply recovering resources. In 5e, recovering resources doesn't actively expose you to extra risk, and will at most have a risk of taking longer to recover or not allow you to regain resources if you're interrupted.

As a question, what do you think the result would be if the rules changed to something silly like "short rests happen in one minute, long rests take an hour"? Would that encourage players to move on with less-than-full resources, or would that actually encourage players to tackle almost every encounter after a long rest?

[Deathtongue]

b. Heroes often went into fights they weren't entierly ready for simply because if they waited, innocents would suffer. In a roleplay heavy group, what you describe as discouraging heroic behavior could in fact make it all the braver.Is that so? D&D posits a world so corrupt and destructive that the world is always doomed. If it's not a cannibal cult today, it's ghosts haunting the orphanage tomorrow. Seems to me the braver and more innocent-saving decision would be to occasionally accept that the princess will be sacrificed or the town will be razed so you'll still be alive when the dragons start raiding or the orc warbands start massing.

[mucat]

You're assuming that the GM doesn't know their players at all, and/or that the players don't know what kind of game they want.

Shadowrun characters are jaded, amoral, and selfish, because they live in a shîtsack world where all the good guys have already died off. When you play Shadowrun, it's because you want to tell that kind of story (and maybe because the brief, doomed flashes of actual good will shine brighter against that dark background.)

D&D characters, especially in a heroic campaign, don't behave like Shadowrunners just because it's "incentivized". If you're the good guys, you save the damned princess because that's who you are, not because it's easy or convenient or safe. If you're <i>not</i> the good guys, you do something else...but resource-management incentives should not be making that decision for you. Resource management is about HOW you pursue your goals, not about what goals you pursue.

I'm not arguing for or against rewriting the rest rules...but any player who says "My character is acting selfish (or any other pattern of behavior) because that's the optimal way to win this game" is not even trying.

[Boci]

Is that so? D&D posits a world so corrupt and destructive that the world is always doomed. If it's not a cannibal cult today, it's ghosts haunting the orphanage tomorrow. Seems to me the braver and more innocent-saving decision would be to occasionally accept that the princess will be sacrificed or the town will be razed so you'll still be alive when the dragons start raiding or the orc warbands start massing.

You're focuing on the world as a whole. Heroes stories, and D&D adventures often have a tighter focus. Sure "Oh no, the unnamed princess we don't know is going to die" might to stir them, but in a RP group, "Oh no, Kassi is in danger!" may well. And if they go out and save them at half-resources, that just makes their actions all the more heroic.


Shadowrun characters are jaded, amoral, and selfish, because they live in a shîtsack world where all the good guys have already died off. When you play Shadowrun, it's because you want to tell that kind of story (and maybe because the brief, doomed flashes of actual good will shine brighter against that dark background.)

Also worth noting that Shadowrun recouping involves the base, which is part of a characters resources. In D&D you have to ask the DM for a fortified base.

[malachi]

Is that so? D&D posits a world so corrupt and destructive that the world is always doomed. If it's not a cannibal cult today, it's ghosts haunting the orphanage tomorrow. Seems to me the braver and more innocent-saving decision would be to occasionally accept that the princess will be sacrificed or the town will be razed so you'll still be alive when the dragons start raiding or the orc warbands start massing.

Everything I have seen in the DnD lore doesn't paint things so cynically. While there is corruption and evil out there, the setting seems to heavily expect that it will be met and stopped without having to make the morally-grey decision to ignore the heroic actions.

Granted, it seems like your interpretation is a logical inference from the amount of doom and gloom required to keep adventurers, particularly high-level ones, occupied.

[Lance Tankmen]

For me it was three folds, The 100% every time meant very few fights even challenged my party by legal encounter builder , of course the encounter builder and magic items may be to blame but thats a separate issue. The second could be me to blame as DM but again any fight the caster hurls fireball mobs die fights do nothing, single model dies to action economy or fails the saves the casters constantly throw at it fighters do nothing. The third thing was a bonus not intended but nice none the less, Short rests shine with gritty realism, of course i use home-brew rest cycle stuff but Ive never had a problem in any of my gaming groups with waiting out and being cowards, except for the players who meta gamed stats , so they knew the monsters and didn't want any risk only reward. But my answer to that was always other adventurers get the gold or it moves away

[Man_Over_Game]

So my question is: why do so many D&D DMs propose resource models (i.e. it takes a week's downtime to recover your spellslots) that encourage Shadowrun behavior from their PCs?

For me, it's not quite as important about the attrition aspect, but that certain classes rely on that attrition to stand out.

Take, for example, a Rogue vs. a Bard. A Bard can do pretty much everything a Rogue can do (besides deal damage), and do it better. A Rogue needs to be stealthy, but a Bard can cast Pass Without Trace. A Rogue needs to break into something, and the Bard can unlock anything with Knock (even magical locks). If there is anything the Bard wants to do but can't with magic, they can take Expertise to do what the Rogue would normally be able to do.

So what DOES the Rogue do that's unique? They're consistent, resourceless, and endurable. The Bard might not want to spend a level 2 spell slot for a locked door, but a Rogue has no qualms about that. The Bard can comfortably unlock 2-3 things a day, where the Rogue can unlock something every six seconds.

The problem comes in when the DM doesn't include more than 3 things to unlock in the day. Now the Bard can unlock that third chest and still be able to do so much more, where the "specialized" rogue no longer stands out. What good does the rogue's endurance do when the bard is going to solve the problem using a limited resource and do it better?

In the previous thread, I've shown it takes a full two short rests before a Fighter can ever be as "heroic" as a Paladin.

--------

Yes, attrition does cause some characters to be less heroic and be more stingy on resources, but other classes are designed to be there to pick up the slack. Otherwise, you run into the 3.X problem where the Fighter is a glorified sidekick to the Wizard, just on a slightly less dramatic scale.


So, for me, it's a choice. Do I adjust the narrative, or do I make some player's classes simply "less"?

[TyGuy]

You can do gritty realism at a 1 to 1 scale and there's no net change other than narrative. And that's the main focus, narrative. Because cramming 6 encounters into an adventuring day is hectic from a narrative standpoint. So DM's might stretch things out. Resource management is secondary to the narrative implications.

The issue you keep trying to strawman is that of pacing, not time scale. You can make unrealistic demanding time restraints in the regular rules too.

(Regular) You've had 5 encounters today and a short rest after each one, now you have a couple hours to rescue the princess = (Gritty realism) you've had 5 encounters this week and a short rest after each one, now you have a day to rescue the princess.

[RazorChain]

Because D&D is gamist and tries to go against the fundamentals of human nature and the DMs are trying to enforce a bad design principle.

If you are assaulted by three thugs with knives you are supposed to draw your knife and fight them in order to save the bullets to your handgun incase you meet an enemy down the road with an assault rifle.

A smart person will shoot them dead with the handgun to ensure their survival and buy more bullets later

[Man_Over_Game]

Because D&D is gamist and tries to go against the fundamentals of human nature and the DMs are trying to enforce a bad design principle.

If you are assaulted by three thugs with knives you are supposed to draw your knife and fight them in order to save the bullets to your handgun incase you meet an enemy down the road with an assault rifle.

A smart person will shoot them dead with the handgun to ensure their survival and buy more bullets later

Well, that makes sense in our world, because lethality only has to work once before Game Over. You have to risk everything to win, every time.

However, in DnD, where HP scales faster than damage (a Rogue gains 3.5 damage every 2 levels, HP grows at an average rate of 14 HP every 2 levels), your chance of dying is actually pretty low.

Changing the lethality is an option, but keep in mind that most games require a chance to react to problems. In order to react to damage to prevent it, you have to survive it.

Good Chess takes multiple turns to play out, to adapt and become better. If your decisions don't matter and you cannot adapt, then you're effectively playing a game of random chance. Increasing lethality to be akin to "real life" effectively lowers player agency. We aren't playing a game. If someone's pointing a gun at you, there isn't going to be a vast list of things you're going to be able to do that's going to make your situation any better. That's why we play games: to have a semblance of control.

[Pex]

DMs should stop trying to control player behavior. It's the players' characters, not the DMs'. It is in the game's interest not to have 15 minute adventuring days. You stop that by having consequences for not continuing the adventure to rest. However, it's really a metagame problem, so you handle it metagame and tell the players to stop that and play the game instead of gaming the system. At the same time DMs should get over themselves thinking players are trying to get away with something because they want to short rest when low on short rest stuff and long rest when low on everything after putting in good faith effort of adventuring. Players are supposed to get back their stuff. That's how the game works.

[Man_Over_Game]

DMs should stop trying to control player behavior. It's the players' characters, not the DMs'. It is in the game's interest not to have 15 minute adventuring days. You stop that by having consequences for not continuing the adventure to rest. However, it's really a metagame problem, so you handle it metagame and tell the players to stop that and play the game instead of gaming the system. At the same time DMs should get over themselves thinking players are trying to get away with something because they want to short rest when low on short rest stuff and long rest when low on everything after putting in good faith effort of adventuring. Players are supposed to get back their stuff. That's how the game works.

What you're saying is a bit conflicting, though. On one hand, you're frustrated that DMs are controlling the pacing of a group, but on the other hand, you recommend consequences to control the pacing of the group.

I guess my question is, what is acceptable and what isn't?

[CantigThimble]

Changing the lethality is an option, but keep in mind that most games require a chance to react to problems. In order to react to damage to prevent it, you have to survive it.

Good Chess takes multiple turns to play out, to adapt and become better. If your decisions don't matter and you cannot adapt, then you're effectively playing a game of random chance. Increasing lethality to be akin to "real life" effectively lowers player agency.

I'm just going to mention that player agency can also come from the opportunity to prepare, not just the opportunity to react. Most highly lethal systems are very focused on looking ahead so you're prepared and don't get into a fight you won't be able to win with minimal risk. That style is differemt, but doesn't lack player agency.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm just going to mention that player agency can also come from the opportunity to prepare, not just the opportunity to react. Most highly lethal systems are very focused on looking ahead so you're prepared and don't get into a fight you won't be able to win with minimal risk. That style is differemt, but doesn't lack player agency.

Incredibly valid point, and one I didn't think about. Still, I don't think DnD is best suited for that playstyle, but I could definitely see someone wanting to do something like that, and I think 5e could easily be adapted for that playstyle.

Due to how explosive magic can be in a short amount of time, as well as how versatile it is, I'd probably keep it how it is. Weapons would deal double the weapon dice damage, and criticals activate on a 19/20 (with crit expanding abilities changing to 18-20 or 17-20). Attack spells would still be able to crit.

This does mean that casters are best used to nuke many threats quickly, or to scout for the team (which makes sense, because that's something other classes would be unable to do).

[Rukelnikov]

That was 3.x high tiers in a nutshell.

I spend half my allotment of spells on protections, save a quarter to renew protections, and rocket tag the remaining quarter.

And that's on top of my contingency, clones, maybe phillactery, and if everything else fails bottle of thought.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That was 3.x high tiers in a nutshell.

I spend half my allotment of spells on protections, save a quarter to renew protections, and rocket tag the remaining quarter.

And that's on top of my contingency, clones, maybe phillactery, and if everything else fails bottle of thought.

And at least some people (myself included) strongly dislike that style. For one thing, it only allows certain characters. I'm not taking classes or builds--I mean personalities. Only paranoid chessmaster types can pull that off and stay in character. And there's a lot of fun characters other than those types.

[Orc_Lord]

For the people that like gritty realism how do you handle dungeons?

I tried it, and when after two battles they had to rest for a week it felt like an anti narrative action to me. I implemented it because I was trying to do what Man Over Game was saying. To drive the story

I should have probably done it in the beginning of the campaign which was probably my biggest mistake.

[Rukelnikov]

And at least some people (myself included) strongly dislike that style. For one thing, it only allows certain characters. I'm not taking classes or builds--I mean personalities. Only paranoid chessmaster types can pull that off and stay in character. And there's a lot of fun characters other than those types.

I wasn't presenting it as something better or worse. I merely mentioned it as an example of what Thimble was talking about.

And yeah it's definitely not a style everyone enjoy, and even those that enjoy it may not wanna play that kind of game every week.

Personally, it was awesome from a theorycraft perspective, but for the actual game my epic Incantatrix just loaded disintegrate with as much metas as he could.

[Man_Over_Game]

For the people that like gritty realism how do you handle dungeons?

I tried it, and when after two battles they had to rest for a week it felt like an anti narrative action to me. I implemented it because I was trying to do what Man Over Game was saying. To drive the story

I should have probably done it in the beginning of the campaign which was probably my biggest mistake.

There's a couple solutions I recommend:


Tone down the Rest requirement. I like to use 8 hour Short Rests, 32 hour Long Rests (basically a full day off), and that's a solid balance of Adventuring vs. Resting.
Add a spot-fix when you need a solution. I have used two different kinds:

My Adrenaline Surge feature (basically, characters get Exhaustion mid-combat during a particularly hard fight, but get the benefits of a Short Rest in return)
Ley Lines (Dungeons were built around Ley Lines, which generate a lot of magical energy. Being near one reduces the amount of time a Rest takes, but you can only benefit from that kind of rest from a Ley Line every 24 hours. Such as a 5 min. Short Rest and a 30 minute Long Rest)

[RazorChain]

Well, that makes sense in our world, because lethality only has to work once before Game Over. You have to risk everything to win, every time.

However, in DnD, where HP scales faster than damage (a Rogue gains 3.5 damage every 2 levels, HP grows at an average rate of 14 HP every 2 levels), your chance of dying is actually pretty low.

Changing the lethality is an option, but keep in mind that most games require a chance to react to problems. In order to react to damage to prevent it, you have to survive it.

Good Chess takes multiple turns to play out, to adapt and become better. If your decisions don't matter and you cannot adapt, then you're effectively playing a game of random chance. Increasing lethality to be akin to "real life" effectively lowers player agency. We aren't playing a game. If someone's pointing a gun at you, there isn't going to be a vast list of things you're going to be able to do that's going to make your situation any better. That's why we play games: to have a semblance of control.

No. All martial arts tell you to end a fight as quickly and efficiently as possible. For me a fight is not a game of chess unless the loser dies in the end.

I play rpgs for immersion and my character is most decidedly not thinking about HP scaling during a fight or that he has 120 HP and a sword blow can barely hurt him.

Changing lethality doesn't lower agency in any shape or form. More lethality just changes how you conduct fights.

[Boci]

No. All martial arts tell you to end a fight as quickly and efficiently as possible. For me a fight is not a game of chess unless the loser dies in the end.

I play rpgs for immersion and my character is most decidedly not thinking about HP scaling during a fight or that he has 120 HP and a sword blow can barely hurt him.

If you want immersion, doesn't your character realize they're kinda buff? Sure they won't go "I have 120 points, that sword probably deals 2d6+4 damage" but how could they not realize that they can reliable survive round after round with weapons that would have one been deadly to them?

[Alucard89]

I never understood "DM propose new rest rules/restrictions etc.". He can propose, but it's table decision as whole. Sure DM can say "no, we play as I want", then players walk away and DM is left alone. He won, congrat. Same with players proposing with "we want to play that way" and DM leaving.

Imo whole resources arguments are really "stupid" (no offense to anyone) as it's a matter of how whole table wants to play the game.

For example at our table we totally don't care about difficulty of fights. We usually long rest every session, have no more than 3, MAYBE 4 encounters per long rest and we enjoy just blowing all stuff up, walking around in magic gear with magic swords, being heroes among heroes and doing heroic deeds like killing dragon in 3 turns.

We prefer to focus more about story, character development, dialogues, small quests etc. Fight is just for "movie scenes" so to say.

I think many DMs propose this as they think other people should play his game as he imagined it. It's not bad per say, but it's 5 people (usually) around table, not one and DM is one of them.

As long as whole tables agrees I don't think it matters if Long Rest is 4h, 20h, once per session, or twice.

DM coming and saying "We play XX way I can't do anything" or players coming saying "our DM plays XX way and we don't have fun" is only a fault of not communicating with each other.

There is no good proposition or solution to rules. There are only those which work with table or do not.

[RazorChain]

If you want immersion, doesn't your character realize they're kinda buff? Sure they won't go "I have 120 points, that sword probably deals 2d6+4 damage" but how could they not realize that they can reliable survive round after round with weapons that would have one been deadly to them?

I understand what you are implying. But do we want to go there?

[TyGuy]

For the people that like gritty realism how do you handle dungeons?

I tried it, and when after two battles they had to rest for a week it felt like an anti narrative action to me. I implemented it because I was trying to do what Man Over Game was saying. To drive the story

I should have probably done it in the beginning of the campaign which was probably my biggest mistake.

I would not recommend implementing gritty realism mid campaign unless all people involved are completely on board.

To answer your question. If we assume that 8 hour rests mid dungeon crawling are out of the question in gritty realism (honestly, 1hr was pushing it anyways) the solution is simple. You reduce the difficulty of the encounters. Unless your group is very special, eminent death close calls are not necessary for every single combat to enjoy the game. Easy encounters still drain resources.

PC's burning through resources too fast to make it through a dungeon means either the players are playing poorly (not the DM's fault) or the encounters are tuned too high (DM's fault)

[MaxWilson]

What you're saying is a bit conflicting, though. On one hand, you're frustrated that DMs are controlling the pacing of a group, but on the other hand, you recommend consequences to control the pacing of the group.

I guess my question is, what is acceptable and what isn't?

I think it's fine to throttle rewards. You can tell the players, "Hey, I know it's kind of unrealistic that all these tasty monsters happen to be in the same area with their treasure simultaneously, and yet they haven't joined forces or killed each other or anything--they're all just sort of there. But I won't guarantee that that will be true for more than a day or so, in game. In other words, there's enough XP here for you all to level up without killing yourselves, if you fully explore the dungeon, but after a long rest all bets are off and the world will do what makes sense."

[ChiefBigFeather]

For the people that like gritty realism how do you handle dungeons?

I tried it, and when after two battles they had to rest for a week it felt like an anti narrative action to me. I implemented it because I was trying to do what Man Over Game was saying. To drive the story

I should have probably done it in the beginning of the campaign which was probably my biggest mistake.

Well, I rule that short rest needs to be a nights rest and a quick meal. Most people require about 8 hours to do that, but in a hurry it could be done in 4. If you can't do a 4 hour rest in a dungeon, you probably can't do a 1 hour rest either. I should also note that I changed the duration of some spells to make sense under the new rest rules.


Hey, I know it's kind of unrealistic that all these tasty monsters happen to be in the same area with their treasure simultaneously, and yet they haven't joined forces or killed each other or anything--they're all just sort of there.

This is why I usually don't do "dungeons".

[Hecuba]

For the people that like gritty realism how do you handle dungeons?

I tried it, and when after two battles they had to rest for a week it felt like an anti narrative action to me. I implemented it because I was trying to do what Man Over Game was saying. To drive the story

I should have probably done it in the beginning of the campaign which was probably my biggest mistake.

Channing it midcampaign is workable, if you all agree on the appropriate handwaving and peg it at the beginning of something discrete like beginning a dungeon crawl. But yes, making that decision at the beginning of a campaign.

As to how you handle dungeons, generally I find it easiest to do so by increasing either the physical scale or the number of ancillary combatants to offset the narrative change in the time scale.

Physical scale is generally preferable, where it works. If the dungeon can be large enough to pass the narrative version of the smell test, simply in increase the scale and allow the party of scout and foritfy a fallback. The orcs are no longer the next room over in Undermountain: they're on the other side of this level of a very vast dungeon, and not yet aware of your presence. This can mean the pregenerated mapps need some adaptation to use, but it's workable.

When such a physical scale isn't workable narratively, you can manage something similar by imposing an ongoing conflict where the party is effectively a highly effective strikeforce. The conflict is continued by NPCs on both sides in a relative stalemate when the party withdraws to a nearby area already made safe. This effectively imposes a scaled down model of urban combat on the dungeon.

Neither of these work especially well for particularly small dungeons, but neither does a default length long rest.

[Anymage]

For the people that like gritty realism how do you handle dungeons?

I tried it, and when after two battles they had to rest for a week it felt like an anti narrative action to me. I implemented it because I was trying to do what Man Over Game was saying. To drive the story

I should have probably done it in the beginning of the campaign which was probably my biggest mistake.

Gritty Realism is mostly aimed at the people who aren't big on dungeons, and prefer at most one set piece battle per day. Allowing the daily resource casters to nova those does cause balance problems. As I hinted at in the last post it is possible to change resource mechanics so that most classes are playing on a level playing field, but that's what 4e did and I'm sure we all remember the fan backlash towards that.

If I did want to do a dungeon in GR, I'd focus on the model that retro D&D fans pride themselves on. You're not meant to fight everything in the dungeon, you're meant to evade as much as you can to conserve your resources. But if I were doing GR, I wouldn't have monsters and treasures just happening to be occupying ruins in the first place.

[Malifice]

DMs should stop trying to control player behavior. It's the players' characters, not the DMs'. It is in the game's interest not to have 15 minute adventuring days.

If it's in the games best intrest not to have 15 minute adventuring days, the DM is well within his rights to implement mechanisms to curb that kind of behaviour.

Ive used both 'core' resting, a variant of my own design closer to gritty realism, and the common ' 2 short rests of 5 minutes per PC per long rest, largely handwaved' to date. Of the three, the easiest to implement was the latter.

Each method has required varying levels of 'doom clocks' and random encounters (or not so random encounters) to keep the rest/ resource system purring along.

I've had the misfortune of playing in a game where the DM was ignorant of the rest/ resource nature of 5E (even once pointed out to him) and the game was a total train-wreck. It involved exponentially OP encounters where nova strikes (and nova tactics) were the only way to stave off a TPK, the PCs were constantly forced to rest due to being forced to nova, the game had zero verisimillitude, deaths were common (and no-one cared about their characters) murder-hobism was mandatory, and the whole campaign ground to a shuddering halt with the DM rage-quitting after a few months.

I invited that DM to my game (largely to show him how it was done). The difference was stark.

[Pex]

What you're saying is a bit conflicting, though. On one hand, you're frustrated that DMs are controlling the pacing of a group, but on the other hand, you recommend consequences to control the pacing of the group.

I guess my question is, what is acceptable and what isn't?

The point is to avoid the extremes. The DM needs some control of pacing to keep things fun for the players, not too hard, not too easy, be mindful of how much real world time left is in the session. He does need to be aware of what PCs can do in a given encounter. That is part of the DM's job. When a player is gaming the system he's supposed to interfere to stop it. What he should not be doing is telling the players how to play or forcing them to play his way. Given the players are being reasonable he should not be getting upset and bothered they want to rest. Stop interrupting every rest or preventing them from starting one.

[JoeJ]

If no one of the rest variants is working well with the pacing you want in your game, there's no reason you can't switch between them. Maybe use gritty realism for wilderness hex crawls, default resting for adventures in town and most dungeons, and epic heroism when the party is storming the BBEG's castle at the climax of the campaign.

