# A Discussion in Game Design: The 15 minute work day.



## Stalker0 (Jul 30, 2010)

A Discussion in Game Design: The 15 minute work day.


I love to talk about game design, and I haven’t written a good article in a while, so I figured I would kill two birds with one stone and post this.
If it generates good discussion, I might even make a series of it.

Note I have also attached a word version of this that's easier to read for those who like that.

So without further ado, lets get started.

*Defining the Subject: Do we have a problem?*

What is the 15 minute workday? Everyone has their own personal version of the concept, but to generate a good discussion we need to define the concept specifically.

The 15 minute workday occurs when characters engage in an adventuring activity that drains them of resources in some way. This could be loss of health, expending of abilities, etc. Instead of continuing said activity, the *character chooses* to refrain from the activity in order to recover the lost resources. Done to an extreme, the character is said to only engage in adventuring activities for “15 minutes a day”.

Now the first question, is this actually a problem? If we question specific gaming groups, this varies quite a bit. Some groups may only have one combat or “adventuring activity” per day, per week, etc. To them this isn’t an issue at all. Some gaming groups have entire sections of campaign take place over the course of a few days, to them it can seem like quite a problem.

Ultimately to me, what defines this as a problem is the fact that a game system at its core, is designed to model archetypes. Since Dnd is traditionally a Tolkeinesque fantasy archetype, let’s consider it from that perspective. In many fantasy stories, the Hero will face countless challenges. Commonly, the hero will face one challenge after another. He doesn’t rest or stop, he keeps on fighting. He may face hoards of minions only to face his great nemesis immediately afterwards. Yet while realism would tell us the Hero at this point would be utterly exhausted and barely capable of fighting, often in the story he fights the villain with an even greater strength not yet seen. 

A character that chooses to face danger again and again makes for a great story, and for many is a staple of the fantasy archetype. If the 15 minute workday is commonly occurring, that flies in the face of that archetype. That makes it a problem, or at the very least, a concern that should be looked at.

*The Problem is Incentive*
Note that in the section above I bolded the fact that the player is choosing to cause the 15 minute workday, this is not some high decree from the DM.
When it comes to choices, incentive plays a key role. And since so much of what makes an rpg is the player’s ability to choose his actions…incentive becomes a critical factor in any game design. To that end, this is my personal take on the subject.

_Stalker0’s Credos of Good Game Design:_ A modest gaming system allows the playing of an archetype. A great one provides incentive to do so.


I applaud anyone who is willing to act in character for no better reason than it is in character. But to me, what is even better is if the system provides the mechanical benefit for acting in character. Now not only does the player feel good because he is playing the spirit of his character (the flavor) but he feels good because he is enjoying tangible rewards (the mechanics).
With this is mind, the real problem with the 15 minute workday is a conflict in Incentives, which is the following.


_Incentive 1: I want my character to act bravely and heroically._
VS
_Incentive 2: I want my character to be strong and powerful. _

The first incentive encourages a player to fight, and then bravely face the next challenge even if he is wounded, drained of resources, etc.
The second incentive encourages a player away from adventuring. Players want to feel powerful, and for many games, dnd included, the character is at its strongest right at the beginning of the day. Adventuring actually drains a character’s resources (making it weaker) while resting replenishes resources (making it stronger). 

Within every player this conflict arises to its own degree. A player may choose one incentive over the other, but there is always that small inner hesitation and regret at having to give up one to have the other.  And hence, the problem is born.

*4th Edition: Handling the Problem*
While I’ve played in several gaming systems now, since most of us are dnd players or have experience with it I will use it as a baseline for the discussion.
The designers of 4th edition recognized the issue with the 15 minute work day, and built mechanics into their system to correct it.
The major points:
1)	Always on abilities (at-will powers)
2)	Encounter based recovery of abilities (encounter powers)
3)	Encounter based recovery of wounds (healing surges).
These three points are designed straight at incentive 2. In each fight a character loses resources. However, at the end of the fight, he gets some or all of those resources back. Furthermore, at will powers ensure that no matter how many encounters a character has, he will always have some “cool abilities” to fall back on.

Overall, this is a move in the right direction as far as rebalancing the incentives go. However, it only goes so far. The system is fixing the issue by “removing the stick”. A player is still getting weaker by adventuring (losing surges, losing dailies) just not as much. So the system isn’t encouraging the player to adventure more heroically…its just not punishing him as much.
That’s good….but it could be even better.

*Finding the Perfect Answer*
In the last section we talked about stick incentives. 4th edition has eased up on a stick somewhat in order to prevent the 15 minute adventuring day.
So what if we go even further…how about no stick at all? What if we made it so that a character was fully recovered after every encounter. Now a character is always at its maximum power no matter how many fights he goes through. We no longer have to worry about appeasing incentive 2, a player can act as heroically as he wants and never feel that his character is getting weaker. Problem solved right?

The problem is solved…but the answer creates its own set of problems. First of all, it cuts down on variety. If my character is literally reset every fight then things can get very repetitive. Second, we have to remember that for many people allowing their character to “nova” (using a lot of expendable resources in short order) is a way to feel that strength and power that is Incentive 2. And let’s not forget that another heroic archetype is when the hero “gives it all he’s got”. It’s hard to do that when you get everything you just gave right back 5 minutes later” 

So stick isn’t the answer, lets turn to the carrot. How do we get our two incentives to work together instead of against each other. The general answer is the following:

*A character should gain strength and power over multiple encounters.*

Written like that, the answer seems pretty simple. If my character actually GAINS power from multiple fights and encounters, then suddenly my two incentives reinforce each other. On the one side, I get to act like a hero, playing out all the fantasy stories I’ve read and heard about. On the other, now I get play a character whose always powerful, in fact, may even be more powerful the more heroic  I am!

Suddenly resting becomes the enemy, and adventuring the cure. With this concept, a DM no longer has to encourage his players to act in a heroic manner, now the system takes care of that.

However, we don’t want to take this concept too much to the extreme either. For our more realist gamers out there, having a character who is straight up more powerful after three grueling fights doesn’t make a lot of sense either.

So how do we put this concept into practice? We will look at 4th edition again to apply our new concept.

What’s interesting is, 4th edition has already created this concept…they just didn’t use it very much. The concept is the milestone.

The milestone itself doesn’t do anything, however, it is the things that are based on it. Action Points are the first things to come to mind, but they are not a good example. You gain an action point every milestone…but you always get 1 for resting. So again less stick, but no real carrot. However, there are some magic items that are based on milestones.

My favorite one is an armor that gets +1 AC every milestone. So lets take a fighter that has accomplished a grueling 6 combats in a single day. He’s low on dailies, low on healing surges, and definitely has a good incentive to rest. However, he now has this special +3 to AC that he couldn’t get anywhere else. He may in fact now have the highest AC he has ever had…which will go away once he takes a full rest. The fighter has lost power in one way, but gained it in another.

The problem in my opinion is that 4th edition doesn’t really use this wonderful concept for all its worth. What if more things were based on milestones? What if certain powers or feats got better with milestones…or paragon path abilities? What if certain really cool abilities could only be used after you had obtained a milestone?

If we increased the number of power sources for characters that were based on milestones, it would allow a character to compensate for their loss of power in new and interesting ways. A player would lose some resources by adventuring but gain new ones. Overall the player can choose to play his character with the flavor he wants, and the system is behind him, not against him.

*Finale*
I hoped you enjoyed the article and that it generates some good discussion.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 31, 2010)

Good topic, and good analysis! 

Some time ago, I came up with the idea of milestone feats (link to blog post here) which are intended to encourage characters to conserve their daily powers and to continue adventuring. This may involve one or more of the following:

1. The feat may provide a bonus that increases with every milestone.

2. The feat may grant a milestone ability after the character first reaches a milestone after taking an extended rest. Usually, such abilities can only be used once per milestone, and are refreshed when the character reaches subsequent milestones. If the character does not use a once per milestone ability before he reaches another milestone, the previous use of the milestone ability is lost. Milestone abilities are also lost when the character takes an extended rest.