[Throne12]

Also worth noting that Shadowrun recouping involves the base, which is part of a characters resources. In D&D you have to ask the DM for a fortified base.

Side note not with the spells like Mordemkainen's magnificent Mansion, temple of the gods, demiplane, Mighty fortress,

[Malifice]

Given the players are being reasonable he should not be getting upset and bothered they want to rest. Stop interrupting every rest or preventing them from starting one.

The DM should feel free to interrupt the odd rest with a 'random' encounter. Gotta keep the players on thier toes and all that.

Of course, if they're not gaming the rest mechanic (they've had half a dozen or so encounters, and have refrained from nova strikes or other gaming the rest mechanic) he should be much more permissive with allowing (indeed, even handwaving) a long or short rest for them.

It's an art more than it is a science.

The bigger problem is DMs who are blind to the resource managment nature of 5E. The game (mechanically) is a resource management game. More so that it is a (+/-) game. Your bonuses to hit/ damage matter a lot less than the amount of abilities, HP, HD, spell slots, rages, smites, SP, Ki points, Sup dice and other 'X/ per rest' abilities that you have available at any one time.

Once a DM accepts that as a truism, he can start to play around with the rest frequency and adventuring day to better manage the game.

[JoeJ]

Of course, if they're not gaming the rest mechanic (they've had half a dozen or so encounters, and have refrained from nova strikes or other gaming the rest mechanic) he should be much more permissive with allowing (indeed, even handwaving) a long or short rest for them.

I would not want a DM to metagame rest times that way. If it makes sense in world for a creature to wander by while the party is taking a rest, then there should be a chance that it happens. If it doesn't make sense, then there shouldn't.

[Throne12]

I thought of using the Variant rules because I was having players nova the **** out of everything. This made encounters a very very mut point. Where a lot of encounters are supposed to be road bumps in the story but only turned them into a slightly bumpy dirt road. The way d&d evolved from a dungeon Delve to a story Narrative. The Resource Management is still set up for dungeon delves. Where you go from one encounter to another encounter and you're expected to have so many encounters a day. But having 8 encounters a day for any narrative is crazy. Where you might have one encounter to get to the main focal point of the day. Then have a big climated encounter. This makes it difficult to handle when you have a short rest character blowing what little Resources on the first encounter leaving them nothing for the big encounter. Where a long rest character is going into the big encounter with if lucky 3 Quarter of the resources half if on a tough encounter. This give players 2 things going into the one encounter That matters with very little or nothing or enough resources to nova and make the big encounter Trivial. Yes you might feel mighty, heroic but it gets boring quickly with no challenge.

[Malifice]

I would not want a DM to metagame rest times that way.

DMs cant meta-game.

Metagaming is 'a player's use of real-life knowledge concerning the state of the game to determine their character's actions, when said character has no relevant knowledge or awareness under the circumstances.'

DM's are always aware of the state of the game. They're always making decisions based on game balance, in the intrests of the game, and concerning the state of the game. Indeed that's their number 1 responsibility.


If it makes sense in world for a creature to wander by while the party is taking a rest, then there should be a chance that it happens. If it doesn't make sense, then there shouldn't.

Does it make sense that you encounter Kobolds, Goblins, Skeletons at 1st level, moving on to Ghouls, Ogres and Hobgobins, then progressing through the CR's (with challenges roughly matching your level) as you advance in level?

DMs are required to create challenges appropriate to the PCs in front of them. If the situation calls for a random encounter (the game is bogged down, the Players are mucking about, simply to spice things up or drain resources from a party that are having to easy a time of it, to dissuade the PCs from rest abuse, to set the stage for a later encounter... or for whatever reason) the DM can (and indeed, should) throw an encounter at the PCs.

It's up to the DM to have the encounter 'make sense' in game. Seeing as most parties spend a lot of their adventuring time in and around dangerous monster lairs, and have generally earnt the ire of dozens of evil cults, demon lords, necromancers, evil wizards, and other dangerous groups, this is never very difficult for a DM to do.

[Aussiehams]

If no one of the rest variants is working well with the pacing you want in your game, there's no reason you can't switch between them. Maybe use gritty realism for wilderness hex crawls, default resting for adventures in town and most dungeons, and epic heroism when the party is storming the BBEG's castle at the climax of the campaign.

This. As long as everyone understands why, and the game keeps flowing, do what works for the story.

[JoeJ]

DMs cant meta-game.

Metagaming is 'a player's use of real-life knowledge concerning the state of the game to determine their character's actions, when said character has no relevant knowledge or awareness under the circumstances.'

DM's are always aware of the state of the game. They're always making decisions based on game balance, in the intrests of the game, and concerning the state of the game. Indeed that's their number 1 responsibility.

The DM is a player too, and can certainly metagame. Not that metagaming is always a bad thing! I don't like it in this circumstance is all.


Does it make sense that you encounter Kobolds, Goblins, Skeletons at 1st level, moving on to Ghouls, Ogres and Hobgobins, then progressing through the CR's (with challenges roughly matching your level) as you advance in level?

It does if the PCs are doing proper investigations and only taking on those challenges they can (probably) handle. If the party decides to go to Ogre Valley, I'd want them to encounter ogres, regardless of what level they are.


DMs are required to create challenges appropriate to the PCs in front of them.

Clearly, I like my games a lot more sandboxy than you do.

[guachi]

However, what I don't understand is how DMs then don't recognize that by doing things this way, they're actually driving behavior opposite of what they claim to want! That is, parties of heroes braving personal danger and doing jaw-dropping heroics instead of taking the choice of 'I don't want to die and lose this character, guess the princess gets eaten'.


Then they aren't really heroes braving personal danger then, are they? What you have there are PCs who don't actually want to be heroic. That's fine. They can be NPCs who just ask others to do the job for them.

I've never once had the problem of cowardly PCs when I've instituted a longer rest paradigm. I'm continually amazed at how much punishment my players will put themselves through. I've had about 15 players so far since I started with longer rests and 15 out of 15 were on board with being heroes willing to die. Two of them actually did and several others were one failed death save away. Everyone dropped to zero HP multiple times, even with zero HP giving you one level of exhaustion.

[guachi]

For the people that like gritty realism how do you handle dungeons?

I tried it, and when after two battles they had to rest for a week it felt like an anti narrative action to me. I implemented it because I was trying to do what Man Over Game was saying. To drive the story

I should have probably done it in the beginning of the campaign which was probably my biggest mistake.

What were the encounters such that an entire adventuring day was only two encounters? That sounds like two deadly+ encounters. That sounds like a dungeon above the level of the PCs and if that happened to my party (and the dungeon still had more stuff to fight) I'd take that as a signal we weren't ready to tackle it.

This is not a bad thing. It's like playing WoW and entering an area above your level.

[Malifice]

For the people that like gritty realism how do you handle dungeons?

I tried it, and when after two battles they had to rest for a week it felt like an anti narrative action to me. I implemented it because I was trying to do what Man Over Game was saying. To drive the story

I should have probably done it in the beginning of the campaign which was probably my biggest mistake.


2 X [medium to hard] battles shouldnt have required a rest (other than a Short rest).

[stoutstien]

2 X [medium to hard] battles shouldnt have required a rest (other than a Short rest).

"Shouldn't" doesn't mean won't. Some times rolls go wrong or players are dumb or the DM over estimates the party's potential.

How much challenge each encounter is sufficient can be so varied table to table or even week to week that I think that DM Fiat is the best answer I can think of

[Boci]

Side note not with the spells like Mordemkainen's magnificent Mansion, temple of the gods, demiplane, Mighty fortress,

7th level spells, only applicable to the last third of the game. In Shadowrun you can get a base at character creation, like a background.

[Malifice]

7th level spells, only applicable to the last third of the game. In Shadowrun you can get a base at character creation, like a background.

In 5E you can start with a home base as well via Background.

Heck; one of the Backgrounds is 'Noble'. Have the Nobles in your games not got a manor, castle or keep to sleep in? Do your Clerics not have a Church, monastery or similar to rest up in? Are your 'Knights' not able to get room and board in the local lords Keep (which is part of the whole Knightly obligation thing)?

You might not give any thought into where your PCs live when the game starts, but that doesnt mean they dont live somewhere (unless every single PC in your games is a homeless itinerant).

[Boci]

In 5E you can start with a home base as well via Background.

Heck; one of the Backgrounds is 'Noble'. Have the Nobles in your games not got a manor, castle or keep to sleep in? Do your Clerics not have a Church, monastery or similar to rest up in? Are your 'Knights' not able to get room and board in the local lords Keep (which is part of the whole Knightly obligation thing)?

You might not give any thought into where your PCs live when the game starts, but that doesnt mean they dont live somewhere (unless every single PC in your games is a homeless itinerant).

A far cry from their own fortified base.

[MaxWilson]

This is why I usually don't do "dungeons".

Me neither; but I recognize that they are a fun experience for the players, sometimes, and I'm always looking for ways to incorporate more fun stuff into the game without breaking anyone's suspension of disbelief. The above is one of ideas I'm currently testing.

[sithlordnergal]

For the people that like gritty realism how do you handle dungeons?

I tried it, and when after two battles they had to rest for a week it felt like an anti narrative action to me. I implemented it because I was trying to do what Man Over Game was saying. To drive the story

I should have probably done it in the beginning of the campaign which was probably my biggest mistake.

So, I had a similar thing happen when a DM tried Gritty Realism for the first time. None of us had ever tried it, and as a result the DM gave us a day that would have been "normal" for a game that was using the regular Rest rules, where long rests were 8 hours. I left thinking that Gritty Realism was terrible.

What you'll need to do is stretch the dungeon out, and make it seem less populated. A single adventuring "day" in Gritty Realism should only have one to three encounters of varying difficulty, and as a result your dungeons are going to have to seem a lot emptier then they normally would. If you try to use Gritty Realism rules while keeping up 6 to 8 encounters per 8 hours of rest, it will fall apart very, very quickly. Personally I suggest going back to the normal, 8 hours = a long rest for dungeon delves.

[sithlordnergal]

So my question is: why do so many D&D DMs propose resource models (i.e. it takes a week's downtime to recover your spellslots) that encourage Shadowrun behavior from their PCs?

The answer is multi-layered. However, before I explain the reasons, there is something you need to understand about Gritty Realism. Gritty Realism is not meant to change the rules, only the perception of the rules. This is something I did not understand the first and only time I played with them, and neither did my DM. He used Gritty Realism for rests, but gave us the standard encounters for the normal 8 hour long rest rules.

Gritty Realism does not work that way. Instead your normal adventuring "day" is limited to 1 to 3 encounters of varying strength, followed by an 8 hour short rest, followed by another 1 to 3 encounters the next day. Its really no different then having 1 to 3 encounters, followed by an hour long short rest, followed by more encounters, until you eventually long rest. All Gritty Realism changes is narrative and how people perceive rests.

With that out of the way, here's why a DM might use it:

- First, the DM may be trying to balance long rests and short rests without having to try and cram a ton of encounters into a single "day". I'll admit, rests are very difficult to balance. Personally, I balance long rests and short rests by telling players from the start that they will only benefit from rests when I say they will. They can stand around for an hour and do nothing if they want, or they could sit in a room for 8 hours and hope nothing finds them, that's on them. But they only gain the benefits of any sort of rest when I say so. That said, my method won't work for all DMs because you need a really good understanding of party resources, and how many resources are remaining.

- Second, they may use Gritty Realism to help draw certain events out. For example, say you want to give the players a doomsday clock, and set it up to where they will get no long rests between starting and ending their little adventure. Before you say that's poor DMing, a lot of 5e modules do this, such as Turn Back the Endless Night. In it you are told to save the world by a God, whisked away to Chult, meet some Red Wizards, have to fight through a small dungeon, and end up fighting Dendar the Night Serpent. All without any Long, or short, rests.

The module does that in a normal adventuring day of 8 hours...which makes it feel rushed. There's no hunting for the Red Wizards, you're teleported to their door step by a God. There's no slowing down to figure any of the puzzles out, or exploring the fun Maze they have. You have to move as fast as possible. Cause you only have 7 hours to do this quest. If you long rest, you lose and permanently lose your character. If you short rest, you have to fight two 9th level spell casters, a hoard of zombies, four body guards that halve all spell damage done to them and their allies like an Ancients Paladin, a Shield Guardian, Dendar, and several Giant Snakes. I assure you, you will lose a fight like that if they're all there at one. Since you get no rests, by the time you reach the final battle you will be running low on resources that you need to face Dendar.

But what if it used Gritty Realism rules instead? You'd still end up at the final fight with less then full resources. But you'd get to RP exploring the jungle for a few days, chartering a ship, scouting out the temple the ritual was taking place in. The final dungeon could move slower, you could take more time in the Maze, cause it does offer fun encounters. Short Rest classes would actually get a short rest, instead of the normal module where you get no rests period. The players feel less rushed, and so can appreciate things more and RP more


- They use it to give travel time weight. As a person who ran and played through all of Tomb of Annihilation, the Gritty Rest variant would have worked wonders for the jungle exploration part. Thanks to having a Ranger in the party with Forest as their favored terrain, AND the background that makes it impossible to become lost while back tracking, the jungle was pointless. The Ranger's Natural Explorer mixed with the Druid's Goodberry and Create Water made the Exploration section a joke. The party could not get lost, so they always knew where to go, and they never needed rations because of Good Berry and Create Water.

I tried the first few sessions to make things interesting...and it worked on the first session...but only because the Ranger was not there and the party became lost. As a result,I could fit multiple encounters into that adventuring day and drain resources a bit. But once the Ranger made it back, there was little point. It ended up becoming them long resting, moving one hex, fighting one enemy, then long resting again until I bought Adventures in the Jungles of Chult. After which I intertwined some of those adventures into their travel time to make it interesting again.

Also, I was playing AL at the time, so I wasn't allowed to use Gritty Realism, and could not nerf spells like Goodberry. I had to play that part RAW, which made it suck. And it sucked when I played through the section as a player too, cause the DM had the same issue.

[Asmotherion]

The reason why i'd favor a Longer Rest would be for realism purposes. You get some wounds in battle? Nothing but magic should be able to fix you completely before at least a long time passes.

i'd be more free giving on short and long rest restoring resources other than HP. Magic for example should restore normally. Same for class abilities. Most Short Rest class Abilities are designed to be "encounter" renewable anyway from my perspective.

[Malifice]

A far cry from their own fortified base.

A Nobles keep isnt a fortified base?

[Malifice]

So, I had a similar thing happen when a DM tried Gritty Realism for the first time. None of us had ever tried it, and as a result the DM gave us a day that would have been "normal" for a game that was using the regular Rest rules, where long rests were 8 hours. I left thinking that Gritty Realism was terrible.

What you'll need to do is stretch the dungeon out, and make it seem less populated. A single adventuring "day" in Gritty Realism should only have one to three encounters of varying difficulty, and as a result your dungeons are going to have to seem a lot emptier then they normally would. If you try to use Gritty Realism rules while keeping up 6 to 8 encounters per 8 hours of rest, it will fall apart very, very quickly. Personally I suggest going back to the normal, 8 hours = a long rest for dungeon delves.

Another option is to allow 1 x short rest as a 5 minute breather, and the second short rest as an overnight affair.

This should result in PCs being able to handle 5-6 encounters in a single day, or enough for a smallish level of a dungeon.

[djreynolds]

It's a group of people trying to manage their collective resources.

And it becomes more difficult and challenging as numbers in the group increase and classes diversify.

It's the little rules and nuances that keep the game interesting.

[Frozenstep]

Because D&D is gamist and tries to go against the fundamentals of human nature and the DMs are trying to enforce a bad design principle.

If you are assaulted by three thugs with knives you are supposed to draw your knife and fight them in order to save the bullets to your handgun incase you meet an enemy down the road with an assault rifle.

A smart person will shoot them dead with the handgun to ensure their survival and buy more bullets later

That's true. If you're one dude in one situation in real life, you use everthing you can to survive. But that isn't what DnD is like.

DnD is more like a squad tasked with clearing an enemy base, where they know they'll have more then one enemy encounter to deal with, and only so much ammo of certain types. You could have the squad's grenade launcher member use it every time you know the enemy is in the next room, but that'll run out if you keep doing that every room, and there's plenty of times where it's not a big difference in risk just to quickly sweep the room with machine gun fire, which you have more of. So you save the grenade launcher for cover and vehicle busting.

It helps that in DnD, if you miscalculate a risk, it's rarely instantly fatal like a real life shoot-out can be. At some point, you have to accept a risk because you can't afford to burn resources endlessly, but it's up to you to judge the lowest risk situations, and when it's best to preemptively burn a resource to take care of a risk or an unknown.


No. All martial arts tell you to end a fight as quickly and efficiently as possible. For me a fight is not a game of chess unless the loser dies in the end.

I play rpgs for immersion and my character is most decidedly not thinking about HP scaling during a fight or that he has 120 HP and a sword blow can barely hurt him.

Changing lethality doesn't lower agency in any shape or form. More lethality just changes how you conduct fights.

If that's how your character fights, that's fine. If you have to accept later on your resources dry up and you're not in a position to get more without abandoning the mission, that's ok. It's perfectly fine for games to go like that. The world moves on, and the character's the adventure keeps going.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I don't use "gritty realism" because I feel it isn't very gritty or realistic. That said...

I don't usually have a problem running my party ragged under normal systems. Typically, in D&D, they'll have a day or two of intense action, where they can expect to be confronted with many combat situations, followed by a prolonged period of travel and social events. And they definitely can't take a long rest often between combats; if they stop pressing the attack, the enemy either counterattacks or digs in and brings up reserves. Counterattacking with fresh enemy troops after the party spends all their powerful resources is a great way to encourage them to always keep some assets in reserve in the future. My party has yet to let the proverbial princess get eaten by their own inaction [their own incompetence, though, is another story].


In a recent DH session, a new player to the group convinced the rest that they should all rest for 4 days in their ship's medical bay, after dispersing an important cultist operation and narrowing down the location of the cultist base. However, I think he's starting to realize that that just isn't the way things are going to work here, because the cultists used the 4 days to gut the place and scatter, and the party found nothing but an abandoned mine and what the cultists couldn't take. All documents had been burned, all personnel had fled. They were forced to start elsewhere, and seek a new lead to get back on the cultists' trail.


To be fair, I also reward aggression and initiative [or at least like to think I do]. Pursuing the attack and keeping up the pressure tends to results in smaller, weaker, and less-prepared groups of enemies, and sometimes Fate points to replace those burned in the fighting. Also, the princess doesn't get eaten.

[sithlordnergal]

Another option is to allow 1 x short rest as a 5 minute breather, and the second short rest as an overnight affair.

This should result in PCs being able to handle 5-6 encounters in a single day, or enough for a smallish level of a dungeon.

Ohhh, I hadn't thought of that. I think it would work pretty well for a small to medium dungeon...though I suspect it would start pushing the limits of your party if you tried it with a giant dungeon like the Tomb of the Nine Gods in Tomb of Annihilation, or the Dungeon of the Mad Mage in the new Hardcover.

[Bundin]

The reason why i'd favor a Longer Rest would be for realism purposes. You get some wounds in battle? Nothing but magic should be able to fix you completely before at least a long time passes.

i'd be more free giving on short and long rest restoring resources other than HP. Magic for example should restore normally. Same for class abilities. Most Short Rest class Abilities are designed to be "encounter" renewable anyway from my perspective.

In my opinion, the concept of 'HP' is flawed. According to the books, getting hit by an attack results in damage, which reduces hit points. Reading that, it very much implies that that hit resulted in some kind of wound. And yet.. a player is as efficient at 1 HP as at full HP. One night of sleep means you're pretty much completely fit again. That just doesn't make sense.

In my mind, HP is more like an endurance meter. Getting hit doesn't mean gaining wounds, but:
- getting a bit more tired from parrying that blow, or from jumping out of the way
- slowly losing your edge because you're getting tired from being on full alert for an extended period of time
- deflecting blows, which may still mean you may get hit with the flat of a sword, making you feel a bit woozy and slowing you down a bit more every time
- getting more and more scared as you feel your strength being sapped, not helping in keeping on top of what's happening in a chaotic fight
- ...

All that adds up, but adrenaline keeps you going during fights, and your experience as an adventurer keeps you going between them. You're still a fully functioning party member, right until that one attack that drops you to 0 or lower. That's the attack you weren't able to catch on your shield, or jump out of the way of, or just shrug off because you're just that bad-ass. And that one wound knocks you down, leaves you bleeding and has the player roll death saves.

High con doesn't mean you can survive more axes chopping into your chest, but it may mean that you tire out less easily, so you can dodge that one wound for longer. And a potion/spell makes sense now as well: it's magic that reinvigorates you, or (when down to 0) fixes that wound. A healing kit will stop the bleeding, but doesn't make you less tired/woozy/etc.

Played like that, resting makes a lot more sense to me. An hour is a breather, you can re-focus and work the knots out of your muscles. A night's sleep will do a lot for your physical/mental endurance.

[Yora]

I am thinking about renaming cure wounds. That's the one big thing that indicates that hit point loss is injuries.

[opaopajr]

I believe 'Gritty Realism' is a bit of a GM advice misnomer in terms of getting players to unclench and yet still make strategic resource manament a priority. It mostly leads to caution and novas. :smallmad: It teases people who want to dial down to a familiar aesthetic, yet doesn't really deliver.

So yeah, I get this topic's lament. :smallsmile:

My fix is to dump Long Rest 100% heal back to HP Max. Boom, it's all about the Hit Dice healing now.

Oh sure, Short Rest classes keep going, but eventually their other Long Rest allies will exhaust. Even SR classes will eventually exhaust, as none of the SR classes have SR features covering everything strategically needed. This way that class friction leaves a meaningful tactical vs. strategic choices for the party to decide as a whole -- and even incentive to temporarily split up before LR camp! :smallamused:

Trading small time for extra forward lunge is a solid way for players to tempt themselves into fun challenges, like overreach, or divided focus. :smallsmile:

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

That's... pretty much what PHB says about hit points.

For at least 4 editions.

[Bundin]

That's... pretty much what PHB says about hit points.

For at least 4 editions.

It's not what the terminology implies though, with hits and damage and the aforementioned 'Cure Wounds' :) Pretty much everyone I've played with since AD&D2 interprets taking damage as getting wounds.

I must admit I've not seen anything outside races/classes/feats/spells/combat/equipment in the PHB since... dnd 3.0 I think :p I guess I've some reading to do over the weekend. Good to know that my thoughts align with the designers tho :P


Hit points represent a combination o f physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck.
Hmm.. that's all I could find. That's not much, considering that damage types are all over different sections of the book. I think this could do with a more expanded explanation in the PHB, really..

[Throne12]

7th level spells, only applicable to the last third of the game. In Shadowrun you can get a base at character creation, like a background.

There the magic item instant fortress, and spell scroll of the higher spells. Then there is L's tiny hut.