3. The feat may provide an improvement to one of a character's daily powers that varies with the number of milestones reached. Such feats are also power enhancement feats. 

Although I came up with a number of milestone feats for the paladin daily powers in the PH (see the link for some examples), I think this is something that should be directly built into the design of daily powers. After all, running out of daily powers is one of the key contributors to the "15 minute adventuring day". Anything that incentivises a character to delay the use of his daily powers would naturally increase the length of the adventuring day.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Jul 31, 2010)

I don't really see it as a problem, especially if your comparing it to LOTR where traveling anywhere was slow. The problem I see is the notion of 5 encounters per day. To use LOTR again as a frame work you should have 1 fight, then a month or two passes before the next fight. Its not as exciting as the movies but if we are going John Woo, you shouldn't have to worry about resources at all, just let the cool abilities fly.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jul 31, 2010)

I can't speak for 4E but I have found that this has become less and less a problem since starting running Pathfinder due to the constant 0-level spells. Usually my group is fond of stopping and resting because spellcasters run low rather quickly. Now they find that's not an issue as much.


----------



## Cerebral Paladin (Jul 31, 2010)

As we've come to expect from Stalker0's analysis, this is insightful and interesting.  That said, while beefing up milestones is one way to address the incentive mismatch, I think there may be other ways that would work better for some players/some groups.  In particular, for people who want the feeling of the hero pushing on at the limits of endurance to accomplish the great deeds, replacing the lost resources with new resources doesn't get that feeling.  It loses some of the versimilitude, and some of the sense of the struggle against adversity.  Because the resources change, it does solve the variety problem--sometimes your magic armor is extra powerful, sometimes you have more dailies--but the goal is still to be at close to "full" resources for every encounter (or even increasing resources over time).

That suggests to me creating a different incentive:  higher rewards for pushing on.  In particular, if XP increases with each milestone (perhaps a cumulative 10% bonus per milestone reached before the encounter), players will have a strong incentive to push on a little bit further, even when their resources are depleted.  To my mind, that incentive would better achieve the cinematic and heroic goals while still preserving the sense of danger and resource depletion.

Thoughts?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 31, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> The milestone itself doesn’t do anything, however, it is the things that are based on it. Action Points are the first things to come to mind, but they are not a good example. You gain an action point every milestone…but you always get 1 for resting. So again less stick, but no real carrot. However, there are some magic items that are based on milestones.




Wait a second...

You start a day with an action point.  You gain an action point for every milestone.  If you take an extended rest, you lose all action points you gained, and are set back to one action point.

So, if you keep rolling, you can keep stacking up action points.  if you stop and rest, you lose them.  So, there is a carrot there.

I'd like to draw an analogy to the game I'm currently running - Classic Deadlands.

In Deadlands, you have Fate Chips.  They come in three colors, and you get three random chips at the start of a session.  Then, you get chips:  when your Flaws get in your way, when you accomplish something major (like finding clues, or beating a bad guy) or whenever you do something cool that the GM wants to reward.

You can spend chips to soak wounds, or to aid your die rolls.  If you don't use them for those, you can turn them in for the game's version of XP.  In fact, turning in unused chips is the only way to get XP.  These thigns are a great motivator for the players - when you have a stack of them to spend, you can do really cool stuff.

So, how to get D&D characters to stack up action points?  Give them for the first milestone, and then for every individual encounter thereafter?


----------



## BlubSeabass (Jul 31, 2010)

I'm currently running a kingmaker like pathfinder, which makes these heroic chain of events kind of hard. Some of the bigger dungeons could benefit from the milestones though.

I think the biggest charm of multiple encounters between resting is fighting on the line, with little more to spare, and death looking around the corner. The problem with this is that in most games, this always feels like fighting exhaustion. It just won't work so well anymore. They're always tired heroes, not brave heroes in critical situations. Milestones could certainly make the PC's more daring, waging resources against an unique bonus. 
Maybe you could even go as far to make milestones into the battle, making the battle more decisive and concluding the longer it progresses. It was actually the charm of the pf inquistor.


----------



## Victim (Jul 31, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Wait a second...
> 
> You start a day with an action point.  You gain an action point for every milestone.  If you take an extended rest, you lose all action points you gained, and are set back to one action point.
> 
> ...




There's a limit of one AP per encounter.  So very few characters benefit from stacking up AP.

And if you rest after every encounter, you can use an AP every encounter.  If you press on, you have a total AP per day of half the encounters plus 1.  So you can use APs more often by resting.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 31, 2010)

Victim said:


> There's a limit of one AP per encounter.  So very few characters benefit from stacking up AP.




So, we are talking about revisions or house-rules anyway - remove or lessen that limit.

In Deadlands, there are three colors of chips.  You can use one of each on a single roll.  They can spend them like water, if they wish.  It means that in some encounters, the PCs can really pull out the stops if they want to win.

Of course, the bad guys get some chips, too, and there are some interactions in the economy.  And it works pretty well. 

Deadlands is hardly the only game that does this - the old Marvel Superheros had Karma Points that doubled as die-altering mechanic and XP.  And old Shadowrun Karma and Good Karma works similarly as well.

Generally, if you spend it to survive, you don't advance as quickly, but you survive to advance at all.  As a general design idea, it has merit.


----------



## Victim (Jul 31, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Generally, if you spend it to survive, you don't advance as quickly, but you survive to advance at all.  As a general design idea, it has merit.




As a mechanic, it creates disincentives to using your points to do cool stuff.  And means that needing some extra luck to survive turns into fewer XP - leading into a sort of character growth death spiral.


----------



## Kurtomatic (Jul 31, 2010)

I agree that encouraging hording of AP-like resources is to be avoided. What if you attached other rewards to milestones that accumulate through the 'adventuring day' (which may not actually be a narrative day; YMMV)?

In 4E terms, a milestone grants 1 AP and a daily item power. What if we kept track of milestones per day, and used a progression something like...


1st Milestone: +1 AP, daily item power
2nd Milestone: +1 AP, daily item power, recover 2 surges
3rd Milestone: +1 AP, daily item power, recover 4 surges, recover 1 daily power
4th Milestone: +1 AP, daily item power, recover 6 surges, recover all daily powers
After the fourth milestone, you straighten your clothes, kick Agent Smith's ass, and go home. Translate to taste with your chosen game's daily resources.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 31, 2010)

I think if you made time an explicit character resource - even go to the lengths of putting "Days Spent In The Campaign" on the character sheet - that could make the 15-minute adventuring day an interesting choice.

Hypothetical, non-D&D game:  You have an "In The Grid" meter on your PC sheet.  For every hour that you spend "Hooked In" to the Grid, fill in a circle.

At 1, the Horu become aware of you.
At 3, the Horu can locate people you've talked to.
At 5, the Horu reverse one thing you've done.
At 7+, the Horu know where you are.

Obviously for D&D you'd want to make it different, but that's an example of how one can put time into the system and make it an explicit character resource.  Basically you'd have PCs spend Time to do things - acquire XP, GP, social connections, retrain feats/skills/powers, make magic items, learn or create new spells, or any other character component.

This makes me think I need to develop a random death chart.

2d6
2 - Killed, body consumed, no chance for resurrection 
3 - Killed, body left to decompose/rise as undead
4-5 - Tortured to death for 1d6 days
6-8 - Held for ransom/drained of blood for ritual components/kept as slave
9-11 - Held as sacrifice for foul ritual that takes place in 2d6 days
12 - Reverse Stockholm Syndrome


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jul 31, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> *A character should gain strength and power over multiple encounters.*



Which just about describes the tried and tested D&D concept of . . . character levels. Am I wrong?


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2010)

I've been working on a concept similar in nature that I call "Heroic Push or Breakthrough" which gives benefits for fighting on through the pain, standing up when others would retreat, etc.  An increased XP percentage on "deeper" battles into the day would probably solve a lot of the disinsentive problems I have heard discussed here and elsewhere.  If a group fights past where an estimated fifty percent of their resources are used, they gain an additional fifty percent on that encounter's XP.  So, too, would fighting on after sixty percent would gain sixty percent on that encounter's XP.  I don't suggest giving it for lower percentages nor do I encourage allowing huge debates among the players though I do suggest allowing the players to ask what the DM thinks might be the current estimate of used resources (they should be on the same page as to how exhausted they truly are).  If they think seventy percent is too much and wish to rest up to fifty percent before pushing on, the incentive at fifty remains available.  At each ten percent increment (starting at fifty), the PC also gains a +1 (cumulative) to one type of die roll (to hit, damage, etc.) or a range increment or something similar.  These can be tailored to the PC specialty.  This does not need to be the same from encounter to encounter for any given PC.  There is the chance that it can encourage reckless behavior but I consider that a plus.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 31, 2010)

> What is the 15 minute workday? Everyone has their own personal version of the concept, but to generate a good discussion we need to define the concept specifically.
> 
> The 15 minute workday occurs when characters engage in an adventuring activity that drains them of resources in some way. This could be loss of health, expending of abilities, etc. Instead of continuing said activity, the character chooses to refrain from the activity in order to recover the lost resources. Done to an extreme, the character is said to only engage in adventuring activities for “15 minutes a day”.
> 
> Now the first question, is this actually a problem? If we question specific gaming groups, this varies quite a bit. Some groups may only have one combat or “adventuring activity” per day, per week, etc. To them this isn’t an issue at all. Some gaming groups have entire sections of campaign take place over the course of a few days, to them it can seem like quite a problem.




My take on the 15 Minute Workday is this: it is not an artifact of the game, but rather, an artifact of playstyle.

I've been playing since 1977, in a variety of communities, in several states, in a variety of different RPGs and with literally scores of different players...and I've never seen it.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying that it only exists under certain conditions.

And condition #1 is that the GM allows it to happen.  Not once, not twice, but as a routine, which then becomes an expectation, thus leading to subconscious metagaming.  The PCs "go nova", expending their energies with the knowledge that they'll be able to rest almost always at a time of greatest convenience to them.

In contrast, gamers of my acquaintance don't have that expectation, so don't play as if they can rest any old time.  Instead of "going nova", PC's carefully manage their resources, always maintaining a reserve.  For example, going through the 3.5 version of the ToEE, it wasn't uncommon for our party's mage to still have spells to cast after 5+ encounters.  Which was a good thing because we (the Party) didn't determine when we got to rest- the campaign environment did...and there were times when we were retreating carrying one or another comrade from the field of battle.  Sometimes harried as we went.

With this kind of playstyle, the proposed change reaaaaaally doesn't seem necessary.  In fact, it is kind of anticlimactic.


----------



## Imperialus (Jul 31, 2010)

I think a lot of this problem comes from D&D's tradition of relatively static dungeons and adventures.  If the PC's know that when they run away and rest things will stay largely the same once they get back there is little incentive not to make a tactical retreat and try again the next morning.  If on the other hand there is a time crunch and the PC's need to move in, complete their objective and get the hell out before the dreck hits the fan then they'll do so.  The length of time they spend actually hitting things is immaterial.

The other thing that probably contributes is the abilities and hitpoints that reset like clockwork, once a day, once an encounter ect.

Just for example, I play a lot of Shadowrun.  A typical 'run' looks like this:

1) Get the job, takes less than an hour in game and around the table.

2) do some legwork, plan for how to approach the target. (this typically takes an entire session).  This will sometimes last 2 or 3 days of gametime, focused mostly on social skills, contacts, and other 'soft' attributes.  Sometimes a minor firefight or other scuffle but typically of the low risk sort unless they do something stupid.  

3) Do the run, this will sometimes span multiple sessions but for the PC's almost everything happens in less than an hour.  Once they commit, it's almost impossible to extract and come back for another kick at the can.  Heck, once they 'go loud' their adventuring day had better get a lot shorter than 15 minutes, because in less than 10 there will be corporate computer guys sealing the building, tracking them IDing them, feeding their locations to the fast response team that is choppering in from offsite, and the bound spirits getting sent to the location, all sorts of nasty crap.  The longer the PC's spend onsite the more and more difficult it becomes for them to get out again.

4) Get paid, recuperate, and all that good stuff.  Often lasts a couple weeks in game, and mostly takes place between sessions via email.

Edge, which fills a similar role in Shadowrun as AP do in D&D is the only resource that 'refreshes', and it does so over the course of the PC's downtime.  If there is no downtime (of several days at least) there is no edge refresh.  Damage in Shadowrun also heals significantly slower than in D&D, getting the crap kicked out of you can take the wind out of your sails for days, sometimes weeks.


----------



## Starfox (Jul 31, 2010)

Before reading the thread, here are my views (I might come back and comment once having read it trough).

The reason to have dailies and other consumables is one of pacing. You want a variable pacing, where some fights are "big" fights and require that you use all your powers, while others are "small" fights and can run on only non-deletable resources. This gives the players a bit of control on how to run their resources. If they burn their all in the first fight, we get the 15 minute adventuring day. And in many cases, such as static dungeons/tombs, there really is no in-character reason no to. Rations come cheap.

To me this is not a satisfactory solution. I prefer a system where you build up your tactical options _during_ the fight. In a short "small" fight you never get to use your big guns, simply because the fight is too short. 

In 4E terms, this could be as simple as saying that the number of dailies you can use in a fight is determined by the length of the fight in rounds; you gain one daily item usage on round 3, another in round 8, and then every second round from that point out. Of course this might not work with 4E straight away - many dailies are designed to be used at the beginning of the encounter. But I think you all get my drift.


----------



## Starfox (Jul 31, 2010)

Umbran said:


> In Deadlands, you have Fate Chips.  They come in three colors, and you get three random chips at the start of a session.  Then, you get chips:  when your Flaws get in your way, when you accomplish something major (like finding clues, or beating a bad guy) or whenever you do something cool that the GM wants to reward.
> 
> You can spend chips to soak wounds, or to aid your die rolls.  If you don't use them for those, you can turn them in for the game's version of XP.  In fact, turning in unused chips is the only way to get XP.  These thigns are a great motivator for the players - when you have a stack of them to spend, you can do really cool stuff.




Running Deadlands (and more recently Mutants and Masterminds) where the GM is supposed to hand out hero point rewards, I find that this never happened or only happened to the more charismatic (or nagging) players. The GM is busy enough as it considering what HIS team is doing - having to act as a judge of the fun-ness of the PCs action simply didn't work out at our table. Your experiences on this may vary, of course.

TORG had a somewhat similar system called Possibilities. These were both hero points and experience points. You literally burned your own reward during missions. I ran TORG for several years, and after a while I changed this rule - no more possibility -> Xp conversion. The reason was that the timid players and wallflowers ended up spending a lot less possibilities, and thus gaining much more xp, than the active, heroic ones.


----------



## arscott (Jul 31, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My take on the 15 Minute Workday is this: it is not an artifact of the game, but rather, an artifact of playstyle.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> With this kind of playstyle, the proposed change reaaaaaally doesn't seem necessary.  In fact, it is kind of anticlimactic.



But shouldn't D&D support a variety of playstyles?  Adventure pacing is a major tool in the DM's arsenal, and when a ruleset dictates itself to a certain sort of pacing, you're hindering the DM's ability to make the game more fun.