[Benny89]

I don't see anything wrong with Gritty Realism as long as everybody at table have fun playing that way.

Same as I don't see anything wrong with having regular long rests if party just want to go "full high heroic mode" in every combat to have fun with all their awesome abilities/spells and feel like gods.

As long as whole table accepts that and nobody is forced to play in a way that is not fun for him- it's all good. There is always a middle ground.



As for Gritty Realism in general- Some DM just think it adds "flavor" to story, makes decision in combat more crucial, have more consequences, makes combat more dangerous, forcing players to think "should I use my XX spell now? But what if there is a boss next?". However I find that full Gritty Realism just doesn't go well with archaic "per day" system of D&D but that is just my opinion. I think they are much better systems for Gritty Realism, like Shadowrun, Warhammer, Eclipse Phase, most post-apo systems etc.

There is also I think two different approaches when it comes to playing D&D. One is that Heroes struggle against odds and have more of "risky" feeling when it comes to approaching combat and encounters, and second one where Heroes go full "heroic" with what they have so they can have fun with their arsenal of powers. There are of course variations between but If I had to place Gritty Realism on one side, I would put Heroic Fantasy on another side.

Both have consequences. First one if done poorly makes players save their resources sometimes so much that they never get to really use their best abilities/spell as they are afraid they won't have them later. Second one if done poorly makes every combat a total cake walk and is boring.

I like to balance them personally and have something in between or just couple of sessions for each to change a pace.

I don't know if you watch anime, but for me it's like Berserk vs Overlord.

Just my thoughts.

[Boci]

A Nobles keep isnt a fortified base?

It is. How is the PC getting one? Because this:

"Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk and merchants make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to."

is missing any mention of a keep that you can use freely.


There the magic item instant fortress, and spell scroll of the higher spells. Then there is L's tiny hut.

Magic items you may or may not get and the third level spell compare poorly with fortified base you can get at character creation in Shadowrun.

[Merudo]

However, what I don't understand is how DMs then don't recognize that by doing things this way, they're actually driving behavior opposite of what they claim to want! That is, parties of heroes braving personal danger and doing jaw-dropping heroics instead of taking the choice of 'I don't want to die and lose this character, guess the princess gets eaten'.


Typically, "gritty rules" don't mesh well with heroism.

If wounds are long lasting, the PCs are strongly incentivized to avoid combat. PCs are rewarded for being very careful and acting cowardly - this style of play encourage seeking combat only when the advantage is overwhelming.

[Rhedyn]

Let's be honest, very few groups use the variant rest time rules. So this situation doesn't come up often.

[MThurston]

My two cents.

Warlocks would suck if a short rest was 8 hours just as much as a long rest taking a week for Wizards.

I see nothing wrong with the rest rules.

Rest rules however should not balance classes.

[malachi]

My two cents.

Warlocks would suck if a short rest was 8 hours just as much as a long rest taking a week for Wizards.

I see nothing wrong with the rest rules.

Rest rules however should not balance classes.

Would warlocks suck here, or would it allow the players to say "It's 9:00 AM, is it appropriate for me to use one of my 2 spell slots for the day?" or "It's 10:00 PM, do I expect to need this spell later, or can I just use it for fun right now?" as opposed to "This is the first encounter of raiding the enemy base, and it looks hard. Do I think we're going to have another, harder battle coming up before we have a chance to spend an hour in-game time resting in hostile territory?"

This is assuming, of course, that the number of encounters is spread out such that you're still getting at most 2-3 encounters between short rests, and 2-3 short rests / 6-8 encounters between long rests.

[RipTide]

Some of these assumptions against the gritty realism seem to be forgetting that this is a game that is controlled on the fly by a real person, and that RP can and should influence when to take risks.

For the DM part, if you are using the longer rest set up you wont design the game to have the party take on a 10 level dungeon in a single day. The person in control has to adjust time frames to fit the resting rules.

for the RP part, if the party wants to be heroes then they will throw themselves into danger despite being unprepared (and the DM will adjust difficulty accordingly) if not then they are mercenary's just passing the job onto someone else. Either is fine but the desired RP should influence the decisions made.

[MThurston]

Would warlocks suck here, or would it allow the players to say "It's 9:00 AM, is it appropriate for me to use one of my 2 spell slots for the day?" or "It's 10:00 PM, do I expect to need this spell later, or can I just use it for fun right now?" as opposed to "This is the first encounter of raiding the enemy base, and it looks hard. Do I think we're going to have another, harder battle coming up before we have a chance to spend an hour in-game time resting in hostile territory?"

This is assuming, of course, that the number of encounters is spread out such that you're still getting at most 2-3 encounters between short rests, and 2-3 short rests / 6-8 encounters between long rests.

Why are we managing encounters instead of role-playing?

Isn't it about the story and not about rests?

The old way was spells per day. Now it is this.

A story shouldn't be developed around rests but here we are doing it.

[Rukelnikov]

Why are we managing encounters instead of role-playing?

Isn't it about the story and not about rests?

The old way was spells per day. Now it is this.

A story shouldn't be developed around rests but here we are doing it.

That's my problem. I don't develop the story around rests, and I won't, but it ends up making hexcrawling, a style my table uses a lot, difficult to pull off.

So, I have to either change my narrative to accomodate the system, or change the system so it is in accordance to the narrative.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One thing to note is that the whole 6-8 encounter, 2-3 short rest paradigm is a red line for long-term survivability. That is, if you consistently do more than the "full adventuring day" (properly measured in adjusted XP, not encounters) OR don't give opportunities for enough short rests per full adventuring day, you'll run the risk of a downward spiral (where you don't recover enough hit dice to keep up the pace). It's a pacing guide, not a standard. It says "don't expect them to comfortably do more than this when designing adventures."

As any good engineer, they also were conservative. Most parties (based on items, optimization, or good tactics) can handle anywhere from 1.33 to 1.5x the "budget" before hitting the wall. But on a bad day when the DM's dice are rolling hot and the players' dice are cold...

YOU DON'T HAVE TO ALWAYS USE UP THE BUDGET! A sweet spot I've found for my parties (YMMV) is 4-5 "encounters" of varying difficulty with 1-3 clear short rest opportunities per long rest. This gives me headroom to spike the difficulty either by increasing the difficulty of individual encounters or by increasing the number of encounters. If you're constantly at the red line, you don't have this flexibility. But then again I'm not a very challenge-focused DM or player.

[Rhedyn]

If you give up the idea of "combat as sport" where combat is suppose to be a fun interesting mini-game where a "fair fight" is a good time for all at the table, then you can toss out encounter pacing and not worry about it again.

Just then be prepared for most fights being either "impossible" or "really easy" as you are in the "combat as war" mode where fair fights are few and combat stops being mini-game and more a brief interruption of action to the real meat of game being exploration/setting up fights to your advantage.

[Rukelnikov]

One thing to note is that the whole 6-8 encounter, 2-3 short rest paradigm is a red line for long-term survivability. That is, if you consistently do more than the "full adventuring day" (properly measured in adjusted XP, not encounters) OR don't give opportunities for enough short rests per full adventuring day, you'll run the risk of a downward spiral (where you don't recover enough hit dice to keep up the pace). It's a pacing guide, not a standard. It says "don't expect them to comfortably do more than this when designing adventures."

As any good engineer, they also were conservative. Most parties (based on items, optimization, or good tactics) can handle anywhere from 1.33 to 1.5x the "budget" before hitting the wall. But on a bad day when the DM's dice are rolling hot and the players' dice are cold...

YOU DON'T HAVE TO ALWAYS USE UP THE BUDGET! A sweet spot I've found for my parties (YMMV) is 4-5 "encounters" of varying difficulty with 1-3 clear short rest opportunities per long rest. This gives me headroom to spike the difficulty either by increasing the difficulty of individual encounters or by increasing the number of encounters. If you're constantly at the red line, you don't have this flexibility. But then again I'm not a very challenge-focused DM or player.

I get the impression most people that like/are interested in gritty realism have the opposite problem, its not that they wanna do more encounters than what the charas can manage, its that the do fewer.

[stoutstien]

Why are we managing encounters instead of role-playing?

Isn't it about the story and not about rests?

The old way was spells per day. Now it is this.

A story shouldn't be developed around rests but here we are doing it.

Because it's the DM job to manage encounters, roleplay everything that isn't a pc, provide the adequate amount of challenge for party, make sure every character had the chance to do something cool and feel useful, understand the end of outs of all the rules, andyou get my point.
A DM looking for a way to control rest resource management it's just trying to lessen the strain on him/her self so the party can focus on role playing.

it's kind of like the irony that most players are looking the optimized even though it has no effect on the actual gameplay. The only true static element are the PC.

[Rukelnikov]

it's kind of like the irony that most players are looking the optimized even though it has no effect on the actual gameplay. The only true static element are the PC.

This is a bit OT, but yeah, I've been saying this for a long time now, it doesn't matter wether the PCs are optimized or not, they will always be challenged.

[Man_Over_Game]

I get the impression most people that like/are interested in gritty realism have the opposite problem, its not that they wanna do more encounters than what the charas can manage, its that the do fewer.

Agreed.

The current system, for each class to stay balanced with one another, requires 2 Short Rests per Long Rest, but that would effectively mean I'd need at least 3 encounters a day (and by *day*, I mean daylight cycle). From everything I can tell about class balance, this is the bare minimum. Anything less than that starts creating some strong favoritism for some classes over others throughout the majority of the campaign. Some classes don't even break even until they get a 3rd Short Rest in (I'm looking at you, Fighter).

What if I want my average encounter-per-day to be 2 or less?

Coincidentally, that fits exactly within the recommended 1-2 encounters per Short Rest, if a night's sleep was a Short Rest. The trick then comes in as to figuring out how long a Long Rest is that doesn't severely slow down the campaign.


Why are we managing encounters instead of role-playing?

Isn't it about the story and not about rests?

The old way was spells per day. Now it is this.

A story shouldn't be developed around rests but here we are doing it.

DnD isn't just a story-writing tool, though. It has mechanics so that each Player has equal chance to change the narrative in their own way. CR, classes, levels, spell slots, magic item level, all of these things are gamist concepts to make sure that everyone gets an equal slice of an infinitely diverse pie.

Ignoring something like encounter balance ends up giving someone a bigger slice of a pie than everyone else. It's no longer the Paladin and the Fighter's Story, it's now the Paladin and his Sidekick's. And a DM can ignore that to make the narrative easier to flow with, but I feel like everyone will have more fun if the DM just recognizes the problem and finds a way to deal with it.

Kinda reminds me of programming, actually. A good programmer recognizes that the more work the Programmer puts in, the easier it is on the User. Or alternatively, the Programmer can do less work and put more strain on the User.
The difference is, it's the Programmer's job to cater to the User, not the other way around. That's why there is such a thing as a good Programmer. DMing is similar to that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I get the impression most people that like/are interested in gritty realism have the opposite problem, its not that they wanna do more encounters than what the charas can manage, its that the do fewer.

Note: in what follows, "day" in quotation marks refers to the time between long rest resets, however long that is. I'll specify a calendar day for the 24-hour period version.

They want to fit full adventuring "days" into the rhythm of their campaign, where in-game calendar days don't match with the number of encounters for a full adventuring day. And the answer is--don't try to always squeeze full adventuring days in. It's totally fine to have all your "days" well under that threshold (whether by # of encounters or difficulty of encounter). People seem to believe that if you have fewer encounters you have to ramp up the difficulty, keeping the total difficulty of the "day" set at maximum. There's a third variable. When it makes sense to have a hard "day", have a hard "day". When it doesn't, don't.

Gritty realism helps when very few, if any of your calendar days will have more than one fight. If you're just periodically having that situation (travel, for example), gritty realism isn't what you want. A party not working at redline is fine with a relaxed "day" or two here and there. It's for political campaigns where you might have 2 fights...per arc. Or where you want the in-game action to be spread over a long period of time. It's a pacing tool, not an encounter balance tool.

Same goes for the heroic rest variant. That's for when the campaign premise demands that you get through a lot of encounters in a short calendar span consistently. A party not working at redline can handle a "day" that pushes the envelope (or even exceeds it) here and there. It's when it's every "day" is that way that you increase the TPK risk tremendously (due to simple math).

As long as you're not consistently pushing the boundaries (either in optimization or challenge), the balance concerns are pretty much moot. It's when people feel they have to be at maximum capability to have a chance that you get the 5-minute working day. If the focus is on the fiction knowing that the campaign is built that way, players will pace themselves appropriately and you can throw in curve-balls occasionally (the big single-encounter boss fight for the paladin to go crazy on, or the long slog for the rogue, or the well-spaced series of waves with time between for the warlock, etc) to spice things up.

But if you're running at the red line constantly, you have much less wiggle room before the balance issues and play-style issues become apparent. If someone doing 85% DPR compared to someone else is enough to make a fight go bad you have to watch those few percent.

The happy place for 5e (for me) is where resources matter somewhat, but not acutely. Where the threat of running out if you spam is there, but you're not constantly up against the wall.

I'll note that some people like to push the red line constantly. And that's fine. But they're the ones that have to take special considerations, not the people who are running a ways below the red line. Just like if you're a conservative driver (not pushing the performance envelope) you can get away with a lot looser driving compared to a racing driver.


The current system, for each class to stay balanced with one another, requires 2 Short Rests per Long Rest, but that would effectively mean I'd need at least 3 encounters a day (and by *day*, I mean daylight cycle). From everything I can tell about class balance, this is the bare minimum. Anything less than that starts creating some strong favoritism for some classes over others throughout the majority of the campaign. Some classes don't even break even until they get a 3rd Short Rest in (I'm looking at you, Fighter).

This is simply not true. You're taking a warning threshold (where the risk of further encounters becomes non-linear and increasingly so) as a baseline. 5e is not designed as a tactical combat simulator. The fiction is supposed to control the pace that the players move at, not class balance. That can only be true if you're letting the fiction do its job. The information you're seeing is to help people judge what's a fair, sustainable pace, not to set class balance guidelines. The developers have been quite clear that they do not use that "6-8 encounter" thing as a guide for balance.

Remember that the statistical averaging hides a huge amount of noise here. Differences of 10-15% are within the noise floor for an actual campaign, because it's not white room combat. Dice matter, players matter (much more than anything else), campaign details matter, terrain matters, etc. Reasoning from bad assumptions is faulty.

2 short rests is a nice benchmark, but wide variations are acceptable. Some days with 0 short rests (and a bunch of combats), some days with lots of combats and chances to short rest, some with only one big combat. As long as the players don't meta-game, thinking "oh, this DM only throws one combat at us" or whatever, class balance is fine.

[Man_Over_Game]

Note: in what follows, "day" in quotation marks refers to the time between long rest resets, however long that is. I'll specify a calendar day for the 24-hour period version.

They want to fit full adventuring "days" into the rhythm of their campaign, where in-game calendar days don't match with the number of encounters for a full adventuring day. And the answer is--don't try to always squeeze full adventuring days in. It's totally fine to have all your "days" well under that threshold (whether by # of encounters or difficulty of encounter). People seem to believe that if you have fewer encounters you have to ramp up the difficulty, keeping the total difficulty of the "day" set at maximum. There's a third variable. When it makes sense to have a hard "day", have a hard "day". When it doesn't, don't.

Gritty realism helps when very few, if any of your calendar days will have more than one fight. If you're just periodically having that situation (travel, for example), gritty realism isn't what you want. A party not working at redline is fine with a relaxed "day" or two here and there. It's for political campaigns where you might have 2 fights...per arc. Or where you want the in-game action to be spread over a long period of time. It's a pacing tool, not an encounter balance tool.

Same goes for the heroic rest variant. That's for when the campaign premise demands that you get through a lot of encounters in a short calendar span consistently. A party not working at redline can handle a "day" that pushes the envelope (or even exceeds it) here and there. It's when it's every "day" is that way that you increase the TPK risk tremendously (due to simple math).

As long as you're not consistently pushing the boundaries (either in optimization or challenge), the balance concerns are pretty much moot. It's when people feel they have to be at maximum capability to have a chance that you get the 5-minute working day. If the focus is on the fiction knowing that the campaign is built that way, players will pace themselves appropriately and you can throw in curve-balls occasionally (the big single-encounter boss fight for the paladin to go crazy on, or the long slog for the rogue, or the well-spaced series of waves with time between for the warlock, etc) to spice things up.

But if you're running at the red line constantly, you have much less wiggle room before the balance issues and play-style issues become apparent. If someone doing 85% DPR compared to someone else is enough to make a fight go bad you have to watch those few percent.

The happy place for 5e (for me) is where resources matter somewhat, but not acutely. Where the threat of running out if you spam is there, but you're not constantly up against the wall.

I'll note that some people like to push the red line constantly. And that's fine. But they're the ones that have to take special considerations, not the people who are running a ways below the red line. Just like if you're a conservative driver (not pushing the performance envelope) you can get away with a lot looser driving compared to a racing driver.



This is simply not true. You're taking a warning threshold (where the risk of further encounters becomes non-linear and increasingly so) as a baseline. 5e is not designed as a tactical combat simulator. The fiction is supposed to control the pace that the players move at, not class balance. That can only be true if you're letting the fiction do its job. The information you're seeing is to help people judge what's a fair, sustainable pace, not to set class balance guidelines. The developers have been quite clear that they do not use that "6-8 encounter" thing as a guide for balance.

Remember that the statistical averaging hides a huge amount of noise here. Differences of 10-15% are within the noise floor for an actual campaign, because it's not white room combat. Dice matter, players matter (much more than anything else), campaign details matter, terrain matters, etc. Reasoning from bad assumptions is faulty.

2 short rests is a nice benchmark, but wide variations are acceptable. Some days with 0 short rests (and a bunch of combats), some days with lots of combats and chances to short rest, some with only one big combat. As long as the players don't meta-game, thinking "oh, this DM only throws one combat at us" or whatever, class balance is fine.

I don't necessarily condone the 6-8 encounter philosophy; that just seems a bit too much for my tastes. The Devs can say whatever they want, their intent doesn't always reflect how things actually are.

I've done the research. Fighters are worse than Paladins with less than 2 Short Rests. Warlocks are worse than Wizards with less than two Short Rests. People can use that information or ignore it and I don't know if the Devs realized this or not or whether they have opinions on it.

These are the facts I know:

Tools for supporting Out of Combat:
Paladin > Fighter
Wizard => Warlock

Tools for supporting Combat:
If Short Rests < 2:
Paladin > Fighter
Wizard > Warlock

If Short Rests = 2:
Paladin = Fighter
Wizard = Warlock

If Short Rests > 2:
Paladin < Fighter
Wizard < Warlock

And I'm not talking about a 15% difference. A Paladin and a Fighter, both using a Sword and Shield at level 5 and after 7 rounds of combat with no Short Rests, the Paladin deals 168 damage vs. the Fighter's 120. That's a 40% difference. It's not necessarily about the Fighter doing less damage than the Paladin, it's the fact that in both Out-of-Combat and In-Combat, the Fighter is strictly worse when using less than 2 Short Rests.

In almost every circumstance, the Fighter is a worse class than the Paladin, and only starts getting better after a second Short Rest.

I haven't found much evidence to show this as being wrong anyway. If anyone else does, though, please let me know. I'm pretty passionate about class balance.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't necessarily condone the 6-8 encounter philosophy; that just seems a bit too much for my tastes. The Devs can say whatever they want, their intent doesn't always reflect how things actually are.

I've done the research. Fighters are worse than Paladins with less than 2 Short Rests. Warlocks are worse than Wizards with less than two Short Rests. People can use that information or ignore it and I don't know if the Devs realized this or not or whether they have opinions on it.

I haven't found much evidence to prove this as being wrong. If anyone else does, though, please let me know. I'm pretty passionate about class balance, and I'm always looking for ways to improve.

What's wrong is your measuring stick. You're measuring DPR under a set of very limiting assumptions. And that's skewing your results. Additionally, you're looking at always being in perfect balance, while that's impossible. As long as over the course of a campaign things are approximately balanced, the rest is just noise. Too strict a concern with numerical measurables often makes things less fun for everyone.

For that matter, I had a campaign (1-20) with the following characters.
* A GOO warlock.
* A land druid.
* An open-hand monk. Until level 15 or so she usually forgot to use ki points at all, let alone optimally.
* An AT rogue (mostly TWF).

We rarely had more than 2-4 fights per 24-hour period, using standard rest rules. Occasionally we'd have one short rest, sometimes 2. Who was the MVP?

Out of combat? Mostly the warlock (or the rogue, depending on the situation). Usually not by spending resources however. Mostly by finding clever ways around things or talking to people.

In combat? The rogue did the most damage, hands down. His dice ran hot and he was pretty tactical. The warlock was pretty darn effective, despite rarely using EB. His favorite trick was telekinesis (throwing people off buildings and using the environment). The monk did OK--the one time she really remembered to use stunning strike she locked down a beholder so it didn't get an action at all. The druid? Mostly comedy. His dice are notoriously cold (even using other people's dice), he loved to summon giant constrictor snakes (that 99% of the time failed to do anything). His only shining moment was at level 20 when he shapechange'd into an adult red dragon and melted some face. But that was one session at the end. Other than that he was mostly a non-actor in combat.

You're also not considering the noise floor. Can we agree that if the difference was 0.00000001%, we could ignore it? I'd contend (based on experience) that there's more like a 10-15% floor, beyond which further discussion is pointless.

Unless you're constantly pushing the red-line, player >>> build for any rest scheme, because you're not requiring the full horsepower of either. Only at the red line does raw power even matter. The game does not assume you're pushing the red line. It assumes quite the opposite, in fact.

Yes, 2 short rests are "optimum". But the game is fine with wide variation as long as you have variation on both sides. What doesn't work is 0 short rests, many fights per long rest consistently. Stay away from that extreme and you'll be fine.

[Frozenstep]

I've done the research. Fighters are worse than Paladins with less than 2 Short Rests. Warlocks are worse than Wizards with less than two Short Rests.

In almost every circumstance, the Fighter is a worse class than the Paladin, and only starts getting better after a second Short Rest.

There's just one thing to add to this. The paladin and wizard are only significantly better in a day with less then 2 short rests if they play like they think they're going to get less then 2 short rests. If they play like they will need to save their resources for another 5 encounters, and the short rest classes play like they'll have more encounters but also more short rests...you don't actually need to have those encounters happen. That's why it can be fine to have shorter days, as long as the party always plays with the thought of "But this might end up being a long day..."

[Man_Over_Game]

Yes, 2 short rests are "optimum". But the game is fine with wide variation as long as you have variation on both sides. What doesn't work is 0 short rests, many fights per long rest consistently. Stay away from that extreme and you'll be fine.

I think we're on the same page then. Now, I do disagree on some of your examples. I feel like most of those are creative player solutions, not necessarily specific to the class. A Wizard could be a charismatic manipulator-you don't need to be a Rogue or a Bard to talk your way out of a problem, nor do you need to be a Barbarian to throw people off cliffs (such as with your Telekinesis solution). But dealing with the averages and the most common situation (I attack) shows us what we can expect.

I agree that a table doesn't need to always have 2 Short Rests to make sure everyone is balanced all the time. I definitely think that most DM's feel like 0-1 Short Rests is enough. And it's not. I've never, not once, used more than 2 Short Rests as a Player, and yet, 3 Short Rests should be as common as having 1. 4 Short Rests should be as common as having 0.

Now, most people can recognize a day when they've had 0 Short Rests in a combat day, but I don't think anyone's considered having 4 in the same day.

In my last campaign, I got through level 3 without a single Short Rest. Thank god I didn't roll a Warlock...

If people were using 2 Short Rests as the goal, I wouldn't have anything to complain about, but most people use far less than that. It's a problem in 5e that I don't think has enough awareness.


There's just one thing to add to this. The paladin and wizard are only significantly better in a day with less then 2 short rests if they play like they think they're going to get less then 2 short rests. If they play like they will need to save their resources for another 5 encounters, and the short rest classes play like they'll have more encounters but also more short rests...you don't actually need to have those encounters happen. That's why it can be fine to have shorter days, as long as the party always plays with the thought of "But this might end up being a long day..."

Good point! The main concern here is that the Paladin and the Wizard have plenty of options for out of combat, though. The Warlock and the Fighter, after spending their powerhouse resources in a fight and hoping they get a Short Rest to do it again, have no such access to those abilities (I guess the Warlock could cast a non-combat ability and Short Rest, but using a Short Rest for 1-2 spell slots of value would slow down the game).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think we're on the same page then. Now, I do disagree on some of your examples. I feel like most of those are creative player solutions, not necessarily specific to the class. A Wizard could be a charismatic manipulator-you don't need to be a Rogue or a Bard to talk your way out of a problem, nor do you need to be a Barbarian to throw people off cliffs (such as with your Telekinesis solution). But dealing with the averages and the most common situation (I attack) shows us what we can expect.

I agree that a table doesn't need to always have 2 Short Rests to make sure everyone is balanced all the time. I definitely think that most DM's feel like 0-1 Short Rests is enough. And it's not. I've never, not once, used more than 2 Short Rests as a Player, and yet, 3 Short Rests should be as common as having 1. 4 Short Rests should be as common as having 0.

Now, most people can recognize a day when they've had 0 Short Rests in a combat day, but I don't think anyone's considered having 4 in the same day.

In my last campaign, I got through level 3 without a single Short Rest. Thank god I didn't roll a Warlock.

If people were using 2 Short Rests as the goal, I wouldn't have anything to complain about, but most people use far less than that. It's a problem in 5e that I don't think has enough awareness.

This I can agree with. But my main thrust was in opposing the idea that you need 6-8 encounters (or the equivalent in adjusted XP) for class balance. You should generally have # SR > 0. And that means writing adventures that allow for them. If that's not possible (due to the specific fiction), use the Heroic variant (or just shorten the short rests and leave the long ones alone).

I see Gritty Realism as being mostly for those games where combat just isn't a major part of the game. You still need the idea of rests and resets, but not for combat stuff, but for non-combat uses of abilities. THe expectation is that the wizards (etc) are spending their slots on investigative (etc) spells while the warlock is doing <whatever>, etc. Where your average action takes tens of minutes or hours, not seconds (ie politics, where everything takes forever in-fiction).

Class balance under those conditions is completely different from class balance under the "combat is everything" paradigm (where the main resource expenditure is doing/preventing damage), and assumptions that work for one will not work comfortably for the other.

Edit: Warlocks (in particular) get most of their out-of-combat oomph from two things
a) they're a full-charisma class, so social things are right up their alley (no resources needed).
b) they get invocations, many/most of which are useful out of combat without using resources.

And paladins don't really have that much out-of-combat stuff. They get Divine Sense (which is super limited), Lay on Hands (which is combat related) and...the detect spells until very high level. Most of which aren't that useful. And which they really don't have slots to spare on, not if they want to keep their combat potential up. Champion fighters have Remarkable Athlete for non-combat, Battle masters have artisans's tools and Know your Enemy (both weak, but artisans tools are quite good if you're using Xanathar's rules for them)), and EK has spells. And fighters have much more room for non-combat feats. So saying that paladins are hugely better out of combat is, in my opinion, drastically overstating the case. They're sometimes better, situationally. If it has to do with undead or fiends, sure. But only in limited cases.

[Man_Over_Game]

[...]

And paladins don't really have that much out-of-combat stuff. They get Divine Sense (which is super limited), Lay on Hands (which is combat related) and...the detect spells until very high level. Most of which aren't that useful. And which they really don't have slots to spare on, not if they want to keep their combat potential up. Champion fighters have Remarkable Athlete for non-combat, Battle masters have artisans's tools and Know your Enemy (both weak, but artisans tools are quite good if you're using Xanathar's rules for them)), and EK has spells. And fighters have much more room for non-combat feats. So saying that paladins are hugely better out of combat is, in my opinion, drastically overstating the case. They're sometimes better, situationally. If it has to do with undead or fiends, sure. But only in limited cases.

But Paladins do have:

Lay On Hands, AKA Cure Disease, AKA Cure Alcoholism.
Have Prepared spells, which means they can adapt to how much/little combat they expect, including things like:

Ceremony
Purify Food and Drink
Lesser Restoration
Find Steed
Protection from Poison
Zone of Truth (And that's just the level 1-2 spells)

Oath specific options, including:

Speak with Animals
Causing everyone you choose to fear you
Gaining +5 to Charisma checks for 10 min.
Track a target with Hunter's Mark



Compared to casters, this doesn't seem like much, but what do Fighters get? Or Barbarians? If anything, I feel like 3 Short Rests should be the norm, if only because Paladins and Wizards become only slightly worse than their Short Rest cousins, and this would compensate for the Paladin/Wizard's versatility.

[Pex]

I find it doesn't matter how long a rest is in game terms. Let a short or long rest be 8 hours, a week, a millennium. What matters is the ratio of short and long rests players get per game session. Players want to use their stuff. That's why they are playing that class to have their fun. Resource management is part of the fun, and it's ok to be a bit lacking once in a while because of Plot necessity to keep going. It's not fun not getting to use your stuff for a game session, two game sessions, three game sessions because you can't rest. Doesn't matter if it's because you had to use all your stuff to survive encounters and can't get it back or you never use your stuff for fear you'll need it more later. Resting is how players get their stuff back enabling them to use it.

Use however long game hours or days it takes to rest to satisfy your gameworld verisimilitude. The important thing is the players get enough rests per game session. That could mean long rests only happen at the end of the session to start fresh on the next one or two or more long rests in a game session because of all the danger and excitement of what's currently happening.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But Paladins do have:

Lay On Hands, AKA Cure Disease, AKA Cure Alcoholism. Highly DM specific for what this applies to.
Have Prepared spells, which means they can adapt to how much/little combat they expect, including things like: None of which are commonly useful, except lesser restoration...which mostly affects combat-relevant stuff

Ceremony
Purify Food and Drink
Lesser Restoration
Find Steed
Protection from Poison
Zone of Truth (And that's just the level 1-2 spells)

Oath specific options, including:

Speak with Animals costs a spell slot
Causing everyone you choose to fear you combat use (or will start combat--this is not a non-hostile act)
Gaining +5 to Charisma checks for 10 min. comes with a horribly weak sub-class
Track a target with Hunter's Mark as can anyone, at the cost of a precious resource



Compared to casters, this doesn't seem like much, but what do Fighters get?

Feats. Mostly feats (especially since they're not as MAD as paladins are). For non-combat purposes I'd take Ritual Caster 100x more than the total of the paladin non-combat stuff. Or Healer. Or Inspiring Leader. Or Keen Mind (but now we're down to merely 20x). Linguist has been quite useful in my games. Dungeon Delver (in the right campaign). Actor. Lucky (the absolute most common feat in any of my games). Magic initiate. Observant. Even Skilled is a major benefit for non-combat things.

And fighters get these much earlier or can afford to generalize. Paladins are one-trick ponies. In their one little niche, they're great. Outside? They're worse than fighters due to opportunity costs.

[Jakinbandw]

Clearly, I like my games a lot more sandboxy than you do.

So this is a lie that a lot of people believe.

I'll put it like this. As a thought experiment next time you run/play, select monster by randomly rolling on the monster manual with no regard to cr rating and see how long the pcs last.

They are out hunting kobalds? Bad luck! Random encounter with a elder red dragon that wants lunch.

I believe that players want to believe that they are choosing level appropriate a counters to feel smart. And giving them knowledge of the world is an option so that they can choose encounters. But even then, realistically there is a decent chance that rolling up challenges in an area based on the MM will result in nothing that a first level party can survive against. If there is, likely the GM is meta gaming to give the players challenges they can survive.

I run a sandbox campaign myself and I let the players tell me what they want (say treasure) then give them a few option in the surrounding area after they've done some legwork. Only after that do I build a ruin and populate it because I don't spend every waking moment building dungeons I'll never use.

The place the players have chosen selects the theme, and some places are slightly easier or harder or have better loot. But in the end I want the game to continue so I'm not out to murder my pcs, either through neglect or malice.

[JoeJ]

So this is a lie that a lot of people believe.

I'll put it like this. As a thought experiment next time you run/play, select monster by randomly rolling on the monster manual with no regard to cr rating and see how long the pcs last.

What kind of a LOLRandom world are you positing, where it would make sense to just roll in the monster manual to see what someone encounters? I don't randomly run into tigers, electric eels, elephant poachers, and Spetsnaz teams when I go out for a walk. I could find any of those things (although probably not together) if I made the effort to go where they hang out, but I wouldn't do that without being prepared for that encounter.

[Boci]

What kind of a LOLRandom world are you positing, where it would make sense to just roll in the monster manual to see what someone encounters? I don't randomly run into tigers, electric eels, elephant poachers, and Spetsnaz teams when I go out for a walk.

Fair enough, let's settle on forest then. Potential monsters, not looking at party level:

Ankheg (C 3)
Blightling (C 1/8-1/2)
Green dragon (C 2-22)
Dryard (C 1)
Ettercap (C 2)
Formorian (C 8)
Fungi (C 0-1/2)
Hill giant (C 5)
Green hag (C 3)
Werewolf (C 2)
Owlbear (C 3)
Satyr (C 1/2)
Sprite (C 1/2)
Treant (C 9)
Unicorn (C 5)
Wyvern (C 6)

Now before I roll randomly for what your Level 1 party encounters, sure I shouldn't exclude some results based on the level?

[JoeJ]

Fair enough, let's settle on forest then. Potential monsters, not looking at party level:

Ankheg (C 3)
Blightling (C 1/8-1/2)
Green dragon (C 2-22)
Dryard (C 1)
Ettercap (C 2)
Formorian (C 8)
Fungi (C 0-1/2)
Hill giant (C 5)
Green hag (C 3)
Werewolf (C 2)
Owlbear (C 3)
Satyr (C 1/2)
Sprite (C 1/2)
Treant (C 9)
Unicorn (C 5)
Wyvern (C 6)

Now before I roll randomly for what your Level 1 party encounters, sure I shouldn't exclude some results based on the level?

Remind me again why we're going into Deathwood rather than some place more reasonable.

I mean, people live in the world, right? Even commoners? So monsters are probably not randomly distributed. Sandbox does not mean LOL random.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think everyone's looking at a lot of extremes.

JoeJ seems to be implying that there should always be a potential threat that the players can't (or shouldn't) mess with, and they should have knowledge of those threats. Like a Lich in a faraway tower, or the rumor that Bulettes lurk in the local mountains. You don't go to those places or fight those things. Sometimes, the player can't avoid them, and sometimes the player has to run.

Everyone else seems to be implying that the DM needs to always have a hand on the throttle at all times. If the players can't deal with a threat, its' because the DM decided it to be that way. Nothing is ever an accident, and every problem has to have at least one solution.

Either has its merit. Sometimes, you gotta recognize that the players are adults, and that they need to be able to make their own mistakes. Other times, you gotta remember that you are the literal Creator of this universe, and the amount of fun they have is your responsibility, and nobody has fun when nothing they do matters.

You're both right, but the best solution is a compromise between both sides.

[Boci]

Remind me again why we're going into Deathwood rather than some place more reasonable.

I mean, people live in the world, right? Even commoners? So monsters are probably not randomly distributed. Sandbox does not mean LOL random.

Why do you think its Deathwood? You just spoke to some caravan guards who passed through it. Sure, they had to fight off some blightlings and an ettercap's pet spider, and meeting that treat end was scary, but they promised not to cut down any trees and they left him alone. It can be pased. Some people don't make it through, probably fell victim to the etterncap, just don't let them get the drop on you, they're not dangerous in a toe to toe, honest fight.

Unless this is a video game, areas don't have levels after their names.

"No, that Nettlegrove is 5-9, let's stick to this Ulpas, its only 1-3, we can handle anything in it"

[stoutstien]

Remind me again why we're going into Deathwood rather than some place more reasonable.

I mean, people live in the world, right? Even commoners? So monsters are probably not randomly distributed. Sandbox does not mean LOL random.
There's also the point that the party kind of gravitates towards danger or danger gravitates toward them. I'm not saying the entire day should be like a die hard movie but if the party never run into an serious threat after five or six sessions they're pretty much are commoners with some extra tricks.

Heros go on adventures.

now there is a young green dragon that lives in those swamps and the players are aware of it and they go tromping through without a care in the world you might say they deserve to get attacked or at least an encounter that could possibly end in combat.

As man_over_game said it's finding that middle ground that everybody's happy with.

on a side note I have noticed that smaller parties tend to more often than not be on the same resource recovery scheme. If the party has a fighter and a monk the third person tends to gravitate towards more of a warlock or land druid with short rest spell recovery potential compared to a cleric or Bard have very limited short rest potential. No idea if it's intentional or just selection bias on my part . I should read over my old notes in see

[LordCdrMilitant]

For the most part, the party are commoners with extra tricks. Unless they're nobles, priests, or scholars, then they're not commoners, but nobles and priests with extra tricks. And for the most part, I generally chose to interpret it as not necessarily just having extra tricks by blessing [unless you're a cleric or paladin, then they're definitely blessings, but you get the point], so much has having the will to learn extra tricks and put them to use.

And it's the putting them to use that's important. The other commoners and scholars and nobles and priests for the most part either have chosen to instead focus on farming, so they can get eat tomorrow and probably won't die, and would probably only fight if their lives or property was in danger.

[FirstBornSon]

I dont think it is a problem in overal encaunters but a difrence bethvene short and long rest classes where wizards ****d the pooch.

[SkipSandwich]

So, as one of those DMs that likes to play around with Rest mechanics, what behaviors should one expect from the following system?

1) Death Saves are no more, when reduced to 0 hp you are Downed (Incapacitated + Prone), and have the option of either staying down and waiting to be healed or to force yourself back up at the cost of gaining an Injury. Each time that you are Downed or suffer damage While already Downed causes you to gain 1 level of Exhaustion.

2)Upon gaining an Injury, you are filled with a rush of Adrenaline/Heroic Resolve/Fighting Spirit/Ect and immediately gain the benefit of a Rest, with your first two Injuries granting the equivilant of a Short Rest and your third Injury onwards granting the benefit of a Long Rest. Injuries have the same effect as levels of Exhaustion(add total Exhaustion and Injuries together to determine the effects), but take longer to recover from.

3) Outside of combat, its 8 hours for a Short Rest and 40 Hours (5 days) for a Long Rest. You recover 1 level of Exhaustion with each Short Rest, and Recover ALL Exhaustion with each Long Rest. You recover from 1 Injury per Long Rest done in comfortable conditions (such as in a inn, hospital or private residence).

4) Due to the above changes, the Healer's Kit has also changed in function. By attending to a resting or downed creature with a Healer's Kit, that creature recovers an addition +1 hit point per hit die spent on healing on that rest/injury. If the medic has the Healer feat, they recover +3 hit points per hit die instead.

The idea was to allow characters to push on at cost without forcing a retreat during a dungeon or similar climatic location where the party is expected to fight multiple encounters over a relatively short timespan, while the majority of encounters occur at the rate of 1-2 a day during the travel to and from said dungeons, with the expectation that characters will have about a month of downtime to spend between adventures.

Thoughts?

Keep in mind that it is intentional for Injuries to clear some/all of your Exhaustion at the time they are acquired, this is to keep the system from being TOO punishing, I WANT players to still be able to fight while wounded.

[Pex]

When villagers say don't go into the woods because people who go in don't come back the players' response is to go into the woods and end the danger. It's the DM's fault if they die because an adult green dragon in the woods breathes on them. He is not absolved because the players were warned.

[Man_Over_Game]

When villagers say don't go into the woods because people who go in don't come back the players' response is to go into the woods and end the danger. It's the DM's fault if they die because an adult green dragon in the woods breathes on them. He is not absolved because the players were warned.

I think the key here is to provide more clues as you think you should. Players need to know they're making a mistake, and the first step is the "know" part; the "mistake" comes after.

Good rule of thumb: If the player cannot blame themselves, they're going to blame the DM.

Always provide more than enough information so that the players always know it was their own damn faults. Ignorance stops being a valid excuse when mixed with sloth, and that goes on both sides of the screen.

[Boci]

When villagers say don't go into the woods because people who go in don't come back the players' response is to go into the woods and end the danger. It's the DM's fault if they die because an adult green dragon in the woods breathes on them. He is not absolved because the players were warned.

If the players however insisted "You don't have to adjust the challenges with our party and level in mind" however, than the DM is totally absolved.

[JoeJ]

If the players however insisted "You don't have to adjust the challenges with our party and level in mind" however, than the DM is totally absolved.

No, the DM is not absolved for withholding information. That's just being a jerk.

[Boci]

No, the DM is not absolved for withholding information. That's just being a jerk.

Why do you assume the DM was withholding information? How were the PCs going to find out about the green dragon way too powerful for them to defeat? The peasant manning the dragon radar would tell them? Sure, the party might find out beforehand, but othertimes they won't. If the party is high enough level to handle the dragon, being blindsided by it is fine. It works in game and creates a fun "Oh ****!" moment that then becomes a tense and enjoyable fight. But if the dragon is way above the parties level, the encounter plays out the same initially. The lower level PCs don't magically get a warning.

[Frozenstep]

So, as one of those DMs that likes to play around with Rest mechanics, what behaviors should one expect from the following system?

1) Death Saves are no more, when reduced to 0 hp you are Downed (Incapacitated + Prone), and have the option of either staying down and waiting to be healed or to force yourself back up at the cost of gaining an Injury. Each time that you are Downed or suffer damage While already Downed causes you to gain 1 level of Exhaustion.

2)Upon gaining an Injury, you are filled with a rush of Adrenaline/Heroic Resolve/Fighting Spirit/Ect and immediately gain the benefit of a Rest, with your first two Injuries granting the equivilant of a Short Rest and your third Injury onwards granting the benefit of a Long Rest. Injuries have the same effect as levels of Exhaustion(add total Exhaustion and Injuries together to determine the effects), but take longer to recover from.

3) Outside of combat, its 8 hours for a Short Rest and 40 Hours (5 days) for a Long Rest. You recover 1 level of Exhaustion with each Short Rest, and Recover ALL Exhaustion with each Long Rest. You recover from 1 Injury per Long Rest done in comfortable conditions (such as in a inn, hospital or private residence).

4) Due to the above changes, the Healer's Kit has also changed in function. By attending to a resting or downed creature with a Healer's Kit, that creature recovers an addition +1 hit point per hit die spent on healing on that rest/injury. If the medic has the Healer feat, they recover +3 hit points per hit die instead.

The idea was to allow characters to push on at cost without forcing a retreat during a dungeon or similar climatic location where the party is expected to fight multiple encounters over a relatively short timespan, while the majority of encounters occur at the rate of 1-2 a day during the travel to and from said dungeons, with the expectation that characters will have about a month of downtime to spend between adventures.

Thoughts?

Keep in mind that it is intentional for Injuries to clear some/all of your Exhaustion at the time they are acquired, this is to keep the system from being TOO punishing, I WANT players to still be able to fight while wounded.

My first thought is that it's pretty complex. There's a lot of moving parts and it'll be easy to forget in the middle of a game until you've played with it for a while. That's kinda bad.

My second thought is this would encourage players to push on, because they have a pretty generous system to fall back on.

My third thought is that it would be even harder to predict the outcome of a fight. If you don't plan on having encounters that push them into this territory, maybe it's fine, but if you want a challenge, this system adds a whole new layer of swing. Who goes down and when makes a huge difference. The spell caster getting all their spells back could break an encounter. Maybe you're fine with that because it is rather heroic, but it might also reward weird things (enter boss fight, spellcaster with 2 injuries and few spell slots? Rather then stay back and spam cantrips, he rushes in, goes down, gets up and force cages your boss).

My fourth thought is this might reward characters that can nova hard. Monks getting up and suddenly doing a flurry with 4 stunning strike attempts, spell casters that can burn spell slots quickly rather then ones who have gone for spells with longer durations, etc.

My fifth thought is if the injuries are basically stacks of exhaustion, this favors spell casters. You also have to watch out, because the 2nd level of exhaustion halves your speed, this can mean players are unable to run...unless they're spell casters who teleport.

I think there's too many parts of it that could break certain classes.

[JackPhoenix]

Why do you assume the DM was withholding information? How were the PCs going to find out about the green dragon way too powerful for them to defeat? The peasant manning the dragon radar would tell them? Sure, the party might find out beforehand, but othertimes they won't. If the party is high enough level to handle the dragon, being blindsided by it is fine. It works in game and creates a fun "Oh ****!" moment that then becomes a tense and enjoyable fight. But if the dragon is way above the parties level, the encounter plays out the same initially. The lower level PCs don't magically get a warning.

The dragon nobody has ever saw before, despite apparently being in the area for some time, that somehow managed to hide any trace of its presence, and unlike other green dragons, isn't a manipulative bastard who likes to terrorize people by letting some of its victims to get away to spread the tales? And that immediately attacks the PCs instead of trying to use them for its own ends, like green dragons like to do?

[JoeJ]

Why do you assume the DM was withholding information? How were the PCs going to find out about the green dragon way too powerful for them to defeat? The peasant manning the dragon radar would tell them? Sure, the party might find out beforehand, but othertimes they won't. If the party is high enough level to handle the dragon, being blindsided by it is fine. It works in game and creates a fun "Oh ****!" moment that then becomes a tense and enjoyable fight. But if the dragon is way above the parties level, the encounter plays out the same initially. The lower level PCs don't magically get a warning.

I expressed a preference for the players, rather than the DM, to choose what challenges they want to face. What are you trying to convince me of by showing that a hostile DM can prevent the party from having enough information to make meaningful choices? I already knew that it's possible for a DM to be a jerk.