Really, I think the best solution is to ditch the correlation between character powers and game-world time.  Instead, treat "per day" abilities as "per session" instead.  Absent very short or very long sessions, it works great--no 15 minute adventuring days because there's not as much benefit to resting.  Games that feature lots of weaker encounters can just use a few "per session" resources each fight, while games that feature just a few, more challenging encounters will see the players bring their A game to every fight.



Starfox said:


> Running Deadlands (and more recently Mutants and Masterminds) where the GM is supposed to hand out hero point rewards, I find that this never happened or only happened to the more charismatic (or nagging) players. The GM is busy enough as it considering what HIS team is doing - having to act as a judge of the fun-ness of the PCs action simply didn't work out at our table. Your experiences on this may vary, of course.



The new edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay handles this really nicely.  It's game-effecting reward is called fortune points.

Whenever the GM decides that a player has earned a reward, he puts a fortune point into a "party fortune pool" instead of giving it to an individual player.  When the party pool has fortune equal to the number of players, each player can take one from the pool.


----------



## amerigoV (Jul 31, 2010)

Starfox said:


> Running Deadlands (and more recently Mutants and Masterminds) where the GM is supposed to hand out hero point rewards, I find that this never happened or only happened to the more charismatic (or nagging) players. The GM is busy enough as it considering what HIS team is doing - having to act as a judge of the fun-ness of the PCs action simply didn't work out at our table. Your experiences on this may vary, of course.




I run Savage Worlds (the base system for Deadlands). I tell my players to let me know if another player should get a bennie for their actions, etc. As you note, sometimes its hard for the GM to deal with his stuff, the story, and hand out bennies fairly.

D&D's encounter design has not helped. The XP system (for those that still use it) push the DM to have every encounter meaningful from an XP perspective (challenging at least on a mild level). Savage Worlds, for example, awards XP based on what gets done in a session. So as the GM, I am libertated to make encounters that push the story vs. having enough encounters to get the PCs enough XP to level. If the story makes more sense to throw a horde of weak creatures at the PCs that really are not a challenge but it illustrates something in the plot, I do not have any "guilt" of it not being a true challenge. The PCs blow through it and move on. 

It again shows Gygax's brilliance of linking XP to treasure (award) in 1e, which did not become appearant to me until I started playing Savage Worlds.


----------



## Tuft (Jul 31, 2010)

arscott said:


> Really, I think the best solution is to ditch the correlation between character powers and game-world time.  Instead, treat "per day" abilities as "per session" instead.  Absent very short or very long sessions, it works great--no 15 minute adventuring days because there's not as much benefit to resting.  Games that feature lots of weaker encounters can just use a few "per session" resources each fight, while games that feature just a few, more challenging encounters will see the players bring their A game to every fight.




Oh, there are problems with per-session resources too. In a long-time Shadowrun campaign (Edition 1, 2, 3) I was playing in, one very important survival resource ("Karma Pool") renewed between session. I noticed how a very, well, "character-possessive" and dominant player started _filibustering_ when she was low on that pool, and it was apparent that the DM wanted to run just one more encounter before the session was over. Suddenly _everything_ needed to be questioned, clarified, discussed, etc...


----------



## Uder (Jul 31, 2010)

amerigoV said:


> It again shows Gygax's brilliance of linking XP to treasure (award) in 1e, which did not become appearant to me until I started playing Savage Worlds.




One major thing I noticed about this when I "went back" from 3.5 to systems that gave more xp for loot than encounters: wandering encounters became a penalty again. In 3.5 they're actually a reward, and trying to discourage the 15-minute workday with wandering monsters just starts the xp spiral. Coming back to 3.5 I've gone to only giving 10% xp for wandering monsters and encounters during rest periods... this somewhat discourages the 15-minute workday, and _really_ discourages that old metagamey chestnut "Hey, we're just shy a few xp, can we just wander around and kill things until we level?"


----------



## BlubSeabass (Jul 31, 2010)

Starfox said:


> Before reading the thread, here are my views (I might come back and comment once having read it trough).
> 
> The reason to have dailies and other consumables is one of pacing. You want a variable pacing, where some fights are "big" fights and require that you use all your powers, while others are "small" fights and can run on only non-deletable resources. This gives the players a bit of control on how to run their resources. If they burn their all in the first fight, we get the 15 minute adventuring day. And in many cases, such as static dungeons/tombs, there really is no in-character reason no to. Rations come cheap.
> 
> ...




I think resource management is an important part of most RPG's, and not giving them full control over their resources would probably be annoying. What if time is of the essence? Or the PC's want to go all out with their new powers? Resource management is part of strategy, and up to them.

That said, I also believe that these milestone bonusses should close to never give back resources. They should be an unique bonus, making the PC's feel more powerful, even though their resources are depleted. An extra +1 on Dodge AC, a +1 bonus on attack rolls or 1d6 extra bonus damage from energy type spells. These things will make the PC reconsider their rest. It's like making a combo or a chain in any game, and heroic flows of expertise story wise. The heroes become more alert, more cunning, and their mind is set on the battle field. Both are fun in my opinion.


----------



## Storminator (Jul 31, 2010)

When I contemplate rules changes, I try to make sure I don't have rules that conflict with the Character Builder. That tool is so good that I don't like making new feats, powers, etc, that don't fit in.

So changes to when you can use Action Points are great, because they don't violate the CB - what if you can use more than one per encounter? Does that really break anything? One per round is probably a good limit - I can envision a triple attack that does some nasty stacking - but multiple AP rounds in a single fight are probably good.

I'm thinking of putting up a standard minor quest: complete 2 milestones, get some XP. I might also put up some sort of milestone bonus powers the group can choose from - +1 attack, +2 damage, that sort of thing. Interesting ideas...

PS


----------



## S'mon (Jul 31, 2010)

It wasn't a problem in 1e-2e, and I've not seen it be a problem in 4e.  It was really a problem of mid-high+ 3e, and arose from mid+ spellcasters being so dominant over other classes that their preferences dictated the pace.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 31, 2010)

Well, if you want to keep characters from getting worn out, then one option is simply not to take away in the first place what you then have to give back. You can make everything "at will".

If you want to have things usable only with a certain frequency, then changing one word makes it annually, monthly, weekly, daily, or hourly. You can as easily make it per minute or per six seconds.

Whether fighting means losing or gaining "hit points", one can just reset them at the end of the "scene" (or 4e "encounter", or whatever).


----------



## MichaelSomething (Aug 1, 2010)

One of the reasons I have a blog is that it allow me to pre-write my opinion on common issues like this one!  If you have a problem with a 15 minute day, give PCs incentives not to have a 15 minute day.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 1, 2010)

arscott said:


> But shouldn't D&D support a variety of playstyles?  Adventure pacing is a major tool in the DM's arsenal, and when a ruleset dictates itself to a certain sort of pacing, you're hindering the DM's ability to make the game more fun.




It_ does _support a variety of playstyles.

However, making a new rule to "treat" a "problematic playstyle" is just going to affect options for other playstyles.  For instance, humans often get a big charge out of succeeding against long odds, and that is one thing that pops up in the playtsyle I described above.

OTOH, if PCs got a "turbo boost" for forging on, rather than watching their resources dwindle over the course of the day, that wouldn't be quite as satisfying for many players like me and my buddies.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Aug 1, 2010)

I like the idea of more XP per milestone, encourages risks for rewards... this will be less good with essentials PCs with no dailies.

From your extended rest keep a runnning total of XP, every milestone you go through means you get 10% more XP from that, so if you do 6 encounters you get 130% XP.. mmmmmm


----------



## Starfox (Aug 1, 2010)

amerigoV said:


> It again shows Gygax's brilliance of linking XP to treasure (award) in 1e, which did not become appearant to me until I started playing Savage Worlds.




Amen. 1ed got so much right.


----------



## Starfox (Aug 1, 2010)

Storminator said:


> I'm thinking of putting up a standard minor quest: complete 2 milestones, get some XP. I might also put up some sort of milestone bonus powers the group can choose from - +1 attack, +2 damage, that sort of thing.




I find XP rewards work strangely on my players, and are not always encouraging. If you play 4.0, there are 30 levels. Once you've passed those 30 levels, the life of the character is effectively over. Well, some players want to keep playing their characters, and thus don't really want XP to come to quick.

Of course, XP are also "You Win" points and a universal reward to make players feel appreciated, aside from their effect on character advancement. That way, they work excellently as rewards.

Just musing. Don't take me too seriously.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 1, 2010)

arscott said:


> Instead, treat "per day" abilities as "per session" instead.



Agreed. Per day resources are an artefact of earlier editions.

They work in the dungeon, where many challenging encounters are close together, but not outside of it. Per session resources otoh would work in both a dungeon and non-dungeon environment and are thus generally a superior mechanic.


----------



## Gimby (Aug 1, 2010)

Theres an additional effect that causes the 15 minute day - arms racing with the DM.

If the game rewards "pre-buffing" strongly, then the availablity and duration of those effects will go a long way to determine your activity pattern.  Importantly, if you start relying on those buffs then your DM may design encounters assuming that you are running all those buffs when you face them (this doesn't necessarilaly need tailored encounters either, simply the bad guys concentrating forces or running more of their own buffs).  So you buff more to get an edge, and the DM makes harder encounters and so on.  

For example in a high level 3.5 game I was in, my fighter would typically be polymorphed into a fire giant, stoneskinned, hasted, greater heroismed and protected from evil. (as well as an assortment of other things that I forget).  We'd barely squeak through the encounter that we faced then retreat - we literally could not deal with another encounter on the same day and our operational time was limited by the 1 min/level durations of the critical spells.  

We would have loved to push on, but the difference in capability between our buffed and unbuffed states was so extreme that to do so would have been suicudal.


----------



## Storminator (Aug 1, 2010)

Gimby said:


> We would have loved to push on, but the difference in capability between our buffed and unbuffed states was so extreme that to do so would have been suicudal.




We saw that as well. We had a full page of spells that got cast on each PC for major fights,  and when our foes did a scry/buff/teleport on us, the lack of buffs was pretty severe.

In one fight we even invented a special magic item to drop something like 40 buff spells on the party at once - something like 200K gp and a couple quests to complete. And when those spells wore off, it was time to get out of there!

PS


----------



## Tuft (Aug 1, 2010)

Starfox said:


> Once you've passed those 30 levels, the life of the character is effectively over. Well, some players want to keep playing their characters, and thus don't really want XP to come to quick.




Yep, if you have a character you really, really like, the XP counter can become a Death Clock rather than a reward...  especially in systems with level limits and/or sweet spots.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 1, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Per day resources are an artefact of earlier editions.
> 
> They work in the dungeon, where many challenging encounters are close together, but not outside of it.




That seems backwards to me. I thought the very problem (an "artifact of the new ethos", not a problem for us on wilderness or town adventures in an old edition) was that 4e encounters are potentially closer together than "dailies".



> Per session resources otoh would work in both a dungeon and non-dungeon environment and are thus generally a superior mechanic.



The effect of per session resources would then depend on the number of encounters per session.

It would, I think, be a more direct corrective to make them *per X number of encounters*. That way, a long and briskly moving session does not penalize the players.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 1, 2010)

Gimby said:
			
		

> Theres an additional effect that causes the 15 minute day - arms racing with the DM.




Yeah. It used to be Monty, then came Monte.

For example ...



			
				Storminator said:
			
		

> In one fight we even invented a special magic item to drop something like 40 buff spells on the party at once - something like 200K gp and a couple quests to complete.




I don't think gold is that much dearer in 3e than in old D&D.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 2, 2010)

amerigoV said:


> It again shows Gygax's brilliance of linking XP to treasure (award) in 1e, which did not become appearant to me until I started playing Savage Worlds.



I disagree. Rewarding XP for treasure encourages a play style I definitely do not enjoy (and, yes, we tried it!).

The best solution I've found so far: Don't award xp at all. Just let everyone gain a level when the time is right.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 2, 2010)

I think that town and wilderness encounters, assuming there's only a small number each day, probably one, are an example of the fifteen minute day problem. The Vancian casters can 'nova' becoming far more powerful than the non-Vancian classes.

Most of the D&D sessions I've played in haven't involved dungeons, instead there were one or two encounters per day and in that situation casters are OP.

Tbh the only time I've played pre-4e D&D where casters weren't OP was the computer game version of the ToEE. That's a dungeon, and there are lots of small encounters that the fighter-types can handle alone, with help from the cleric(s). You only really need the wizard, particularly his web and fireball, for the very tough encounters. It's the first, and only, time I've ever seen a wizard played as he's 'supposed' to be played, holding back, mostly just using a crossbow.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 2, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I think that town and wilderness encounters, assuming there's only a small number each day, probably one, are an example of the fifteen minute day problem. The Vancian casters can 'nova' becoming far more powerful than the non-Vancian classes.




And then they have shot the wad, and they are still balloons. And then they get popped because they encounter, and cannot evade, enemies that still have all arms to combine.

If such cozy assuming is not dangerous, then the DM is unclear on an essential concept.

Moreover, the very nature of the encounter may be more or less conducive to the spell-caster's forte. One limitation on power is not knowing what will be powerful, and so having to diversify.

I understand the 3e rules are a great big love-fest for spell-casters, but I don't understand why DMs think they need to give even more on a silver platter. Does this really make for a challenging game?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 2, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> If such cozy assuming is not dangerous, then the DM is unclear on an essential concept.



That D&D requires a large number of fights per day in order to balance casters with non-casters is a serious weakness. Not everyone wants that amount of combat.

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, but I don't think the system should require it. It greatly limits what it can do.

In short, hate the game, not the player (or DM).


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 2, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's the first, and only, time I've ever seen a wizard played as he's 'supposed' to be played, holding back, mostly just using a crossbow.




Using a _crossbow_??!
Does he yodel, too?
I'll eat the stars on my pointy hat before I'll go about pretending to be a mechanic or even a, pardon my French, _warrior_. Dignity of the profession, man, and conduct unbecoming! It sets a bad example, I say.

I suppose the cleric gets a missile weapon, too, so that she can also be played as she's 'supposed' to be played? Why not give her more attack spells while we're at it?

To be even handed, we must make the fighter a magician as well.

Why have the classes at all?


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 2, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> That D&D requires a large number of fights per day in order to balance casters with non-casters is a serious weakness.




It does not, or at least most D&Ds do not.

Even in your stipulation, two could do it -- and 2 is not generally considered "a large number".

If all your spells are useful only in fights, and there are NO fights today, then you are getting no mileage from your spells today.

(There is also, as I mentioned, the possibility that a given fight is more or less suited to the employment of this or that magic.)

Kill the idiots, and then see how "over powered" they look next to the tougher characters that are _not dead_. 

When
(a) you're looking in the first place for something different than the original D&D game
and
(b) you've got something that's remarkably different, but in the opposite direction
then
(c) you've got a messed up situation, but it's not a flaw in D&D.

Anyhow, I think the subject of the thread is less the 'weakness' of any pre-4e D&D in itself than the 'strength' of a game someone wants to cook up (apparently starting with 4e).


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 2, 2010)

Here's one possibility I've toyed with: Redefine "rest" so that instead of "a night's sleep," it means "a few days of R&R." And R&R costs money. Traditionally this money is spent on ale and whores, but other PCs might spend it on books and scrolls, or charity, or offerings to their gods. (Defining your particular brand of R&R is a nice little option to flesh out your PC.)