If the DM doesn't enjoy a sandbox style game, the adult thing to do is say so up front and offer to run the kind of game they do enjoy.

[Boci]

The dragon nobody has ever saw before, despite apparently being in the area for some time, that somehow managed to hide any trace of its presence, and unlike other green dragons, isn't a manipulative bastard who likes to terrorize people by letting some of its victims to get away to spread the tales? And that immediately attacks the PCs instead of trying to use them for its own ends, like green dragons like to do?

Would it be bad DMing if a young green dragon ambushed an 8th level party? If not, then its not bad DMing for a young green dragon to ambush a 2nd level party - if the DM has been told not to factor party level into his encounter design and world building. Which was the origional claim.


I expressed a preference for the players, rather than the DM, to choose what challenges they want to face. What are you trying to convince me of by showing that a hostile DM can prevent the party from having enough information to make meaningful choices? I already knew that it's possible for a DM to be a jerk.

No, what I'm showing you is that a DM needs to pull his punches in a standard D&D world, unless the party starts at a high level. Theres too many monsters of too varying CR that wouldn't conviniently organize themselves into levelled area. CR 5+ monsters attack and kill NPC commoners all the time. Its how the world works. If the DM isn;t pulling their punches for the players, then it can happen to them as well.

[JackPhoenix]

Would it be bad DMing if a young green dragon ambushed an 8th level party? If not, then its not bad DMing for a young green dragon to ambush a 2nd level party - if the DM has been told not to factor party level into his encounter design and world building. Which was the origional claim.

Either way, dragons shouldn't be totally random encounters coming from nowhere. They should have a name, some history, and a reason to be in the area and do whatever they are doing at the moment.

Rolling totally random monster from some encounter table is not world building, and has nothing to do with a sandbox or story-driven game.

[Man_Over_Game]

Either way, dragons shouldn't be totally random encounters coming from nowhere. They should have a name, some history, and a reason to be in the area and do whatever they are doing at the moment.

Rolling totally random monster from some encounter table is not world building, and has nothing to do with a sandbox or story-driven game.

Oh god, now I'm just imagining this sandbox game that's entirely randomly generated. Basically playing a live-action Roguelike, with that problem that you see in Minecraft where the terrain is really disjointed and like someone cut the corners of the jigsaw puzzle piece to make it all fit.

"And on your left, you'll see the merchant town of Cloverdale, where the barbarians of the south compromise with the local merchants on ores, weapons, and services.
And on your right, you'll see the domain of Evisc'Cerital, the Beckoning Void. Long may she reign."

The strategy is to move into a region that hasn't been generated yet and hope it's roughly your level.

[Boci]

Either way, dragons shouldn't be totally random encounters coming from nowhere. They should have a name, some history, and a reason to be in the area and do whatever they are doing at the moment.

Rolling totally random monster from some encounter table is not world building, and has nothing to do with a sandbox or story-driven game.

That setting dependant. Older dragons sure, but not every setting and book considers a young dragons to be worthy of the fanfare you consider them.

Not that it matters. Its not as if dragons are the only monsters DMs need to pull their punches with.

[JoeJ]

No, what I'm showing you is that a DM needs to pull his punches in a standard D&D world, unless the party starts at a high level. Theres too many monsters of too varying CR that wouldn't conviniently organize themselves into levelled area. CR 5+ monsters attack and kill NPC commoners all the time. Its how the world works. If the DM isn;t pulling their punches for the players, then it can happen to them as well.

It sounds like you think "players choose which challenge to attempt" means that the DM chooses, but does it randomly. That's not what I was talking about. Talking about how the world works is just a cop out. The world works however the DM decides that it works. If the DM decides that random monsters wander about unpredictably, then the players are not being allowed to make meaningful decisions about where they go and what they do.

[Boci]

The world works however the DM decides that it works.

Exactly. The DM needs to decide to pull his punches with the players. Sandbox or no, the player need that much from the DM. A simple descision that the PCs won't encounter monsters they cannot defeat, escape or reason with. This makes no sense from a world building perspect in most games since there are plenty of monsters and situations which would tick all 3 of the above bonxes, but it is required for everyone at the table to have fun.

[JackPhoenix]

Exactly. The DM needs to decide to pull his punches with the players. Sandbox or no, the player need that much from the DM. A simple descision that the PCs won't encounter monsters they cannot defeat, escape or reason with. This makes no sense from a world building perspect in most games since there are plenty of monsters and situations which would tick all 3 of the above bonxes, but it is required for everyone at the table to have fun.

Thing is, if there's actual proper world building involved, there may be dangerous creatures, but the encounters won't be entirely random, and the PCs do have some influence over the dangers they face. There may not be leveled encounter areas like in MMOs, but civilized, inhabited country is propably safer than a remote swamp nobody has ever returned from before, and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. The owlbear in the woods didn't appeared in the moment the GM rolled the die... it presumably came from an existing population of owlbears (or owls and bears), and people living nearby should know owlbears live there. Even in a dangerous forest, road is propably safer than taking a hike through the thickest woods... it wouldn't be there otherwise, as roads don't spring into existence out of nowhere, and people wouldn't use it it traveling there would be deadly... and if it *was* deadly, and it was simply the only way through, that's an information PCs could get if they do their research... which may be as much as asking a barkeep what's the safest way to the next town. If you get hired to wipe out a tribe of kobolds harassing a village, there propably isn't a significant population of purple worms in the same spot. Sure, you may run into outliers, like the kobold tribe being ruled by a dragon, but you may be able to talk to a dragon, or notice the signs of its presence with proper scouting.

That's the point of sandbox... "preparation" for PCs doesn't mean just the equipment they buy, or what spells they'll prepare, but most importantly, recon and information gathering. Even something as ubiquitous as flying familiar overhead and to the front helps a lot in seeing potential danger before you blunder into it.

[Boci]

Thing is, if there's actual proper world building involved, there may be dangerous creatures, but the encounters won't be entirely random, and the PCs do have some influence over the dangers they face. There may not be leveled encounter areas like in MMOs, but civilized, inhabited country is propably safer than a remote swamp nobody has ever returned from before, and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. The owlbear in the woods didn't appeared in the moment the GM rolled the die... it presumably came from an existing population of owlbears (or owls and bears), and people living nearby should know owlbears live there. Even in a dangerous forest, road is propably safer than taking a hike through the thickest woods... it wouldn't be there otherwise, as roads don't spring into existence out of nowhere, and people wouldn't use it it traveling there would be deadly... and if it *was* deadly, and it was simply the only way through, that's an information PCs could get if they do their research... which may be as much as asking a barkeep what's the safest way to the next town. If you get hired to wipe out a tribe of kobolds harassing a village, there propably isn't a significant population of purple worms in the same spot. Sure, you may run into outliers, like the kobold tribe being ruled by a dragon, but you may be able to talk to a dragon, or notice the signs of its presence with proper scouting.

That's the point of sandbox... "preparation" for PCs doesn't mean just the equipment they buy, or what spells they'll prepare, but most importantly, recon and information gathering. Even something as ubiquitous as flying familiar overhead and to the front helps a lot in seeing potential danger before you blunder into it.

Sure, the PCs can work with the DM to minimize how obvious the plot-armour is, but they still enjoy some amount of plot armour. Sometimes life is unfair and you die through no fault of your own. It happens in our world, it can definitly happen in D&D. But its unfun, so deciding it won't happen to the PCs is just a neccessity in any game that isn't trying to cover a wall in dead character sheets.

[Jakinbandw]

Exactly. The DM needs to decide to pull his punches with the players. Sandbox or no, the player need that much from the DM. A simple descision that the PCs won't encounter monsters they cannot defeat, escape or reason with. This makes no sense from a world building perspect in most games since there are plenty of monsters and situations which would tick all 3 of the above bonxes, but it is required for everyone at the table to have fun.

I'd add in avoid as an option as well. Horde of the dragon queen got off to a bad start when the entire group I was a part of saw the dragon at the start and went "nope!"

[guachi]

I find it doesn't matter how long a rest is in game terms. Let a short or long rest be 8 hours, a week, a millennium. What matters is the ratio of short and long rests players get per game session. Players want to use their stuff.

Basically this.

I use a variation of Gritty Realism and Slow, Natural Healing and at the end of the day the above is more important. Changing rest rules generally results in a slower game (that is, things take longer in in-game days) and "adventuring days" tend to be harder as it's easier as a DM to get more encounters on average per long rest.

But the big thing for the PCs is if you can consistently get two short rests per long rest (and I have for every adventuring day I've DMed for the last three years using my modified rest rules). Short rest classes or no rest classes like the Rogue feel very powerful at the end of an adventuring day when the rest of the party is running on fumes.

[Alucard89]

Basically this.

I use a variation of Gritty Realism and Slow, Natural Healing and at the end of the day the above is more important. Changing rest rules generally results in a slower game (that is, things take longer in in-game days) and "adventuring days" tend to be harder as it's easier as a DM to get more encounters on average per long rest.

But the big thing for the PCs is if you can consistently get two short rests per long rest (and I have for every adventuring day I've DMed for the last three years using my modified rest rules). Short rest classes or no rest classes like the Rogue feel very powerful at the end of an adventuring day when the rest of the party is running on fumes.

At our table we usually have 1 long rest on average per 2-3 encounters and short rest is usually available between each encounter too. This way every player can have fun with his abilities/spells/features etc per long rest and don't have to be afraid to use them. For some it might be too much, but we have tons of fun and our DM can also throw in higher CR enemies earlier and we can have fun with our classes powers.

We are against scaring players of using their awesome stuff as RPG is about using your awesome stuff. You don't play wizard to not cast spells and you don't play Paladin to not smite stuff around. Because of that I encoutered too many tables where Paladins where playing like handicaped fighters (relying on one buff + just attacks in single fight) and wizards were playing like handicapped warlocks (cantrips and run away) because their DMs were forcing them to play that way due to how many encounters per long rest they had. That is not fun for me so I prefer my current group style.

Also let's be honest- resource system of DnD is archaic already. I wish they changed it or at least give optional rules that would invole either dice roll to cast, mana to use or some sort of combined spell level per day you can use.

[Malifice]

It is. How is the PC getting one?

You're a Noble, not a homeless bum.

Where do Nobles live in your games if not in castles, keeps and large swanky manors?

[Asmotherion]

In my opinion, the concept of 'HP' is flawed. According to the books, getting hit by an attack results in damage, which reduces hit points. Reading that, it very much implies that that hit resulted in some kind of wound. And yet.. a player is as efficient at 1 HP as at full HP. One night of sleep means you're pretty much completely fit again. That just doesn't make sense.

In my mind, HP is more like an endurance meter. Getting hit doesn't mean gaining wounds, but:
- getting a bit more tired from parrying that blow, or from jumping out of the way
- slowly losing your edge because you're getting tired from being on full alert for an extended period of time
- deflecting blows, which may still mean you may get hit with the flat of a sword, making you feel a bit woozy and slowing you down a bit more every time
- getting more and more scared as you feel your strength being sapped, not helping in keeping on top of what's happening in a chaotic fight
- ...

All that adds up, but adrenaline keeps you going during fights, and your experience as an adventurer keeps you going between them. You're still a fully functioning party member, right until that one attack that drops you to 0 or lower. That's the attack you weren't able to catch on your shield, or jump out of the way of, or just shrug off because you're just that bad-ass. And that one wound knocks you down, leaves you bleeding and has the player roll death saves.

High con doesn't mean you can survive more axes chopping into your chest, but it may mean that you tire out less easily, so you can dodge that one wound for longer. And a potion/spell makes sense now as well: it's magic that reinvigorates you, or (when down to 0) fixes that wound. A healing kit will stop the bleeding, but doesn't make you less tired/woozy/etc.

Played like that, resting makes a lot more sense to me. An hour is a breather, you can re-focus and work the knots out of your muscles. A night's sleep will do a lot for your physical/mental endurance.


it is and isn't at the same time; you do gather wounds from the multiple types of damage you get. They just don't affect combat in any significant way to simplify combat mechanics.

Also a succesful stab with a sword is not suposed to hit you in the belly but rather scortch you wile you parry at the last moment.

in a "gritty realism" scenario i'd expect some different approach to the RP aspect of healing a necrotic damage wound (other than a healing spell) than that for a Fire Damage one and also that there would be some log of what wounds have been suffered. Perhaps even include some homerule about having multiple wounds giving a penalty.

[Coffee_Dragon]

You're a Noble, not a homeless bum.

Where do Nobles live in your games if not in castles, keeps and large swanky manors?

Well, PC Nobles are nobles by birth, not by occupation. It doesn't say you have a castle at your disposal as part of that.

"Mum, dad, I'm back. Can I and a few friends live in the basement?"

"Sure you can. As long as you take a bath, wear these frilly clothes, marry the neighbouring baron's daughter, get on with propagating the lineage and never do anything moronic like adventuring ever again."

"You know, mum, dad, bye again."

[Asmotherion]

Well, PC Nobles are nobles by birth, not by occupation. It doesn't say you have a castle at your disposal as part of that.

"Mum, dad, I'm back. Can I and a few friends live in the basement?"

"Sure you can. As long as you take a bath, wear these frilly clothes, marry the neighbouring baron's daughter, get on with propagating the lineage and never do anything moronic like adventuring ever again."

"You know, mum, dad, bye again."

Most cases of a Noble backround i've encountered and played were the "noble in a faraway land" (diplomat for example) who is cut off from their resources.

This bacomes less of an obstacle as soon as the party can teleport but the general concensus is "most games don't play to that level". By the level you have access to teleport you also have other ways to have a "Party Stronghold" so it's less of a big deal.

it also explains why the Noble doesn't have virtually unlimited funds or at the very least terribly more than the rest of the adventurers at the start of the adventure. if he used most of his traveling money so far on sustaining an Aristocratic Lifestyle with no stable income he probably lost most of his money by the time the adventure starts.

[mephnick]

You're a Noble, not a homeless bum.

Where do Nobles live in your games if not in castles, keeps and large swanky manors?

You were a noble. Now you're an adventurer. It's up to the player and DM to decide how that happened.

You can still be tied to a noble family, but the game assumes you had a reason to go out on suicidal adventures and likely don't have access to your resources.

[Lance Tankmen]

Most cases of a Noble backround i've encountered and played were the "noble in a faraway land" (diplomat for example) who is cut off from their resources.

This bacomes less of an obstacle as soon as the party can teleport but the general concensus is "most games don't play to that level". By the level you have access to teleport you also have other ways to have a "Party Stronghold" so it's less of a big deal.

it also explains why the Noble doesn't have virtually unlimited funds or at the very least terribly more than the rest of the adventurers at the start of the adventure. if he used most of his traveling money so far on sustaining an Aristocratic Lifestyle with no stable income he probably lost most of his money by the time the adventure starts.

to be fair noble i think is one of the only background where you get 25 GP for equipment

[CantigThimble]

You were a noble. Now you're an adventurer. It's up to the player and DM to decide how that happened.

You can still be tied to a noble family, but the game assumes you had a reason to go out on suicidal adventures and likely don't have access to your resources.

I always thought of the Noble background as you being a 3rd or 4th son. You're still technically part of the aristocracy, but you aren't owed much by your family and are more of an inconvenience for them to keep around. You certainly aren't the guy with a keep and an army at his beck and call. (Unless you start out at a reasonably high level where that might make sense)

[stoutstien]

I always thought of the Noble background as you being a 3rd or 4th son. You're still technically part of the aristocracy, but you aren't owed much by your family and are more of an inconvenience for them to keep around. You certainly aren't the guy with a keep and an army at his beck and call. (Unless you start out at a reasonably high level where that might make sense)

Heh. Royal ronin.

[MaxWilson]

A home base doesn't require an actual stronghold. It's a metagame conceit for the convenience of the players. "Home base: a place where adventuring does not occur." Being at your base is a useful way to signal everyone that the adventure is now over or has not yet begin.

Could be a castle, could be a friendly village, could be your gang's favorite playground on the west side of New York City, or Sherwood Forest. Doesn't matter which, because you won't be doing anything except downtime activities there.

[Boci]

A home base doesn't require an actual stronghold. It's a metagame conceit for the convenience of the players. "Home base: a place where adventuring does not occur." Being at your base is a useful way to signal everyone that the adventure is now over or has not yet begin.

Could be a castle, could be a friendly village, could be your gang's favorite playground in the west side of New York City, or Sherwood Forest. Doesn't matter which, because you won't be doing anything except downtime activities there.

But if its not an actual stronghold then its harder to ensure the nothing but down time acitivities part. Sherwood Forest in D&D for example would likely have random encounters.

[MaxWilson]

But if its not an actual stronghold then its harder to ensure the nothing but down time acitivities part. Sherwood Forest in D&D for example would likely have random encounters.

If you as a group wanted that experience, you could split Sherwood Forest into a home base portion ("The Heart of the Forest") and an adventuring portion ("The Reaches").

You could also just shrug and say, "In this campaign there is no home base, and adventuring can happen anywhere. The Sheriff can attack you while you're asleep in your beds." If that's how you want to run your campaign, you can. But a home base is about excluding that concern from play.

[Boci]

If you as a group wanted that experience, you could split Sherwood Forest into a home base portion ("The Heart of the Forest") and an adventuring portion ("The Reaches").

And how does the party keep random encounters out of the Heart of the Forest? Put up "No monster" signs? "Adventurers resting, do not disturb"?

[MaxWilson]

And how does the party keep random encounters out of the Heart of the Forest? Put up "No monster" signs? "Adventurers resting, do not disturb"?

Are you asking about how you justify the existence of the base from a game fiction standpoint? If you're that worried about it--if you think the forest is so dangerous and filled with the Sheriff's men that you need to constantly patrol everywhere--then just shrug and say, "There's no home base in this game." I said this before in the part that you snipped.

[JoeJ]

And how does the party keep random encounters out of the Heart of the Forest? Put up "No monster" signs? "Adventurers resting, do not disturb"?

Weren't you the one who was talking about plot armor in this very thread? There are no encounters in the Heart of the Forest because that's what the DM and the other players agreed on.

[Boci]

Are you asking about how you justify the existence of the base from a game fiction standpoint? If you're that worried about it--if you think the forest is so dangerous and filled with the Sheriff's men that you need to constantly patrol everywhere--then just shrug and say, "There's no home base in this game." I said this before in the part that you snipped.


Weren't you the one who was talking about plot armor in this very thread? There are no encounters in the Heart of the Forest because that's what the DM and the other players agreed on.

Exactly. And per my comment that started this discussion line:

"Also worth noting that Shadowrun recouping involves the base, which is part of a characters resources. In D&D you have to ask the DM for a fortified base."

You can have a homebase in D&D. But you need to ask your DM, its not Shadowrun, which treats a homebase more like a piece of party equipment. Sure, things can happen to it, but your GM a **** if he keeps screwing with it.

[Rukelnikov]

Are you asking about how you justify the existence of the base from a game fiction standpoint? If you're that worried about it--if you think the forest is so dangerous and filled with the Sheriff's men that you need to constantly patrol everywhere--then just shrug and say, "There's no home base in this game." I said this before in the part that you snipped.


Weren't you the one who was talking about plot armor in this very thread? There are no encounters in the Heart of the Forest because that's what the DM and the other players agreed on.


Exactly. And per my comment that started this discussion line:

"Also worth noting that Shadowrun recouping involves the base, which is part of a characters resources. In D&D you have to ask the DM for a fortified base."

You can have a homebase in D&D. But you need to ask your DM, its not Shadowrun, which treats a homebase more like a piece of party equipment. Sure, things can happen to it, but your GM a **** if he keeps screwing with it.

If you are sleeping in the middle of the forest and a group of goblins appear and attack, no one would question "how can this be happening?", you kill the goblins go back to sleep nothing changed. Inconsequential.

If i'm sleeping inside a keep with guards and a group of goblins appears and attack, everyone would question "what the hell is going on?":

*kill the goblins and find that the castle is under attack by them? The situation changed, such a goblin attack changes stuff in the setting. Not inconsequential.
*If the castle is not under attack, the guards are still in their posts, everything is the same, the situation changed all the same, there's some magic at work or something that makes no one else see the goblins (or that only the party sees them, or nothing who knows?), this will prop the party to investigate. Not inconsequential.

A base is something with in game meaning and repercusions, its only a metagame construct in the case where its only a base because it was discussed OOC with the DM.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I usually also interpret that a "noble" is like a 4th daughter or something. It's up to the player to decide if they're on good terms with Mom and Dad [and if the dirty vagabond bad-influences-on-my-child they've been hanging out with get to crash in the castle basement] or not. After all, if you had a keep with serfs, you'd probably be to preoccupied with bureaucratic things to go diving into ancient crypts.

That said, being granted a fief of your own by your liege is something that I like to have as a potential reward for noble characters. I like it as a reward: it gives the party a reasonably fortified home to live in, it feels like a real medieval reward, it feels more valuable to my players that pretty much any other reward without seriously increasing their offensive capacity, it ties them into the world, and provides a great jumping off points for adventures since they earned it and tend to zealously defend it [And since the Margravine invariably gives them a piss-and-dung fief at the border with the Danes or something, there's plenty of stories to be had fixing it up and defending it.]


Also, playing a game where the players have fiefs and keeps and serfs is really fun, but I think everybody has to be on the same page. One of the best one shots I've ever played in was a Lot5R one-shot where we had fiefs and spent more time having dinner parties at our castles and to discussing house alliances and arranging marriages between our sons and our nieces. There was more to it we were supposed to get to, but playing CKII nobility was way too much fun.

[MaxWilson]

If you are sleeping in the middle of the forest and a group of goblins appear and attack, no one would question "how can this be happening?", you kill the goblins go back to sleep nothing changed. Inconsequential.

Nitpick: from an in-game standpoint, it's consequential if there is a Hexblade or a Necromancer in the party, because now they have more raw material available, more bodies to raise with Animate Dead or Dance Macabre or whatever. Even an Enchanter or Bard might be able to do something useful with those goblins via Mass Suggestion. Not having the goblins attack constitutes missing out on resources.

The point is that "adventuring does not happen here" is not necessarily favorable to the PCs--it's just convenient (in some campaigns) for the players and the DM at the metagame level, the stuff that happens around the actual physical table. It means "now you can go home until next week and not have to waste time talking about who's on guard duty or how many defensive spells you cast each morning or how you bathe without taking off your armor--the PCs will handle it and it doesn't matter." It's inconsequential, yes, but only by convention.

[Rukelnikov]

Nitpick: from an in-game standpoint, it's consequential if there is a Hexblade or a Necromancer in the party, because now they have more raw material available, more bodies to raise with Animate Dead or Dance Macabre or whatever. Even an Enchanter or Bard might be able to do something useful with those goblins via Mass Suggestion. Not having the goblins attack constitutes missing out on resources.

The point is that "adventuring does not happen here" is not necessarily favorable to the PCs--it's just convenient (in some campaigns) for the players and the DM at the metagame level, the stuff that happens around the actual physical table. It means "now you can go home until next week and not have to waste time talking about who's on guard duty or how many defensive spells you cast each morning or how you bathe without taking off your armor--the PCs will handle it and it doesn't matter." It's inconsequential, yes, but only by convention.

Its inconsequential from a story standpoint, if the Lock or the Necro wanted some corpses they could certainly find them.

Nothing in the story or setting changed based on an attack in the middle of the forest, things do change if a keep is attacked.

[JackPhoenix]

Oh god, now I'm just imagining this sandbox game that's entirely randomly generated. Basically playing a live-action Roguelike, with that problem that you see in Minecraft where the terrain is really disjointed and like someone cut the corners of the jigsaw puzzle piece to make it all fit.

"And on your left, you'll see the merchant town of Cloverdale, where the barbarians of the south compromise with the local merchants on ores, weapons, and services.
And on your right, you'll see the domain of Evisc'Cerital, the Beckoning Void. Long may she reign."

The strategy is to move into a region that hasn't been generated yet and hope it's roughly your level.

You joke, but I've really wanted to run a randomly generated dungeon, with online map generator creating layout, and tables from varying DMGs providing the room's content. Alas, not my group's style.


Sure, the PCs can work with the DM to minimize how obvious the plot-armour is, but they still enjoy some amount of plot armour. Sometimes life is unfair and you die through no fault of your own. It happens in our world, it can definitly happen in D&D. But its unfun, so deciding it won't happen to the PCs is just a neccessity in any game that isn't trying to cover a wall in dead character sheets.

If you call GM doing his work properly and PC's playing smart "plot-armor", that's your choice. Meanwhile, I'll keep throwing Assassins at PCs as the first encounter in the campaign, and CR 26 dragons at ~level 5 characters, and watch how they'll deal with it.

[Man_Over_Game]

You joke, but I've really wanted to run a randomly generated dungeon, with online map generator creating layout, and tables from varying DMGs providing the room's content. Alas, not my group's style.



If you call GM doing his work properly and PC's playing smart "plot-armor", that's your choice. Meanwhile, I'll keep throwing Assassins at PCs as the first encounter in the campaign, and CR 26 dragons at ~level 5 characters, and watch how they'll deal with it.

I haven't read into the Dungeon of the Mad Mage, but that's kinda what I originally expected. Something like how Strahd's campaign is, with a bunch of random modules, areas, NPCs, and ways to go, and the DM just kinda organizes them in the way that makes the most sense.

[Boci]

If you call GM doing his work properly and PC's playing smart "plot-armor", that's your choice. Meanwhile, I'll keep throwing Assassins at PCs as the first encounter in the campaign, and CR 26 dragons at ~level 5 characters, and watch how they'll deal with it.

You can use hyperbole to try and distort it, but that doesn't change the truth. Assassins don't have to be the first encounter, and CR disparity doesn't have to be 21. 5+ will do just as well (or other factors, like numbers). Life sometimes throws unfaist challenges at you, and its the DMs job to make sure this doesn't happen to the PCs.

You're right, it is just a DM doing their job. Its also plot armour.

[MaxWilson]

You can use hyperbole to try and distort it*snip*

I doubt that was hyperbole. Sounds like actual campaign events to me. It's not even that rare.

[JackPhoenix]

I doubt that was hyperbole. Sounds like actual campaign events to me. It's not even that rare.

Yep. The dragon was true random encounter in PF days. The PCs agreed to do a recon/patrol mission for a fort at the edge of the Mournland (I don't remember why they went to the fort in the first place, it wasn't a part of my plot, they decided to visit on their own). They crossed the dead-gray mists, looked around, I rolled for a random encounter... which included possibilities like horrifying, but ultimately harmless weirdness, all kinds of mutants and monsters of varying difficulty, enviromental effects, living spells ranging from "annoying, but ultimately harmless" to "mobile DC 22 save-or-death"... and of course got the most powerful thing in the list, Haze-of-Death, CR 26 mutated old white dragon. Fortunately for them, I don't create monsters out of nowhere next to the characters when an encounter is due, and huge dragon isn't hard to notice against an empty sky, so the PCs noticed him before he's seen them. They scrambled for cover, kept hiding from him when he flew to their general area to do whatever stuff insane mutant dragons do, and GTFO as fast as possible the coast was clear. The players avoid Mournland like a plague ever since, even in future campaign. The campaign featured another enemy way above the PC's paygrade, a powerful rakshasa, just a level later, but that's another story. A story that involves a lot of intrigues, a threat of ~25k zombies, and a magical "welp, everyone in 2-mile radius is dead" nuke intended to stop the zombie apocalypse from growing to continental scale.

The assassin was from another (5e this time) campaign. He was a part of the very first scene in the game, and the (3) PCs were 3rd level, not first, so that mitigates the threat a little. It was a dark and stormy night in the City of Towers, PCs went about their business, when a dead body fell from the darkness above, as it happens in Eberron campaigns set in Sharn. PCs, being PCs, went to check if it has anything valuable, when 3 Spies descended using Feather Tokens from wherever the body fell from, black ops style. They immediately opened fire on the witnesses who tried to steal the object they were after, and after one of them went down, one of the survivors used Dancing Lights to signal for reinforcements. Moments (1 turn) later, another type, better equiped and overall more badass-looking, dropped in through the same means. Luckily for PCs, they've managed to dispatch the Spies just before the Assassin arrived, so no sneak attack for him. When the party tank was left with 1-2 hp after his first attack (and I don't cheat and roll openly, so the players saw the number of dice I've used for the poison) even after succeeding on the Con save, they've wisely decided to leg it. Now, I've expected them to flee for a while to shake the pursuer off, then hide. Instead, they've managed to lure the Assassin on a bridge, and destroyed the bridge, making the enemy fall to his death (and that's why you should carry multiple of consumable items that could save your life). My plan was to force them into hiding while the conspirators searched for them and the object they took from the corpse, but as they've left no live witnesses, they've thrown a serious wrench into my plans. Also, thanks to a (very healthy, in this case) dose of paranoia, they've decided *not* to check what's in the box warded from scrying magic until much later, when they were reasonably confident they are out of reach of anyone using magic to look for the content of the box. I was so proud of them, even when they pretty much destroyed the original campaign plot that way.

My players know I play my NPCs smart and expect the same from them, I don't cheat, and don't pull punches. They know there are things above their PCs paygrade, and that areas like the Mournland, Demon Wastes or Khyber are *not* nice places for holiday. They know they aren't supposed to fight everything that cross their path, and that hiding, running, negotiation or looking for help are valid solutions, even if not always possible.

[Boci]

My players know I play my NPCs smart and expect the same from them, I don't cheat, and don't pull punches.

Yes you do pull your punches. You'd be a bad DM otherwise. CR 8 monsters attack and and kill commoners. It can happen. It doesn't happen to first level PCs, but only because its not fun for anyone at the table.

[MaxWilson]

Yes you do pull your punches. You'd be a bad DM otherwise. CR 8 monsters attack and and kill commoners. It can happen. It doesn't happen to first level PCs, but only because its not fun for anyone at the table.

Didn't JackPhoenix give an example of a CR8 monster attacking first thing? Or are you just saying it "doesn't happen" because those PCs started at 3rd level instead of 1st?

Yes, of course it can happen, and in this case it did. And it was fun for the players.

[Boci]

Didn't JackPhoenix give an example of a CR8 monster attacking first thing? Or are you just saying it "doesn't happen" because those PCs started at 3rd level instead of 1st?

Yes, of course it can happen, and in this case it did. And it was fun for the players.

Attack and kill, not just attack. Being attacked is fun yes, but only if theres a significant chance to survive. And guranteeing a chance to survive if the DM pulling their punches, however lightly. Which is needed for the game to be fun.

[Yora]

Significant chance to survive is not guarantee to survive.

Guarantee to survive means impossibility to lose. There is no fun in that.

[Boci]

Significant chance to survive is not guarantee to survive.

Guarantee to survive means impossibility to lose. There is no fun in that.

I know. Survival can broadly be broken down into three brackets:

Near guranteed - Guranteed chance of survival - Generally not fun

Significant chance of survival - Fun

Insignificant chance of survival (Well, if we roll nothing but 18+ and the monster ongly gets one roll higher than 5 the entire fight we might survvie) - Generally not fun

A DMs job is to make sure that encounters fall into the rather broad central catagory, to skip over those in the near guaranteed+ and not roll them out since the outcome is so obvious, and to make sure that encounters that would otherwise fall into the insignificance chance catagory have mitigating factors that make it otherwise so. Players can help with this via their own tactics, but by making sure they have a significant chance to survive, the DM is showing them special treatment. Which is not a bad thing, since the players fun is more important than the NPCs, since they aren't real people.

[JackPhoenix]

Attack and kill, not just attack. Being attacked is fun yes, but only if theres a significant chance to survive. And guranteeing a chance to survive if the DM pulling their punches, however lightly. Which is needed for the game to be fun.

So, I'm pulling my punches when my dice come up low enough (again, I roll openly, so no cheating and getting "low enough" damage through "sheer coincidence") to not one-shot a character? OK, then.

[CantigThimble]

So, I'm pulling my punches when my dice come up low enough (again, I roll openly, so no cheating and getting "low enough" damage through "sheer coincidence") to not one-shot a character? OK, then.

Here's a possibly more productive question: You gave two stories of times where PCs ran into very dangerous enemies at low levels and survived. How often have PCs in your games died in similar situations?

[Tanarii]

When villagers say don't go into the woods because people who go in don't come back the players' response is to go into the woods and end the danger. It's the DM's fault if they die because an adult green dragon in the woods breathes on them. He is not absolved because the players were warned.
When players send their characters into the woods when it's been clearly communicated before the game began that they cannot expect the world to be tailored to their characters, and there are things out there that can kill them, then it's on them if they stick their head into a noose blindly.

[Unoriginal]

So you're a Bad DM (TM) if the PCs actually risk death when they happen to encounter strong opposition.

Well alright. Guess I'm a Bad DM (TM) then.

[MaxWilson]

When players send their characters into the woods when it's been clearly communicated before the game began that they cannot expect the world to be tailored to their characters, and there are things out there that can kill them, then it's on them if they stick their head into a noose blindly.

Huh. Now I want to see a version of Pet Semetary where the protagonist hears "Don't go into the woods/This is bad ground" as "Buy a flamethrower and a shotgun and go hunt down the Wendigo," just like the hypothetical PCs you're contrasting against.

[Tanarii]

Huh. Now I want to see a version of Pet Semetary where the protagonist hears "Don't go into the woods/This is bad ground" as "Buy a flamethrower and a shotgun and go hunt down the Wendigo," just like the hypothetical PCs you're contrasting against.
Honestly either view is right, for the kind of game it's in. I was giving the flip-side to contrast to Pex's well established point of view that such things are clearly plot hooks, not clearly telegraphed warnings.

There's definitely a style of game where "here be dragons" definitely IS supposed to be a big fat hint to unload your mini-gun and follow the glowing neon trail. Other times it means you're about to unload your minigun at something you can't even see, which then eviscerates and flays you. YMMV.

[MaxWilson]

Honestly either view is right, for the kind of game it's in. I was giving the flip-side to contrast to Pex's well established point of view that such things are clearly plot hooks, not clearly telegraphed warnings.

Sure. Pet Sematary is reputedly a great movie (I haven't actually watched it), and this alternate version could be kind of awesome too, unless it winds up being a very short film, in which case at least you haven't wasted much time on it. (This is also why the first session of a campaign is the best time to risk TPK.)


There's definitely a style of game where "here be dragons" definitely IS supposed to be a big fat hint to unload your mini-gun and follow the glowing neon trail. Other times it means you're about to unload your minigun at something you can't even see, which then eviscerates and flays you. YMMV.

Hahaha, nice reference. :)

[Man_Over_Game]

So, I'm pulling my punches when my dice come up low enough (again, I roll openly, so no cheating and getting "low enough" damage through "sheer coincidence") to not one-shot a character? OK, then.


Here's a possibly more productive question: You gave two stories of times where PCs ran into very dangerous enemies at low levels and survived. How often have PCs in your games died in similar situations?


When players send their characters into the woods when it's been clearly communicated before the game began that they cannot expect the world to be tailored to their characters, and there are things out there that can kill them, then it's on them if they stick their head into a noose blindly.

One of my first campaigns had my players be in a tavern that was suddenly attacked by zombies. Not the PHB version, just some slow, 1d6 damage versions that I whipped up that were mildly irritating to kill. There were about 5 zombies and 4 players. My players proceeded to whiff every attack as the zombies just started chewing them up. I eventually had to have someone bust in and save them because things just went so poorly for them.

Especially at low levels, always have a backup plan when the players don't. For some, this might just have to mean that the numbers are fudged, or that the caster's spells are no longer as effective, but few people enjoy a wipe that they didn't expect. And in the end, the goal of DnD is to have fun.

Is the DM being fair by rolling openly going to guarantee the player is having fun?

[Tanarii]

Especially at low levels, always have a backup plan when the players don't. For some, this might just have to mean that the numbers are fudged, or that the caster's spells are no longer as effective, but few people enjoy a wipe that they didn't expect. And in the end, the goal of DnD is to have fun. My "fun" is achieved by knowing the DM won't save me from my own decisions. Including failing to have a backup plan. The very last thing I want is a DM that will cheat to save me. I'd much rather wipe.

[Pex]

One of my first campaigns had my players be in a tavern that was suddenly attacked by zombies. Not the PHB version, just some slow, 1d6 damage versions that I whipped up that were mildly irritating to kill. There were about 5 zombies and 4 players. My players proceeded to whiff every attack as the zombies just started chewing them up. I eventually had to have someone bust in and save them because things just went so poorly for them.

Especially at low levels, always have a backup plan when the players don't. For some, this might just have to mean that the numbers are fudged, or that the caster's spells are no longer as effective, but few people enjoy a wipe that they didn't expect. And in the end, the goal of DnD is to have fun.

Is the DM being fair by rolling openly going to guarantee the player is having fun?

First level party attacked by slightly nerfed zombies and loses. It sucks, but fine.

First level party attacked by a chain devil or a frost giant or a hydra or other CR 8 monster and loses. I give the DM a rude gesture.

[Baptor]

I'm a DM and I can safely say that while I've made plenty of mistakes, this isn't one of them.

I too want my heroes to "go boldly" and face the perils. So I have a system similar to pillars of eternity where it's super easy to heal up after battles and short rests are 15 minutes.

However long rests are still 8 hours and while I'm pretty cool with resting anywhere, there are risks.

I also limit encounters to about two or three per day but they are all deadly.

Works just fine for us. Ymmv.

[CantigThimble]

One of my first campaigns had my players be in a tavern that was suddenly attacked by zombies. Not the PHB version, just some slow, 1d6 damage versions that I whipped up that were mildly irritating to kill. There were about 5 zombies and 4 players. My players proceeded to whiff every attack as the zombies just started chewing them up. I eventually had to have someone bust in and save them because things just went so poorly for them.

Especially at low levels, always have a backup plan when the players don't. For some, this might just have to mean that the numbers are fudged, or that the caster's spells are no longer as effective, but few people enjoy a wipe that they didn't expect. And in the end, the goal of DnD is to have fun.

Is the DM being fair by rolling openly going to guarantee the player is having fun?

'Fun' comes when I can see that decisions that I made were the difference between success and failure.

If failure isn't an option, then it is impossible for my decisions to make that difference.

Rolling dice in the open doesn't guarantee that players have fun, BUT: if no matter what decisions the players make they were ALWAYS going to lose ~40% of their resources in a fight because you jimmy the dice rolls up or down until they're where you want them to be then they can only have fun as long as they're unaware of that. Once they realize you're doing that then no decision they make will change whether they succeed or fail and then fun is impossible.

[Kadesh]

It's almost as if different people enjoy different things.

[Rukelnikov]

'Fun' comes when I can see that decisions that I made were the difference between success and failure.

If failure isn't an option, then it is impossible for my decisions to make that difference.

Rolling dice in the open doesn't guarantee that players have fun, BUT: if no matter what decisions the players make they were ALWAYS going to lose ~40% of their resources in a fight because you jimmy the dice rolls up or down until they're where you want them to be then they can only have fun as long as they're unaware of that. Once they realize you're doing that then no decision they make will change whether they succeed or fail and then fun is impossible.

I agree with this for the most part. As a player when choice and consequence have been predefined, I'm playing a video game. And as DM I'm not really sure what I'm doing, hmm, showing a story to my friends I guess, which would be ok if it weren't because they were supposed to be part of the main cast. I roll all my dice in combat without a screen, I use it for rolls I don't want them to know I'm making, like a foe rolling stealth, or a merchant rolling appraise. Thing is, I don't feel the screen serves any purpose in combat. What will you hide? Than an orc scored a crit against a PC? So you would hide it to turn it into a regular attack and save him? Will you hide a 1 from the Orc's part to have him hit so those damn players and their dice don't finish the encounter unscathed? The only possible reason for a screen would be so that the players have some kind of illusion of choice without actually giving them one... so you know, always be suspicious of DMs that use screens in combat.

Having said that, I have played a first scene almost TPK, I survived but we ended it there, and the thing is, we spent more time thinking the characters backgrounds and motivations, and builds than we did playing them. We didnt really get to play our characters, and the situation was pretty ****ty, cause many of us still wanted to play that build or general idea we had in mind, but no one wanted to bring dead PC's twin sibling to the table. So, we ended up doing a one shot with old characters, and started something new next week.

My point is, roleplaying is an agreement were we are trying to have fun while telling a story. Whether it is an action story, an adventure story, or a comedy, we are still telling one, and its the DMs job to get the story going, once it started rolling its up to the PCs, but the DM should fudge or make up stuff until the players are actually at the mercy of what they chose, and not of the immediate situation they were put into.

[stoutstien]

I agree with this for the most part. As a player when choice and consequence have been predefined, I'm playing a video game. And as DM I'm not really sure what I'm doing, hmm, showing a story to my friends I guess, which would be ok if it weren't because they were supposed to be part of the main cast. I roll all my dice in combat without a screen, I use it for rolls I don't want them to know I'm making, like a foe rolling stealth, or a merchant rolling appraise. Thing is, I don't feel the screen serves any purpose in combat what will you hide? Than an orc scored a crit against a PC? So you would hide it to turn it into a regular attack and save him? Will you hide a 1 from the Orc's part to have him hit so those damn players and their dice don't finish the encounter unscathed? I find all of that meaningless, if the DM wants the players win or lose the encounter no matter how many 1s or 20s are rolled for either side, so I'll never understand the reason for the screen in combat.

Having said that, I have played a first scene almost TPK, I survived but we ended it there, and the thing is, we spent more time thinking the characters backgrounds and motivations, and builds than we did playing them. We didnt really get to play our characters, and the situation was pretty ****ty, cause many of us still wanted to play that build or general idea we had in mind, but no one wanted to bring dead PC's twin sibling to the table. So, we ended up doing a one shot with old characters, and started something new next week.

My point is, roleplaying is an agreement were we are trying to have fun while telling a story. Whether it is an action story, an adventure story, or a comedy, we are still telling one, and its the DMs job to get the story going, once it started rolling its up to the PCs, but the DM should fudge or make up stuff until the players are actually at the mercy of what they chose, and not of the immediate situation they were put into.

I roll behind a screen mostly because that's where all my notes are and it's silly to roll over it and then try to get my dice back.

[Rukelnikov]

I roll behind a screen mostly because that's where all my notes are and it's silly to roll over it and then try to get my dice back.

can't you extend your hand to the side of the screen? Infrastructural problems are a thing, but if you wanted to not use it you would probably find a viable way of doing it...

[stoutstien]

can't you extend your hand to the side of the screen? Infrastructural problems are a thing, but if you wanted to not use it you would probably find a viable way of doing it...
It was more of a facetious comment on the fact of people who enjoy this hobby will never be able to have any solid consensus on rolling in the open/ secret, fudging rolls to keep players alive, or other nuances of dm behavior.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't use a screen because it wastes table space. My notes are all on my computer or in my head anyway, so...

[Man_Over_Game]

It was more of a facetious comment on the fact of people who enjoy this hobby will never be able to have any solid consensus on rolling in the open/ secret, fudging rolls to keep players alive, or other nuances of dm behavior.

For some, it's a tactics game. For some, it's a group storytelling session. For some, it's a storyboard with a random number generator.

All of these people are pretty equally right. But I'm definitely more equal than you.

[Rukelnikov]

For some, it's a tactics game. For some, it's a group storytelling session. For some, it's a storyboard with a random number generator.

All of these people are pretty equally right. But I'm definitely more equal than you.

For me its a group storytelling, but that doesn't mean I need to fudge rolls :S

[stoutstien]

For me its a group storytelling, but that doesn't mean I need to fudge rolls :S
I remember when 5e did a little starter box and never running 5e before i read over the rules and ran the little MoP pre adventure for 4 people.
First encounter has 4 goblins and reading over the stat block I figured they would attack from hiding.
Rolls happen and Suffice to say I ended up reducing the number of goblins by 1.(I rolled two crits in the surprise round)
I didn't fudge a roll but removing the 4 npc had the same effect.

[whiplashomega]

DMs not understanding player motivation and behavior may be a factor, or they could be collatoral damage in an attempt to nuke the 15 minute adventuring day. But there could also be better reason, first and formost:

Hard descisions. The DM wants the players to:
a. not nova too quickly
b. think of non-combat ways to resolve encounters
c. be faced with the descision of delaying time and recouperating, or acting in a timely manner. You mention D&D being heroic. Heroes often went into fights they weren't entierly ready for simply because if they waited, innocents would suffer. In a roleplay heavy group, what you describe as discouraging heroic behavior could in fact make it all the braver. However, if the DM imagines this and the players don't, it will only leave to problem.

Very well said. The short/long rest mechanics of D&D definitely assume something like a dungeon, which will have maybe 5-10 encounters, and maybe 1-2 chances to take a short rest, but no long rests. Dungeons often kind of force you to keep going. However, the realities of a campaign often mean that there are long stretches between dungeons with maybe 1-2 encounters in a day. As a DM it becomes a difficult balancing act trying to challenge the players in both instances.

[Kadesh]

For me its a group storytelling, but that doesn't mean I need to fudge rolls :S

Noone said you were forced to.

[JackPhoenix]

Here's a possibly more productive question: You gave two stories of times where PCs ran into very dangerous enemies at low levels and survived. How often have PCs in your games died in similar situations?