This doesn't work very well in 3E/4E (especially 4E) because of the hyperinflation that takes place as PCs advance. When a 4E character gets into epic tier and is using ten-thousand-gold-piece gems as pocket change, you must either let that character rest more or less at will, or claim that 25th-level characters can only relax and recuperate with astral alebeer and goldheart battlewhores.

On the other hand, if you were playing something more like Iron Heroes, or 4E with the inherent bonuses optional rule, I think it would be quite workable. It helps keep money relevant, it discourages the 15-minute workday, it adds a little personality to the PCs, and it's even got a reasonable degree of verisimilitude.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 2, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Agreed. Per day resources are an artefact of earlier editions.
> 
> They work in the dungeon, where many challenging encounters are close together, but not outside of it. Per session resources otoh would work in both a dungeon and non-dungeon environment and are thus generally a superior mechanic.




But per session is pretty much purely gamist. At least per day can argue at throwing a bone toward simulationism. When does it get regained? After you get a night's sleep! 

You're not going to like everyone liking the per session gamist solution.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 2, 2010)

billd91 said:


> But per session is pretty much purely gamist.



Yeah. I think the problem with 4e is it's not gamist enough. Still a little bit of simulationism left. It must be destroyed!


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 2, 2010)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Here's one possibility I've toyed with



It seems really to be just the opposite of what that fellow is after with his idea that pressing on should _not_ make characters weaker. It gets pretty interesting, though!


> Redefine "rest" so that instead of "a night's sleep," it means "a few days of R&R."



I see how the requirement of several days minimum would make it take longer even for low-level characters to replenish their spells. That won't get rid of your "15 minute workday", either. It'll just make it less frequent.

That's unless you decide that there's no guarantee of just one encounter per several days on par with Doug McCrae's per-day assurance above. Of course, the same solution is equally applicable to that case, or to any other period encounters can be per.



			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> And R&R costs money.



Now you're cooking with gas! How do we get money? By pressing on!

This reminds me of a number of old games, including

(1) Arneson's account of early Blackmoor (find formula; acquire rare ingredients; practice making spell; get fatigued, and also use up ingredients; go get more);
and
(2) old Tunnels & Trolls (Energy points get recovered even without rest, but it takes cash to learn new spells -- and also to replace the armor that gets used up by taking hits.).

As a technical point, though, "rest" already does not mean "a night's sleep" in 1st ed. AD&D (and maybe not in 2nd either).


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 2, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yeah. I think the problem with 4e is it's not gamist enough. Still a little bit of simulationism left. It must be destroyed!



I don't think these terms are being used in accordance with Ron Edwards, because they are actually making sense!

I will point out again that "per session" penalizes players of
(a) more briskly moving sessions
and/or
(b) longer sessions.

Item (a) is ameliorated somewhat by the 4e rules' tendency to prolong fights (which are the 'encounters' that really matter here, eh?). Still, it hardly seems desirable to encourage foot-dragging to slow affairs further!

Considering item (b) may make clear that *per x encounters* really cuts to the chase and gets to the bottom of the matter without pussy-footing around kicking the bush and whistling "Dixie".


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 2, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Now you're cooking with gas! How do we get money? By pressing on!




Yeah, this was the main idea. If you just make rest times longer without imposing some other limitation, it doesn't really accomplish much except make the incongruities more glaring when they occur. The focus was meant to be on "R&R," not "a few days."



Ariosto said:


> I don't think these terms are being used in accordance with Ron Edwards, because they are actually making sense!




Oh God no. Please please PLEASE don't bring GNS/GDS/Big Model/Ron Edwards into this. Not even in jest, because someone out there is bound to take you seriously.

That stuff is as bad as edition wars for killing an interesting discussion stone dead and then stomping on its corpse.


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 2, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> The 15 minute workday occurs when characters engage in an adventuring activity that drains them of resources in some way. This could be loss of health, expending of abilities, etc. Instead of continuing said activity, the *character chooses* to refrain from the activity in order to recover the lost resources. Done to an extreme, the character is said to only engage in adventuring activities for “15 minutes a day”.




I agree.



> Ultimately to me, what defines this as a problem is the fact that a game system at its core, is designed to model archetypes. Since Dnd is traditionally a Tolkeinesque fantasy archetype, let’s consider it from that perspective. In many fantasy stories, the Hero will face countless challenges. Commonly, the hero will face one challenge after another. He doesn’t rest or stop, he keeps on fighting. He may face hoards of minions only to face his great nemesis immediately afterwards. Yet while realism would tell us the Hero at this point would be utterly exhausted and barely capable of fighting, often in the story he fights the villain with an even greater strength not yet seen.
> 
> A character that chooses to face danger again and again makes for a great story




And here is the only problem, IMO. The belief that D&D is designed to model archetypes *and mimic narratives outside narration*. It's designed to model archetypes (very roughly), but only in relation to a game, not a narrative.

It is the *desire to mimic narratives* that lead people to believe that the 15 minute workday is a problem. A narrative is what happens after the game is done and you tell someone what happened.



> What if we made it so that a character was fully recovered after every encounter. Now a character is always at its maximum power no matter how many fights he goes through. We no longer have to worry about appeasing incentive 2, a player can act as heroically as he wants and never feel that his character is getting weaker. Problem solved right?
> 
> The problem is solved…but the answer creates its own set of problems. First of all, it cuts down on variety. If my character is literally reset every fight then things can get very repetitive. Second, we have to remember that for many people allowing their character to “nova” (using a lot of expendable resources in short order) is a way to feel that strength and power that is Incentive 2. And let’s not forget that another heroic archetype is when the hero “gives it all he’s got”. It’s hard to do that when you get everything you just gave right back 5 minutes later




Here the problem is solved nicely, but immediately discarded because it too doesn't allow mimicking another common narrative. There is no problem with a 15 minute workday. IMO, the problem is the desire to use the wrong tool for the wrong job. IMO, a complex game with many meaningful individual choices is a poor fit for a narrative outcome.

I'd suggest a different game other than D&D. Something like Engle Matrix Games, in which one describes the action that one wants and the more believable and better described, the better the chance the action happens. Using something like what Hamster Press produces, you have a higher likelihood of mimicking archetypal personas/actions/stories in a gaming environment.

joe b.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 2, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> IMO, the problem is the desire to use the wrong tool for the wrong job.





Presenting only nails and hammers, albeit different sized nails, painted different colors, and a number of types of hammers, seems to be the modus operandi of most tabletop game systems.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 2, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> And here is the only problem, IMO. The belief that D&D is designed to model archetypes *and mimic narratives outside narration*. It's designed to model archetypes (very roughly), but only in relation to a game, not a narrative.




That may be one problem from a certain point of view, but there are others.  It's been too long since I read the 3E DMG so I'll just talk about 4E.

The 15-minute day is an optimal solution that significantly reduces the challenge of the game.

There are guidelines for the difficulty of the encounters that PCs should face based on their level.  DCs and skill challenges are the same.  If PCs are able to use all their resources in every encounter, the encounters are not very challenging.

The DM can cause problems for the PCs - not letting them rest , making sure they go through a set number of encounters between rests - but that presents two problems.  1) The choice to rest is taken out of the player's hands - it's not a choice at all.  2) Is there a system for this or is the DM on his own?  This (refreshing resources) is a major part of the game; how does a DM decide what to do?

Two solutions seem obvious to me.  One is to take away "when to rest" as a meaningful choice and set Extended Rests to happen after X number of encounters, no matter what.  There's some space to play in there; a successful skill challenge might mean you get your extended rest early, failure means you have to fight another encounter.  Locating a specific secret door that leads to a saferoom means you can take your rest now.  Convincing the bandits that you can talk it out means you can avoid that encounter (or turn a combat into a Skill Challenge).

It could work, and it doesn't have to be that artificial/gamist, though you'd need to write a whole new chapter on how to DM - how to introduce appropriate consequences and rewards, how to design adventures with this in mind, that sort of thing.