Hm. One TPK (big pack of ghouls vs level 2 party that didn't ran away. Through rogue propably could've kited them successfully with Cunning Action. The ghouls would've stopped the pursuit eventually if they've realized they can't catch up with them and keep getting shot), one near-TPK (mage, bunch of demons, some constructs, rogue was the only survivor through the power of running away really fast, level 4), those were both recent, so I remember them more clearly, sorcerer vs rakshasa in 3.5 days, but I don't remember the sorcerer's level, only that it was a death by Fireball and the party returned to retrieve the corpse for a reincarnation later. If I have to guess, level 5 or so, it was pretty soon after the sorcerer joined the party. Level 1 warforged barbarian trying to solo a minotaur (though that propably doesn't count, I think they should've been able to take it down together, it was player stupidity). Cleric died to a dragon while rest of the party ran, I don't remember level, but I think it was 7-ish, dragon was old white. Low level druid dragged underwater by a giant crocodile and drowned. I think the other deaths were more appropriate. Many, many cases when someone dropped, but ultimately survived, either through luck, or saved by the rest of the party. Not that bad, overall, they are pretty good at picking their fights. And of course, not every opponent is more powerful than themselves.

[Rukelnikov]

I remember when 5e did a little starter box and never running 5e before i read over the rules and ran the little MoP pre adventure for 4 people.
First encounter has 4 goblins and reading over the stat block I figured they would attack from hiding.
Rolls happen and Suffice to say I ended up reducing the number of goblins by 1.(I rolled two crits in the surprise round)
I didn't fudge a roll but removing the 4 npc had the same effect.
Exactly, I would definitely do something like that on the first scene. So the screen is not necessary to save the PCs, and later on I'll probably not do something like that unless I screwed up.

But to each his own.

[Tanarii]

All of these people are pretty equally right. But I'm definitely more equal than you.Darn you man_over_game you win this round! *shakes fist*

[Jakinbandw]

I think the key part is choices mattering.

I remember I played one campaign where we had made it through one encounter for the day and were told we were under time pressure, so we pushed on. We were 3rd level and the GM dropped a lvl 8 eldritch knight on us at the same time as two constructs. First round of combat the constructs did area of attacks that downed two party members and I used shatter on them. The edtich knight teleported across them map to be next to me and then used his 4 attacks to one shot my character. With only one player left that had no way out the game ended right there.

Now maybe we should have won that battle... Somehow. But the GM said it was our fault for not making better decisions. Considering we had no options if thr fight happened or way to go first, or way to escape, or way to fight back I'm not sure how.

This of course is an example of a GM that doesn't consider what their players in building encounters.

The entire table refused to play with that GM ever again. As I would with any GM that treated pcs as disposable.

[Lance Tankmen]

I think the key part is choices mattering.

I remember I played one campaign where we had made it through one encounter for the day and were told we were under time pressure, so we pushed on. We were 3rd level and the GM dropped a lvl 8 eldritch knight on us at the same time as two constructs. First round of combat the constructs did area of attacks that downed two party members and I used shatter on them. The edtich knight teleported across them map to be next to me and then used his 4 attacks to one shot my character. With only one player left that had no way out the game ended right there.

Now maybe we should have won that battle... Somehow. But the GM said it was our fault for not making better decisions. Considering we had no options if thr fight happened or way to go first, or way to escape, or way to fight back I'm not sure how.

This of course is an example of a GM that doesn't consider what their players in building encounters.

The entire table refused to play with that GM ever again. As I would with any GM that treated pcs as disposable.

i generally disagree with DMs that build DMPCs to use against the party but that's just me. there's a million better choices.

[MaxWilson]

I think the key part is choices mattering.

I remember I played one campaign where we had made it through one encounter for the day and were told we were under time pressure, so we pushed on. We were 3rd level and the GM dropped a lvl 8 eldritch knight on us at the same time as two constructs. First round of combat the constructs did area of attacks that downed two party members and I used shatter on them. The edtich knight teleported across them map to be next to me and then used his 4 attacks to one shot my character. With only one player left that had no way out the game ended right there.

Now maybe we should have won that battle... Somehow. But the GM said it was our fault for not making better decisions. Considering we had no options if thr fight happened or way to go first, or way to escape, or way to fight back I'm not sure how.

This of course is an example of a GM that doesn't consider what their players in building encounters.

The entire table refused to play with that GM ever again. As I would with any GM that treated pcs as disposable.

It may perhaps also be an example of what happens when the players and the DM disagree without realizing it about who is supposed to be playing the game. If the DM thinks he's giving players an interesting choice (you can proceed more cautiously and gather troops/conduct recon because delay is better than dying, or you can charge in there recklessly and hope you get lucky) and the players think the DM is giving them a hint about what they're "supposed" to do, well, bad things happen and the players blame the DM and the DM blames the players.

One of the reasons I like the use of the term Bang! to produce a scenario hook is to delineate premise from play. In this case it would be the difference between "Bang! You're in the middle of an attack on a stronger enemy force to prevent civilians from being slaughtered. There's a fortified enemy outpost ahead. What do you do?" (i.e. DM has determined that a fight will occur) vs. "Bang! The town is under attack. You can counterattack immediately to prevent civilians being slaughtered or bide your time. What do you do?" (i.e. players will determine if a fight occurs).

[Malifice]

So you're a Bad DM (TM) if the PCs actually risk death when they happen to encounter strong opposition.

Well alright. Guess I'm a Bad DM (TM) then.

They only 'happen' to encounter strong opposition, because you (the DM) put it there.

Maybe your players and campaigns thrive off TPKs of the party due to you throwing a horribly over CR'd encounter at them.

More luck to you if thats the case.

[Jakinbandw]

It may perhaps also be an example of what happens when the players and the DM disagree without realizing it about who is supposed to be playing the game. If the DM thinks he's giving players an interesting choice (you can proceed more cautiously and gather troops/conduct recon because delay is better than dying, or you can charge in there recklessly and hope you get lucky) and the players think the DM is giving them a hint about what they're "supposed" to do, well, bad things happen and the players blame the DM and the DM blames the players.

One of the reasons I like the use of the term Bang! to produce a scenario hook is to delineate premise from play. In this case it would be the difference between "Bang! You're in the middle of an attack on a stronger enemy force to prevent civilians from being slaughtered. There's a fortified enemy outpost ahead. What do you do?" (i.e. DM has determined that a fight will occur) vs. "Bang! The town is under attack. You can counterattack immediately to prevent civilians being slaughtered or bide your time. What do you do?" (i.e. players will determine if a fight occurs).

In this case it wasn't even a case of being careful. We were in an area we had already cleared (way to next area was locked). We went to where the locked door was and another adventurer from town was there. We had bought stuff from him in town earlier in the adventure (with no problems). We were talking when he said only one person could get the treasure and he would have it. We disagreed (we'd already cleared the floor and had saved one of the townsfolk and he handed even gone in the dungeon at this point.

Then the door opened to reveal his two constructs and he attacked. I don't think being at full strength would have helped in that fight. We lost half our party before we could act and with him having misty step we couldn't disengage. Even going in at full power I don't see a way we could have survived.

Now in universe this made sense. He was using our party as expendible pawns and we never thought to roll insight against every npc in the town. But it wasnt a fun way to end the campaign.

[MaxWilson]

In this case it wasn't even a case of being careful. We were in an area we had already cleared (way to next area was locked). We went to where the locked door was and another adventurer from town was there. We had bought stuff from him in town earlier in the adventure (with no problems). We were talking when he said only one person could get the treasure and he would have it. We disagreed (we'd already cleared the floor and had saved one of the townsfolk and he handed even gone in the dungeon at this point.

Then the door opened to reveal his two constructs and he attacked. I don't think being at full strength would have helped in that fight. We lost half our party before we could act and with him having misty step we couldn't disengage. Even going in at full power I don't see a way we could have survived.

Now in universe this made sense. He was using our party as expendible pawns and we never thought to roll insight against every npc in the town. But it wasnt a fun way to end the campaign.

Wow, no kidding. I agree.

[Coffee_Dragon]

we never thought to roll insight against every npc in the town.

Obligatory sidenote: players don't decide if and when to do ability checks. As a rule, the DM should check to see if the PCs detect deception when their experience and intuition would give them any chance of doing so. (Your weird DM may or may not have rolled the NPC's Deception against your passive Insight at some point. Of course, a failed check will seldom make players refrain from having their characters act on whichever cues the players pick up, while a DM is seldom expected to do the same for their bamboozled NPCs.)

[Unoriginal]

They only 'happen' to encounter strong opposition, because you (the DM) put it there.

Maybe your players and campaigns thrive off TPKs of the party due to you throwing a horribly over CR'd encounter at them.

More luck to you if thats the case.

Ah, yes, because players NEVER decide to go somewhere strong beings live, and a DM ALWAYS have to make the beings weaker if the PCs encounter them before they can defeat them.

Yes, I as DM are the one building the world. I'm not going to take a dump on a coherent world just because PCs decide that attacking the prince in front of the royal bodyguard is a good idea.

[Tanarii]

In this case it wasn't even a case of being careful. We were in an area we had already cleared (way to next area was locked). We went to where the locked door was and another adventurer from town was there. We had bought stuff from him in town earlier in the adventure (with no problems). We were talking when he said only one person could get the treasure and he would have it. We disagreed (we'd already cleared the floor and had saved one of the townsfolk and he handed even gone in the dungeon at this point.
Given this run-down, I'm betting if we got your former DMs side of this, it would be something like 'the PCs picked a fight with a NPC far more powerful than them and paid the price.' I don't think that's the correct interpretation, since "we disagreed" is an inevitable result of this situation as presented. But I still think that's where they'd be coming from.

That's where there's a fine line between players making choices and DM controlling the world. The difference is obvious when it's between: the players make an informed decision to go confront the (deadly thing); vs it comes to them. But when it's a chain of events, or the players are thinking one thing and the DM another, agency is not always obvious.

-----------------

As a general comment:
Let's be clear here, the side topic in question is player agency, or the freedom to make meaningful decisions, vs a lack of it. Just specifically in regards to PCs getting themselves killed vs PCs being killed.

[mephnick]

Just specifically in regards to PCs getting themselves killed vs PCs being killed.

In my games I run in the X-Com/Darkest Dungeon avenue of thinking:

What may seem like an unfair situation was probably your fault somewhere down the line. Unlucky "RNG" can always be softened by proper planning.

Could have done more research.
Could have taken a different route.
Could have set a better watch.
Could have sent a scout ahead.
Could have brought more utility items.
Could have prepared a utility spell.
Could have invested in a social skill.
Could have ran away.

But, nope. "DM rolled a Green dragon on his table and killed us all. What a ****!"

[Kadesh]

Ah, yes, because players NEVER decide to go somewhere strong beings live, and a DM ALWAYS have to make the beings weaker if the PCs encounter them before they can defeat them.

Yes, I as DM are the one building the world. I'm not going to take a dump on a coherent world just because PCs decide that attacking the prince in front of the royal bodyguard is a good idea.

That might be an issue with your players. Is a quantum ogre a quantum ogre if the players never know?

If your players state 'I wanna go to the place where there is Armageddon Creature' then that is on them. If your players state 'I go left down the hallway' and you go sucks to be you, should have gone right where there were bunnies, here there is only death', then that is on you.

[Unoriginal]

That might be an issue with your players. Is a quantum ogre a quantum ogre if the players never know?

There is no quantum ogre in my games. I hate the whole concept with open disgust.

Also, the answer to your question is "yes".



If your players state 'I wanna go to the place where there is Armageddon Creature' then that is on them. If your players state 'I go left down the hallway' and you go sucks to be you, should have gone right where there were bunnies, here there is only death', then that is on you.

There is nothing to be "on me" or "on them". Adventurers walk into dangerous situations. Sometime too dangerous for them to beat. And sometime they'll have warnings, sometime not.


It's like saying you're a bad DM if the players fall into a potentially very lethal trap.

[Tanarii]

There is no quantum ogre in my games. I hate the whole concept with open disgust.

Also, the answer to your question is "yes".

I think the question was meant to be, if the players are not given enough information to make an informed decision, and their efforts to gain information also don't provide enough to make an informed decision, is a 'static' world (or sandbox, or module) encounter in effect a quantum ogre?

[Unoriginal]

I think the question was meant to be, if the players are not given enough information to make an informed decision, and their efforts to gain information also don't provide enough to make an informed decision, is a 'static' world (or sandbox, or module) encounter in effect a quantum ogre?

That'd be absurd question, then.

A quantum ogre is when the players are given a choice, but the DM has already decided that the result would be the same no matter which choice they take. The players having informations to make the choice or not doesn't matter for the question of quantum ogre or not.

If given the choice between Box A and Box B, or of them containing the treasure and the other an ogre, the only way for it to be a quantum ogre is if the ogre is always in the box the PCs choose, no matter which they choose.

If Box A and B are identical and there is no way but blind luck to pick the right one, then it's not quantum ogre. It's hardly a stimulating challenge, true, but it is still leagues better than quantum ogre.

[Tanarii]

I agree. The quantum ogre is about actively denying player agency. That's not the same as not making available enough info to enable agency. Sort of.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree. The quantum ogre is about actively denying player agency. That's not the same as not making available enough info to enable agency. Sort of.

But both are denials of agency if done intentionally by the DM. Denial of consequences (in the inevitable ogre case) and denial of informed choice are both agency denials.

The only difference in my mind is that lack of information can happen naturally and not be an agency problem when the information was available (or even obvious) and the players just didn't look/remember it.

Edit: thinking about it some more, I think that lacking proper information is the most common source of (perceived or real) agency denials, at least with non-jerk DMs. What's obvious to us as DMs may not be so obvious to the players. Hence the "rule of three" in some genres--give at least 3 separate hints for every critical piece of information the readers/players need. Because if you only give one...people will miss it and blame you for throwing something unexpected at them. And that's normal and natural.

[Unoriginal]

A PC uses Invoke Duplicity. The Yuan-ti Abomination has no way of telling which one is the real one when deciding who to attack, at least at first.

Is having an enemy use an equivalent of Invoke Duplicity to try and escape the PCs denying their agency?

I don't think it is. Sometime, the boxes are identical, but you still have to pick one first.


It's like with mind control spells. Sure, it sucks when a PCs get hit by Friend, as it does limit the choices, but why would the PCs get to do it to NPCs and not the reverse?

[PhoenixPhyre]

A PC uses Invoke Duplicity. The Yuan-ti Abomination has no way of telling which one is the real one when deciding who to attack, at least at first.

[1] Is having an enemy use an equivalent of Invoke Duplicity to try and escape the PCs denying their agency?

I don't think it is. Sometime, the boxes are identical, but you still have to pick one first.


[2] It's like with mind control spells. Sure, it sucks when a PCs get hit by Friend, as it does limit the choices, but why would the PCs get to do it to NPCs and not the reverse?

[1] Yes in an abstract sense, but it doesn't matter (to me at least). As is the PC using it on the NPC. Both have a reduced scope of meaningful, informed decisions. But it's de minimus and bound up in the mechanics (see below), so...meh.
[2] That's an agency "denial" that may or may not matter to a particular individual. Some people find MC effects on PCs to be tremendously un-fun. That's asymmetric...but symmetry's not that important to me anyway. I have a bunch of other options the PCs don't anyway, so...

A few things to contemplate--

* Perfect agency is not the goal--players willingly surrender large swaths of agency to the DM and to the game system. Problems arise when un-surrendered agency is denied.

* Tactical agency tends to be surrendered to the game system. You don't have the agency to say that something hit if you're out of range, for example. You still have meaningful choices with information and consequences, just not as much as you might have otherwise.

* strategic agency is much more carefully guarded for many (but not all) players. They prize the ability to make large-scale choices knowingly and have the consequences follow from those (instead of being pre-chosen or unconnected to their choices).

* perceived agency denials are inevitable. Intentional, non-mechanical agency denials should, in my opinion, be minimized and kept to those that are explicitly authorized by the players in session 0--if everyone agrees to follow a railroad, it's not a malicious agency denial to follow the railroad. It is such a denial if you force them to without their consent.

[Max_Killjoy]

In this case it wasn't even a case of being careful. We were in an area we had already cleared (way to next area was locked). We went to where the locked door was and another adventurer from town was there. We had bought stuff from him in town earlier in the adventure (with no problems). We were talking when he said only one person could get the treasure and he would have it. We disagreed (we'd already cleared the floor and had saved one of the townsfolk and he handed even gone in the dungeon at this point.

Then the door opened to reveal his two constructs and he attacked. I don't think being at full strength would have helped in that fight. We lost half our party before we could act and with him having misty step we couldn't disengage. Even going in at full power I don't see a way we could have survived.

Now in universe this made sense. He was using our party as expendible pawns and we never thought to roll insight against every npc in the town. But it wasnt a fun way to end the campaign.

That's horrible.

Was there any expectation that it was going to be that kind of campaign, with lots of backstabbing and intrigue and double-crossing?

And... a GM shouldn't expect the players to go about rolling Insight or equivalent against every NPC high and low "just to be safe".

[Max_Killjoy]

But both are denials of agency if done intentionally by the DM. Denial of consequences (in the inevitable ogre case) and denial of informed choice are both agency denials.

The only difference in my mind is that lack of information can happen naturally and not be an agency problem when the information was available (or even obvious) and the players just didn't look/remember it.

Edit: thinking about it some more, I think that lacking proper information is the most common source of (perceived or real) agency denials, at least with non-jerk DMs. What's obvious to us as DMs may not be so obvious to the players. Hence the "rule of three" in some genres--give at least 3 separate hints for every critical piece of information the readers/players need. Because if you only give one...people will miss it and blame you for throwing something unexpected at them. And that's normal and natural.

A good friend of mine and long-time member of the old gaming group, was what I'd call an unintentional jerk-GM.

The issue with him is also visible outside gaming -- even though he's one of the most well-traveled and cosmopolitan people I know, he also has a very particular mind, and struggles to grasp that other people don't always interpret things the way he does, have the same information, or come to the same conclusions. As one of our fellows in the old group finally blurted out in frustration one session, "Other people don't have access to your brain, we don't see what you see in your head!" Combine this with a bit of an ironic "you never asked" attitude towards things that the PCs really should have noticed just by "being there", and while he's a great gamer, he's not a great GM.

It made the players paranoid, and every little thing felt like a trap -- players started refusing plot hooks because each one felt like another "gotcha" moment upcoming, which just made him more frustrated. And when people voiced their concerns, his response was "It's supposed to be a challenge!"

[Max_Killjoy]

In my games I run in the X-Com/Darkest Dungeon avenue of thinking:

What may seem like an unfair situation was probably your fault somewhere down the line. Unlucky "RNG" can always be softened by proper planning.

Could have done more research.
Could have taken a different route.
Could have set a better watch.
Could have sent a scout ahead.
Could have brought more utility items.
Could have prepared a utility spell.
Could have invested in a social skill.
Could have ran away.

But, nope. "DM rolled a Green dragon on his table and killed us all. What a ****!"


My experience with GMs who (literally or in effect) routinely list off all the things the players "could have done" is that they'll just find a way to negate or circumvent whatever the players actually did do in some way, or come up with more things they "could have done" -- that is, they're not trying to enact the natural outcome of the PCs' actions within the context of the setting and events around the PCs, and instead there's some combination of:


Frustration that what the PCs already did do complicated or blocked the thing the GM had planned.
Effort to establish a proper "challenge level" regardless of the PCs' actions.
Determination to "get them".


And so things get piled on "in the moment" as the GM escalates the situation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A good friend of mine and long-time member of the old gaming group, was what I'd call an unintentional jerk-GM.

The issue with him is also visible outside gaming -- even though he's one of the most well-traveled and cosmopolitan people I know, he also has a very particular mind, and struggles to grasp that other people don't always interpret things the way he does, have the same information, or come to the same conclusions. As one of our fellows in the old group finally blurted out in frustration one session, "Other people don't have access to your brain, we don't see what you see in your head!" Combine this with a bit of an ironic "you never asked" attitude towards things that the PCs really should have noticed just by "being there", and while he's a great gamer, he's not a great GM.

It made the players paranoid, and every little thing felt like a trap -- players started refusing plot hooks because each one felt like another "gotcha" moment upcoming, which just made him more frustrated. And when people voiced their concerns, his response was "It's supposed to be a challenge!"

Been there, seen that, been annoyed by that. Teaching teenagers has made me exquisitely aware of how explicit you have to be when giving directions or information. If there are 3 ways to understand something, someone will find a 4th, more convoluted or just plain wrong way. I've taken to being explicit about lack of knowledge. "You know X, Y, Z, but your character does not know P, D, or Q." I've also taken to being the internal voice of a character when it's obvious they've missed something important--"Your character would know that having two moons is normal for this planet."

[Kadesh]

There is no quantum ogre in my games. I hate the whole concept with open disgust.

Also, the answer to your question is "yes".



There is nothing to be "on me" or "on them". Adventurers walk into dangerous situations. Sometime too dangerous for them to beat. And sometime they'll have warnings, sometime not.


It's like saying you're a bad DM if the players fall into a potentially very lethal trap.

There is a difference between cakewalk, danger and certain death. You as the crafter of the moment are entirely at fault for what you place in front of the party, whether you have dictated X exists Y place or otherwise.

If you did not tell the party X exists in Y place would the party have gone Y place? If you place X in Y place, whose fault is it.

Accept your own foibles.
I think the question was meant to be, if the players are not given enough information to make an informed decision-making , and their efforts to gain information also don't provide enough to make an informed decision, is a 'static' world (or sandbox, or module) encounter in effect a quantum ogre?
This is correct in its entirety. Apologies if it was unclear and thank you for explaining.

[Unoriginal]

There is a difference between cakewalk, danger and certain death. You as the crafter of the moment are entirely at fault for what you place in front of the party, whether you have dictated X exists Y place or otherwise.

If you did not tell the party X exists in Y place would the party have gone Y place? If you place X in Y place, whose fault is it.

Accept your own foibles.

Why are you trying to frame this as a fault? The world exists, in the setting. Sometime the PCs do dumb stuff. Sometime they run into things they couldn't know. Sometime it's a cakewalk, sometime it's danger, and sometime it's certain deaths.

It doesn't make anyone a bad DM or a bad player.

[Pex]

Ah, yes, because players NEVER decide to go somewhere strong beings live, and a DM ALWAYS have to make the beings weaker if the PCs encounter them before they can defeat them.

Yes, I as DM are the one building the world. I'm not going to take a dump on a coherent world just because PCs decide that attacking the prince in front of the royal bodyguard is a good idea.

There is a huge difference between players attacking the prince & guards for the lulz and walking in the dangerous according to the villagers forest when suddenly dragons.

[Kadesh]

Because I see preventing players from playing the game they want to play the faul, rather than the facility of quantum ogreing. When I play Diablo 3, nothing more annoys me than having a dead end, because it prevents me from playing how I like to.

You are playing in a cooperative game. Whether you have a PC in it or not. If you are not playing the game the audience and other participants want to play or not, and it is a matter of finding your correct audience.

You have to cater to the people playing with you, whether your name is Bumble**** The Joke Character or Serious MC Serious.

Let's call it a Rogue like. You push the walls on a Rogue like, the game ends because character dies. Restart, whether it's hardcore at level 1 at the starting area, or the last point you have saved. You go in aware of that, and how you respawn, whether it be by Respawn/Revive mechanic

As a DM, you are aware of players personal preferences. If not, you are not only failing on human connection, or you willfully ignore what they want to play.