The other way is to have the DM "play the setting" impartially as a living, breathing source of challenge and let the players guide their own destinies.  This is AD&D's system as far as I can tell, but AD&D comes with a lot of things to make it work - wandering monsters, different DM advice, how to create an appropriate setting, and all of that.

To solve the problem you'd have to re-write how to DM the game.

*

However, saying all that, maybe it's not a flaw of the game design.  Maybe the game designers _expected_ DMs to see the problem and figure out their own ways to deal with it.  Part of the game is plugging in your own system for figuring out how refreshes work, one that works for your group.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 4, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> You only really need the wizard, particularly his web and fireball, for the very tough encounters. It's the first, and only, time I've ever seen a wizard played as he's 'supposed' to be played, holding back, mostly just using a crossbow.



and


Ariosto said:


> Using a _crossbow_??!
> Does he yodel, too?
> I'll eat the stars on my pointy hat before I'll go about pretending to be a mechanic or even a, pardon my French, _warrior_. Dignity of the profession, man, and conduct unbecoming! It sets a bad example, I say.
> 
> ...




I've read/seen enough fantasy fiction to encounter more than a few spellcasters who hoard their power, eschewing the use of magic _until it is absolutely necessary._

Instead of opening combat slinging spells, they throw daggers or fire crossbows or use a sling or even _run_...whatever else they may choose to do without using magic.  Mundane, mundane, mundane stuff...just like Patrick Swayze's character in Roadhouse tells his staff to "Be nice...until it is time not to be nice."

And when its time not to be nice, they open up.

Their reasons for doing so are as varied as the settings: magic is fatiguing; magic is slower or less efficient than mundane methods; magic is undependable; magic is dangerous to the user; magic corrupts; the use of magic attracts unwanted attention; magic is a finite resource...the list goes on.

So I have no problem with my casters doing likewise, and happily fire bolts from my crossbow.  Or eschew casting when the battle is well in hand...even or especially when the combat is clearly going to be won from the start.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I've read/seen enough fantasy fiction to encounter more than a few spellcasters who hoard their power, eschewing the use of magic _until it is absolutely necessary._




cough*cough* Gandalf *cough*


----------



## Dungeoneer (Aug 4, 2010)

This is blue-skying it a bit, but I think it would be cool if you had a system where Daily powers had to be 'unlocked'.  Either by reaching milestones or by performing heroic feats.  If players knew that they could really break out the big guns once they'd been in a few fights, that would really encourage them to press on.


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 4, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> That may be one problem from a certain point of view, but there are others.  It's been too long since I read the 3E DMG so I'll just talk about 4E.
> 
> The 15-minute day is an optimal solution that significantly reduces the challenge of the game.
> 
> There are guidelines for the difficulty of the encounters that PCs should face based on their level.  DCs and skill challenges are the same.  If PCs are able to use all their resources in every encounter, the encounters are not very challenging.




There's two answers to this "problem" based upon if you build the game world around the players (the challenge of a location changes based upon PC power) or if you build the game world independent of the players (the challenges of a location do not change based upon PC power). 

If you do the former - just make the challenges harder - you've already admitted that scaling the world to fit the player's abilities is acceptable, so just do it again.

If you do the latter - you wouldn't care. The PCs are playing smartly.

The "problem" with the 15-minute work day is that the GM has a mental construct of "how things are supposed to happen" that the players playing smartly and sitting down to rest is disturbing enough that a smart tactical option is considered a "problem."

In other words, *narrative desire *- the desire to have a "plot" or a "story" - is being impinged upon because the GM desires things to happen in a certain way. We're the GM impartial and relying upon the players to drive the game (as opposed to a "plot") there is no more a feeling of unease or dissatisfaction from the 15-minute work day than one gets from from when the players use any other of their available options to perform better as a group.

IMO, because of the above, the problem of the 15-minute work day is wanting to *play a story *and not *play a game*.



> The other way is to have the DM "play the setting" impartially as a living, breathing source of challenge and let the players guide their own destinies.  This is AD&D's system as far as I can tell, but AD&D comes with a lot of things to make it work - wandering monsters, different DM advice, how to create an appropriate setting, and all of that.




Exactly. AD&D has the "world exists independent of the character's power" as the default.



> To solve the problem you'd have to re-write how to DM the game.




No, you just re-scale the encounter according to the current 4e guidelines. The real problem is the desire a GM has for something to happen the way temporally expected.

Finally, if everyone would think of some of the fun action movies or stories they enjoy, almost invariably, one will find a *narrative *reason as to why the 15 minute work day didn't happen. It's not like John McClain wouldn't have taken a week off to rest during Die Hard. It's not like Frodo and Sam wouldn't have rested had they that option. It's not like Rocky wouldn't have rested during the fight with Apollo.

If a GM demands a narrative exist, he or she needs to learn to create narratives that make the 15 minute work week "problem" impossible or simply be willing to have the end of the world happen and everybody dies game over man, if the PCs decide to rest anyway. The fact that "the end of the world" isn't *narratively pleasing *contributes heavily to the belief that the 15 minute work week is a "problem." GMs thinking "I want this to happen, but they're resting even though everything should blow up... how do I change the world so what I want to happen happens regardless."

In summation, IMO it's the GMs desire to control what the players do that makes a "problem" out of the 15 minute work-day. And that's probably all I have to say on the subject as I'd probably just end up repeating myself if I keep posting. 

joe b.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 4, 2010)

billd91 said:


> cough*cough* Gandalf *cough*



Sparrowhawk in The Farthest Shore is very strong on 'never use magic where non-magic will do'. He's a good model for a parsimonious Vancian rpg wizard. The wizards in Vance aren't tho. Mazirian the Magician uses all five of his memorised spells, and a magic item, as he pursues T'sain thru the forest.

The Dying Earth is a magic and monster heavy world - the only fictional world I've seen that approaches D&D in its monster density. That's another thing. In order to get Vancian magic, daily resources, to work, the world must contain huge quantities of wandering monsters. D&D needs its Monster Manuals. It's no coincidence that the game has so many more monsters than other rpgs. But this means D&D is a very limited game. It only works in worlds that are far more monster rich than those in most fantasy fiction. D&D doesn't work in Middle-Earth, for example.


----------



## BlubSeabass (Aug 4, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> The "problem" with the 15-minute work day is that the GM has a mental construct of "how things are supposed to happen" that the players playing smartly and sitting down to rest is disturbing enough that a smart tactical option is considered a "problem."
> 
> In other words, *narrative desire *- the desire to have a "plot" or a "story" - is being impinged upon because the GM desires things to happen in a certain way. We're the GM impartial and relying upon the players to drive the game (as opposed to a "plot") there is no more a feeling of unease or dissatisfaction from the 15-minute work day than one gets from from when the players use any other of their available options to perform better as a group.
> 
> ...




I totally get what you're saying, but I disagree on some vital premises. Let me start of saying that I never played 4e, and play Pathfinder. I'm going to try to explain why I see the 15 minute work-day as a gameplay failure, aside from the narrative attractive " acting heroic".

Resource management is a very important aspect of strategy in 3.x/pf. Especially on lower/mid levels, and especially for casters. The way your battle looks is strongly dependant on how many battles the PC's predict they will encounter today after this one. Some even might say that the balance of the classes depends on the resources aswell. The fighter shines more or less equally over all battles, while the wizard loses a lot of power when he burns his resources. 

The point with the 15-minute work day, is that it denies the point of resource management. resources can be nova'd, and then people just take a rest to regain the resources. Hence, *players are actually encouraged to nova*, because it makes them stronger. As long as the DM does not tackle this(It's impossible to rest), the players don't have to think long to decide what to do. The option to rest is just infinitely better. Encouragement of one certain play-style, and certainly one that involves always doing all the cool stuff that you have, has the tendancy to reduce challenge, strategy and fun. Here lies the problem. The system actually encourages the player to do something that is likely not fun. *The strategy of resource management is gone.* This aside from what some people may also see as a balancing issue.