If what you want to play is what your other players do not want to play, off you ****, because it is you who are at fault, in the same way as the rugby player refusing to play football player offs they ****.

This post is entirely personal preference and you can take it how it you like. But if I see invisible walls, I see that as a DM thinking they are being 'clever'. I either oush those invisible walls, and see how invisible they are, or I keep on the tracks the DM has tried tk hide behind invisible walls, and realise the DM is full of nonsense behind this is a living breathing world'.

[Unoriginal]

Kadesh, I really don't get what you mean.

Do you think that a DM should prevent the PCs from going where they should not go (ie invisible walls) or that they should let the PCs wander even in places where they're likely to die?


Personally I play with people who are aware of my preferences, and me of theirs. I've also cleared out that they can go wherever to do stuff but that they don't have plot armor and if they run into something too strong, it's up to them to escape and survive.

[Kadesh]

I think that you should play the game the players want you to play you are taking up their free time playing things they do not want to play otherwise.

If you want your players to play on a railroad, then tell them. Putting an invisible wall is a railroad with extra steps.

[Unoriginal]

I think that you should play the game the players want you to play you are taking up their free time playing things they do not want to play otherwise.

Again, what makes you think that I DON'T play the game the players want to play?

Also, it goes both way. Players and DMs should play the game the players and the DM wants to play, not just what one or the other want.



If you want your players to play on a railroad, then tell them. Putting an invisible wall is a railroad with extra steps.

This is utter non-sequitur. I've never said anything about railroad or invisible wall, two things that I loath just as much as quantum ogre.

[Kadesh]

Nobody said you didn't. You simply took it as such.

As to the terms railroad or invisible walls compared to railroad, I'm not sure how else you can classify 'follow this path I have allowed to be safe, or at worst challenging yet survivable' as anything other than an invisible wall.

[Unoriginal]

Nobody said you didn't.

I just did.



As to the terms railroad or invisible walls compared to railroad, I'm not sure how else you can classify 'follow this path I have allowed to be safe, or at worst challenging yet survivable' as anything other than an invisible wall.

What does this "follow this path" thing come from?

PCs can go wherever they want. Some paths are just harder, because it makes sense for them to be.

If this is too "invisible wall" for you, what's the alternative? Let the PCs go anywhere, but they'll never meet anything that can actually hurt them? That's blatant railroading.

"Let's go kill the dragon"
"Alright. When you arrives at the cave, it turns out it's a wyrmling."
"That sucks"
"Well you don't have the level for a Young Dragon"

[Kadesh]

You just said you don't play the game your players don't want you to play?

Mate you do you.

[Hail Tempus]

This conversation is a little weird to me as a DM. I really don’t understand why any DM would want to waste his time creating plot hooks and encounters that take the PCs to sudden death.

In a homemade campaign, nothing exists until the DM creates it.

[Unoriginal]

You just said you don't play the game your players don't want you to play?

Indeed, I don't play the game my players don't want me to play.

Why would I play a game my players don't want me to play?



This conversation is a little weird to me as a DM. I really don’t understand why any DM would want to waste his time creating plot hooks and encounters that take the PCs to sudden death.

So in your campaigns, there is nothing that can kill your PCs suddenly?

All the traps are non-lethal? All the monsters are adjusted to not really hurt PCs in the long term? There is no lava in the bad guy's volcanic lair?

[Tanarii]

There is a huge difference between players attacking the prince & guards for the lulz and walking in the dangerous according to the villagers forest when suddenly dragons.
As much as I like to present the opposite point of view, I have to agree that "dangerous according to villagers" is pretty poor telegraphing for "deadly Dragon".

Clearly it should be deadly Vampires or Werewolves. :smallamused:

[Hail Tempus]

So in your campaigns, there is nothing that can kill your PCs suddenly?

All the traps are non-lethal? All the monsters are adjusted to not really hurt PCs in the long term? There is no lava in the bad guy's volcanic lair? I generally follow CR and adventuring day XP guidelines. That means, when preparing a set of encounters, the challenge level of the encounters, as a whole, will be appropriate for the level of the party. Character deaths happen in my campaigns, sometimes permanently. But, no, I don’t see the point of creating a combat encounter or a trap that will suddenly kill the players.

[Unoriginal]

I generally follow CR and adventuring day XP guidelines. That means, when preparing a set of encounters, the challenge level of the encounters, as a whole, will be appropriate for the level of the party. Character deaths happen in my campaigns, sometimes permanently. But, no, I don’t see the point of creating a combat encounter or a trap that will suddenly kill the players.

So your players can go to the local king's throne room, slap the king, grab his crown, and just face an appropriate CR encounter?

[PhoenixPhyre]

So your players can go to the local king's throne room, slap the king, grab his crown, and just face an appropriate CR encounter?

I think you're misunderstanding each other.

Hail Tempus is talking about planned encounters, and you are responding about impromptu encounters. The two are separate.

If a DM creates a plot hook/set of prepared encounters with the intention of killing all the players, that's something Hail Tempus is not supporting.

But if the players initiate an unplanned encounter or knowingly bite off more than they can chew, then they've brought it down on themselves.

Conflating the two is not doing either argument justice.

[Tanarii]

Hail Tempus is talking about planned encounters, and you are responding about impromptu encounters. The two are separate.
Then he failed to answer the question "so in your campaigns, there is nothing that can kill your PCs suddenly?"

Edit: either that or the answer is: no, there's nothing except planned tailored encounters and they are not intended to kill the Pcs.

[JackPhoenix]

So your players can go to the local king's throne room, slap the king, grab his crown, and just face an appropriate CR encounter?

Well, that depends on the PCs level, the king's importance and power, and how fast can the PCs run before reinforcements arrive, doesn't it?

[Erloas]

If you, as a DM, give two paths, and down one is "reasonable challenges" and down the other is "TPK" then you are railroading/invisible walling even if the TPK "fits the setting." Even if the answer is "they could run away from the TPK" that is very true, but it still only leaves them one path, and that is a path you have specifically directed them to, AKA railroad.

If there is no good way for the players to know which path is which, then that is entirely the fault of the DM. Of course if "this path will take longer but is safer" and "this path is fastest but very dangerous" and they choose the "very dangerous" path then that is their choice and they can own that choice, but that is only true if they know the difference between the paths.

[JackPhoenix]

If you, as a DM, give two paths, and down one is "reasonable challenges" and down the other is "TPK" then you are railroading/invisible walling even if the TPK "fits the setting." Even if the answer is "they could run away from the TPK" that is very true, but it still only leaves them one path, and that is a path you have specifically directed them to, AKA railroad.

Or they could do something clever (or not-so-clever-but-RAW) and win even against "impossible" odds. Or they could find a way to avoid the danger, sneaking, magic, whatever. Or they could try negotiating if the opponent is intelligent. Or find some help. That's the whole point of playing RPGs with real people instead of video game where everything is scripted. There are options.

[Unoriginal]

Or there could be more than two paths.

[MaxWilson]

I think the question was meant to be, if the players are not given enough information to make an informed decision, and their efforts to gain information also don't provide enough to make an informed decision, is a 'static' world (or sandbox, or module) encounter in effect a quantum ogre?

Related: if information is available but players make no effort to seek out out (e.g. no recon, no divination, always fighting whatever they find with no effort to assess the threat first), will play feel meaningful or random?

I suspect it depends on the player. If the players are smart enough to recognize missed opportunities after the fact, play can still feel meaningful. They should try again, harder. If they're just not capable of or interested in that, then it won't, and you have a player-DM mismatch.

[Man_Over_Game]

Related: if information is available but players make no effort to seek out out (e.g. no recon, no divination, always fighting whatever they find with no effort to assess the threat first), will play feel meaningful or random?

I suspect it depends on the player. If the players are smart enough to recognize missed opportunities after the fact, play can still feel meaningful. They should try again, harder. If they're just not capable of or interested in that, then it won't, and you have a player-DM mismatch.

That's one of the catches of playing an RPG game. People who spend their time indoors and playing RPGs aren't likely as combat aware as the Ranger they're playing, nor are they as tactically talented as a Wizard. Sometimes, the player just doesn't think of those things when they should have.

The best thing I recommend for clueless players when they miss a clue is another clue twice as obvious and half as useful, just enough to get them on the right track.

[JackPhoenix]

That's one of the catches of playing an RPG game. People who spend their time indoors and playing RPGs aren't likely as combat aware as the Ranger they're playing, nor are they as tactically talented as a Wizard. Sometimes, the player just doesn't think of those things when they should have.

The best thing I recommend for clueless players when they miss a clue is another clue twice as obvious and half as useful, just enough to get them on the right track.

That's why I recommend sticking to three clue rule (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule) if you want players to really get a hint.

[MaxWilson]

As much as I like to present the opposite point of view, I have to agree that "dangerous according to villagers" is pretty poor telegraphing for "deadly Dragon".

Clearly it should be deadly Vampires or Werewolves. :smallamused:

Hmmm. What would be good telegraphing for a sneaky, deadly dragon? Maybe something like, "A platoon of Fire Giants once took over our village and made us feed them while five of their best soldiers went into the forest looking for something. They never came back, and after three days the rest of the giants went in after them. There were nine of them. I don't know what happened but none of them ever came back either."

I think that ought to give players the idea of the threat level of e.g. an Adult Green Dragon who is also a 7th level Dragon Sorcerer.

------------------------


That's one of the catches of playing an RPG game. People who spend their time indoors and playing RPGs aren't likely as combat aware as the Ranger they're playing, nor are they as tactically talented as a Wizard. Sometimes, the player just doesn't think of those things when they should have.

The best thing I recommend for clueless players when they miss a clue is another clue twice as obvious and half as useful, just enough to get them on the right track.

I'm thinking less in terms of mystery clues and more in terms of "why do certain players never ever look through the keyhole (etc.) before kicking down the door?" If you're hypothetically suddenly busting into a meeting between a Death Knight and his psychiatrist instead of stealing the treasure that's three doors down, is that your own fault if you TPK or is it the DM's fault for not accounting for the fact that you never, ever look before you leap?

Just venting.

[Tanarii]

I'm thinking less in terms of mystery clues and more in terms of "why do certain players never ever look through the keyhole (etc.) before kicking down the door?"
Maybe they've been traumatized by a DM that used eye-eating rot-grubs in all the keyholes? :smallamused:


I think that ought to give players the idea of the threat level of e.g. an Adult Green Dragon who is also a 7th level Dragon Sorcerer.I liked it.

[MaxWilson]

Maybe they've been traumatized by a DM that used eye-eating rot-grubs in all the keyholes? :smallamused:

I liked it.

They could still use familiars though, or try to look through an exterior window, or hide and watch for a while from a Rope Trick, or use Arcane Eye, or *something.* I just find it distressing when they make things harder for themselves than necessary.

[Hail Tempus]

So your players can go to the local king's throne room, slap the king, grab his crown, and just face an appropriate CR encounter?
The PCs aren’t getting in the door of the king’s castle just by showing up. Unless the king is part of the storyline, why would I stat out him and his retinue?

[MaxWilson]

The PCs aren’t getting in the door of the king’s castle just by showing up. Unless the king is part of the storyline, why would I stat out him and his retinue?

What stops them from just walking in the door anyway? Just their own self-restraint and desire not to be rude?

[Erloas]

Or they could do something clever (or not-so-clever-but-RAW) and win even against "impossible" odds. Or they could find a way to avoid the danger, sneaking, magic, whatever. Or they could try negotiating if the opponent is intelligent. Or find some help. That's the whole point of playing RPGs with real people instead of video game where everything is scripted. There are options.

Except that you haven't actually addressed the point, you've simply changed the circumstance and answered a point that wasn't made. I never said either path was a fight, it could have been environmental challenges, or traps, or "requires a skill check you can't possibly make." The point was if you give two situations and one can't be cleared by the party then you haven't actually given two situations, you've given one situation and one illusion of choice.

Which is different than hard but possible, as well as "this wasn't supposed to be a fight but they made it one," or "they simply jumped into the situation without really looking at the options."

[MaxWilson]

Except that you haven't actually addressed the point, you've simply changed the circumstance and answered a point that wasn't made. I never said either path was a fight, it could have been environmental challenges, or traps, or "requires a skill check you can't possibly make." The point was if you give two situations and one can't be cleared by the party then you haven't actually given two situations, you've given one situation and one illusion of choice.

Which is different than hard but possible, as well as "this wasn't supposed to be a fight but they made it one," or "they simply jumped into the situation without really looking at the options."

This smells like a false dichotomy to me. There's a big difference between "hard" or even "lethal" and "absolutely impossible." In practice I suspect a lot of the posters who object to "impossible" challenges as being railroadey/"invisible walls" would classify as impossible things JackPhoenix (among others) thinks are perfectly feasible given skilled play, if difficult. Unless you really did literally mean "impossible"?

IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with 1st level players having the ability to encounter a CR 16 Iron Golem, even though 90% of 1st level PCs would fail to kill it if they fought it. But in the interests of fun, fighting it shouldn't be their only choice, especially if the threat wasn't telegraphed in advance. The golem could be one of the king's guards, and maybe it only becomes a threat if they try to get in to see the king without permission--but it's there, and if they make choices that result in them fighting it, there's nothing wrong with the golem being there, whether they kill it or it kills them. Choices and consequences: that's what TTRPGs are all about.

[Kadesh]

Or there could be more than two paths.

There could be more paths outside of 'reasonable possibility of danger and handwaived encounters you'll trounce' and 'TPK'.

Pray tell, which ones are those?

[Kadesh]

Related: if information is available but players make no effort to seek out out (e.g. no recon, no divination, always fighting whatever they find with no effort to assess the threat first), will play feel meaningful or random?
Do you have an example of one of the other, and can either be negative or positive?

Are bilbo's random fumblings in the tunnel to find the one ring random? Yes to him, no to a DM. Would it change how meaningful an item it were if he had been part of a party of dwarves who slew the strange eel like creature of gollum while trying to find an exit?

Is Aragorn's attack on the Black Gate less meaningful, despite not having scouted it?

[JackPhoenix]

Except that you haven't actually addressed the point, you've simply changed the circumstance and answered a point that wasn't made. I never said either path was a fight, it could have been environmental challenges, or traps, or "requires a skill check you can't possibly make." The point was if you give two situations and one can't be cleared by the party then you haven't actually given two situations, you've given one situation and one illusion of choice.

Which is different than hard but possible, as well as "this wasn't supposed to be a fight but they made it one," or "they simply jumped into the situation without really looking at the options."

I don't give "two situations". I give a goal (or maybe not, in sandbox game, players may pick their own goals), and perhaps put an obstacle in the way. There's only one situation... "You need to reach the goal" (well, that is railoading in itself, saying "Screw it, we're doing something else!" should be an option in a sandbox). It's up to you to make your own path. How do you do that... that's the choice you have. That's no illusion. If there really is insurmountable obstacle in a way... an impassable mountain, perhaps... again, there's no illusion, because it's obvious going through the mountain is impossible. (And then the players decide to convince a beholder to disintegrate a tunnel through the mountain, just because. Or buy pickaxes and start digging.).

Illusion of choice would be if there were two roads around the mountain, you've heard there's a bunch of bandits ambushing travelers on one of them, and no matter what route you'd take, the bandits would be waiting for you. Oh, and you can't go anywhere else, and there's nobody you can hire to join you, and the bandits can't be negotiated with, or avoided in any way, because, dammit, I've prepared bandit ambush encounter, and I'm gonna run it!


Are bilbo's random fumblings in the tunnel to find the one ring random? Yes to him, no to a DM. Would it change how meaningful an item it were if he had been part of a party of dwarves who slew the strange eel like creature of gollum while trying to find an exit?

Is Aragorn's attack on the Black Gate less meaningful, despite not having scouted it?

That's... well, It's too late for me to try to remember or look up what kind of logical fallacy is that. A book is not a game. Bilbo had no agency, no choice to throw the ring away, or to let it lie where he found it, or give it to Gollum in exchange for being led out of the tunnels. There was no choice to take a different route. No decision in a book is trully meaningful, because there's no decision to be made. There's only the author's will.

[Hail Tempus]

What stops them from just walking in the door anyway? Just their own self-restraint and desire not to be rude? The King only really exists in a campaign once the DM decides he exists. If he’s not part of the story, why would the PCs have any interest in going to see him? Until the DM decides to create a plot hook to involve the PCs with the king, they’re not going to get to meet him.

Player agency is, rightfully, limited. They get to control their character, but not the world around them.

[JoeJ]

The King only really exists in a campaign once the DM decides he exists. If he’s not part of the story, why would the PCs have any interest in going to see him? Until the DM decides to create a plot hook to involve the PCs with the king, they’re not going to get to meet him.

Player agency is, rightfully, limited. They get to control their character, but not the world around them.

The king (or whomever, for whatever kind of government exists) is a very important person. The kind of person that even peasants in small villages talk about. Unless you've created a very strange world, the PCs should frequently be hearing news about the king, even when there's no deliberate plot hook involved.

[Pex]

This smells like a false dichotomy to me. There's a big difference between "hard" or even "lethal" and "absolutely impossible." In practice I suspect a lot of the posters who object to "impossible" challenges as being railroadey/"invisible walls" would classify as impossible things JackPhoenix (among others) thinks are perfectly feasible given skilled play, if difficult. Unless you really did literally mean "impossible"?

IMO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with 1st level players having the ability to encounter a CR 16 Iron Golem, even though 90% of 1st level PCs would fail to kill it if they fought it. But in the interests of fun, fighting it shouldn't be their only choice, especially if the threat wasn't telegraphed in advance. The golem could be one of the king's guards, and maybe it only becomes a threat if they try to get in to see the king without permission--but it's there, and if they make choices that result in them fighting it, there's nothing wrong with the golem being there, whether they kill it or it kills them. Choices and consequences: that's what TTRPGs are all about.

Unless the players are absolutely stupid to attack when the 1st level party meets an Iron Golem a combat isn't the point. Early on in one of my games when we were 6th level after a battle a black dragon appeared. It was obvious we weren't supposed to fight it. The dragon indeed wanted to speak with us which set the stage for the rest of the campaign. We're now friends with the dragon and other chromatic dragons, as much as humanoids could be with chromatic dragons, but we did willingly help them in further adventures. At 13th level we're now in Avernus trying to free Tiamat with my paladin's deity's blessing, Torm. It's not a problem for low level PCs to encounter high CR monsters. It's a problem when the DM means for the players to fight them and then blame the players' stupidity when the TPK inevitably happens.

[MaxWilson]

The King only really exists in a campaign once the DM decides he exists. If he’s not part of the story, why would the PCs have any interest in going to see him? Until the DM decides to create a plot hook to involve the PCs with the king, they’re not going to get to meet him.

Player agency is, rightfully, limited. They get to control their character, but not the world around them.

Hahahahaha, your players are apparently more predictable than my players.

But to answer the question: sometimes the PCs run into a situation that they feel is too big for them, and it's pretty common IME for them to look for backup. And I like to set things up so that the PCs realize that for the most part, they are the "backup." (But sometimes the king had a few squads of Guards or something that he can scrape up and send with them.)

Obligatory Issola quote:

[Vlad and company are on the shores of the Lesser Sea of Chaos, anticipating an attack from the godlike Jenoine.]

Sethra said, "Are we going to get any help from the Empress?"

"Yes," said Morrolan. "She's sending the Court Wizard."

"Ah."

That was irony--Morrolan had been Court Wizard for some years, since an unfortunate incident with Setha the Younger, who had held the post previously.

[Particle_Man]

Getting back to the OP point for a second, what pc behaviour would ensue if a dm divorces the short rests and long rests from in game time and attached them to encounters? Thus, whether a minute or a week passed between encounters, pcs would get no benefits from rest after the first, third and fifth encounters, automatic short rest benefits after the second and fourth encounters and automatic long rest benefits after the sixth encounter, for each six encounter cycle?

[Tanarii]

If he’s not part of the story, why would the PCs have any interest in going to see him?


Hahahahaha, your players are apparently more predictable than my players.
I'd say they are extremely atypical and unpredictable players. Because players always seem to want to go see the king. Or duke. Or mayor. Or mob boss. Or whomever is generally in charge. They will beeline for them, and if they don't know who is in charge, they'll ask about it.

Not knowing who is in charge in a region, and why the players cannot just bust in to see them, is a recipe for having to ad-lib invisible walls on the spot.

[Pex]

I'd say they are extremely atypical and unpredictable players. Because players always seem to want to go see the king. Or duke. Or mayor. Or mob boss. Or whomever is generally in charge. They will beeline for them, and if they don't know who is in charge, they'll ask about it.

Not knowing who is in charge in a region, and why the players cannot just bust in to see them, is a recipe for having to ad-lib invisible walls on the spot.

Yep, even the goody-two-shoes holy saint PCs if only to warn them of the danger that's nearby.

[Kadesh]

I'd say they are extremely atypical and unpredictable players. Because players always seem to want to go see the king. Or duke. Or mayor. Or mob boss. Or whomever is generally in charge. They will beeline for them, and if they don't know who is in charge, they'll ask about it.

Not knowing who is in charge in a region, and why the players cannot just bust in to see them, is a recipe for having to ad-lib invisible walls on the spot.

If there are invisible walls, why would you have to adlib some more invisible walls when someone pushes against them?

Can you please provide an example?

[Boci]

I'd say they are extremely atypical and unpredictable players. Because players always seem to want to go see the king. Or duke. Or mayor. Or mob boss. Or whomever is generally in charge. They will beeline for them, and if they don't know who is in charge, they'll ask about it.

Not knowing who is in charge in a region, and why the players cannot just bust in to see them, is a recipe for having to ad-lib invisible walls on the spot.

Not my expirience. I tend to find players make a beeline for the market to sell swag and see if theres anything useful for them to buy, then the tavern to arrange food and sleep and hear the local gossip.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I'd say they are extremely atypical and unpredictable players. Because players always seem to want to go see the king. Or duke. Or mayor. Or mob boss. Or whomever is generally in charge. They will beeline for them, and if they don't know who is in charge, they'll ask about it.

Not knowing who is in charge in a region, and why the players cannot just bust in to see them, is a recipe for having to ad-lib invisible walls on the spot.

So do mine. I think there's something about adventurers that makes them think they can give orders to the King. That said, being uncivil about it tends to result in guards, retainers, and potentially the noble themselves going after them and forcing them to flee. I subscribe to the idea that if random itinerant-mercenaries can breach a castle and kill its owner without extensive foreplanning [and presumably a quest to do so], it would be happening often enough to destabilize the realm.

Sometimes the nobles won't deign to meet with commoners, sometimes they hold a period of court where commoner petitioners can come to them for arbitration, during which the party can talk to them. If there are nobles in the party and their arrival is public, they may receive a invitation to dinner as courtesy.