Now the DM can stick this. He can threathen the player with evil things and time limits to press the PC's onwards. But here is where I think you made a wrong premise. *We don't want to force the player to do something.* We don't like hitting our players with a stick (well except when they're playing painfully dumb). We want to encourage a certain play-style, just as much as another play-style is encouraged. Resting has the major benefit of replendishing resources. What does pushing on bring us? Absolutely nothing. Any optimizing party that would take 1 second to think, would rest if he could.

So to include the marvelous strategy of resource management, that shapes battles into different tales, the DM is currently forced to take the choice of resting away from the party. It would be more fun for both the players and the DM, if the PC had a reason to go on instead of rest. Hence the carrot.


----------



## Storminator (Aug 4, 2010)

BlubSeabass said:


> The point with the 15-minute work day, is that it denies the point of resource management.




Isn't the 15 minute day a resource management strategy? The problem is that some want the resource management mini game to be a challenge in and of itself, while others have identified the 15 minute day as a powerful and reliable solution to the game. It's not that resource management is denied, it's that resource management is solved.

PS


----------



## BlubSeabass (Aug 4, 2010)

Storminator said:


> Isn't the 15 minute day a resource management strategy? The problem is that some want the resource management mini game to be a challenge in and of itself, while others have identified the 15 minute day as a powerful and reliable solution to the game. It's not that resource management is denied, it's that resource management is solved.
> 
> PS




It's hard to say why I disagree with this, because you can certainly see it as a solution to the resource management problem. First I don't see resting as a solution to resource management. It's resetting or cheating the problem. For me, the solution is the path from full resource to no resource (or rest). It's not how you replendish it, it's how you spend it. For me that's the challenge. Resting strongly encourages the true nova strategy. But I can see how you would disagree with this.

Where I think you surely agree with me, is that the way you solve your resource management, greatly influences your gameplay and variety. Using the same resource management strategy every time results into very monotone battles. Especially one like "strongest moves first", like Nova. First my level 5 spells, then my level 4 spells, then my level 3 spells etc.

Second, you're kind of getting where I tried to get. You say that the 15 minute work-day is a powerful solution to the resource management. But it's so strong, it's the only sane solution. The player is actually encouraged so badly to rest, and therefore encouraged to use the same resource management strategy. From this I conclude it's encouraged to do a certain play-style, which I tend to find boring and easy if overused.

So if you agree with me that resting is not solving the problem, you can see how it denies the resource management aspect of the game. If you don't agree with this, I think you would agree with me that resting is an overpowered way to solve the problem. It's a strategy that has no peers in sheer power. Therefore the player is encouraged to use it, and therefore it is encouraged to Nova. I see this encouragement as unfair and boring, and a flaw in the gameplay mechanics.

If you, however, don't mind players to Nova, and the players are having a blast doing it, nothing of my argument stands. This because of my premise that repeatingly using nova will hurt the experience.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Aug 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In contrast, gamers of my acquaintance don't have that expectation, so don't play as if they can rest any old time.  Instead of "going nova", PC's carefully manage their resources, always maintaining a reserve.  For example, going through the 3.5 version of the ToEE, it wasn't uncommon for our party's mage to still have spells to cast after 5+ encounters.  Which was a good thing because we (the Party) didn't determine when we got to rest- the campaign environment did...and there were times when we were retreating carrying one or another comrade from the field of battle.  Sometimes harried as we went.
> 
> With this kind of playstyle, the proposed change reaaaaaally doesn't seem necessary.  In fact, it is kind of anticlimactic.




Yup.

Like Justin Alexander says in Death of the Wandering Monster there are only two ways to prevent the 15 minute adventuring day:

(1) Eliminate any advantage from the "1 encounter, then rest" model of play.

(2) Apply meaningful consequences to the decision to rest. (Wandering monster encounters; NPCs trying to hunt them down; or simply NPCs reinforcing their positions, closing up shop, destroying evidence, etc.)

The latter is in the hands of the GM. The former could be solved mechanically, but only at the cost of sacrificing mechanical strategy.

Another way of looking at the problem is this: There are two varieties of the 15-minute adventuring day. The first is the "nova" (the PCs use all of their most powerful abilities in a single encounter and then rest); the second is the "forced rest" (the PCs are out of resources and must rest/retreat to recover them).

These are two _different_ problems.

*Fixing the Nova*: Mechanically you can fix this by removing all daily powers. Non-mechanically, the nova becomes a valid strategic choice (allowing the PCs to defeat more powerful foes) that isn't always the best strategic choice (if it allows NPCs to regroup, escape, or destroy evidence).

*Fixing the Forced Rest*: Mechanically you need to remove the hard limits in your system design. At the very least, this means that hit points need to completely regenerate between encounters.

So what would be the absolute _worst_ way to fix the 15-minute adventuring day problem?

(1) Give all classes daily powers (increasing the mechanical incentive for nova strategies).

(2) Create a hard cap on the amount of healing any single character can receive (introducing a hard limit resulting in forced rests that didn't previously exist).


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 4, 2010)

Storminator said:


> Isn't the 15 minute day a resource management strategy? The problem is that some want the resource management mini game to be a challenge in and of itself, while others have identified the 15 minute day as a powerful and reliable solution to the game. It's not that resource management is denied, it's that resource management is solved.




Solved or denied, call it what you like. The point is, a game that is solved is no longer a game worth playing (at least not to those who understand and can execute the solution); you're just going through the motions.

If you don't want resource management to be a part of your game, you shouldn't have to deal with the bookkeeping (daily powers, spell prep, and so forth) or with the balance issues introduced by excising it. If you _do_ want it to be a part of your game, it should be a functional game element without a single, "no-brainer" optimum solution.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 4, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Like Justin Alexander says in Death of the Wandering Monster there are only two ways to prevent the 15 minute adventuring day:
> 
> (1) Eliminate any advantage from the "1 encounter, then rest" model of play.
> 
> ...




The latter can also be solved mechanically. See for example my proposed solution above: "resting" is redefined from "sleeping" to "R&R," and R&R has a gold piece cost. There are some other solutions in this thread along similar lines (mechanical incentive to push on, or mechanical cost to resting).


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Aug 4, 2010)

I don't see how requiring the DM to set the pace is any different from having per-[insert non-in-game time unit (with maybe the exception of "session")].  As it is the game has set up so that the DM must follow the "rule of the rest", taking the choice out of their hands and requiring people to advise that they fight against that choice.  The "15 minute adventuring day" just sounds like a manifestation of the rule, and so telling someone to discourage it sounds more like working around the real problem rather than confronting the issue directly: are the players or the DM the one who should choose when resources refresh?  If the answer is the players than it's a waste to require the DM to come up with ways to fight them.  But if it's the DM -- and the advise makes it sound as this is actually the preferred way -- then simply put the choice in the DM's hands.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Aug 4, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> The latter can also be solved mechanically. See for example my proposed solution above: "resting" is redefined from "sleeping" to "R&R," and R&R has a gold piece cost. There are some other solutions in this thread along similar lines (mechanical incentive to push on, or mechanical cost to resting).



Perhaps you could also define some other resource that can be spent to earn "R&R".  I don't know what that would be, but it does make some vague sense that being allowed to rest isn't always dependent upon having gotten paid.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Aug 4, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> That D&D requires a large number of fights per day in order to balance casters with non-casters is a serious weakness. Not everyone wants that amount of combat.




This assumes that:

(a) Casters can't do anything useful with their spells except wage combat. (This isn't true.)

(b) That you need to have multiple encounters per day in order for the possibility of having multiple encounters per day shape player behavior patterns. (This also isn't true.)



SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> As it is the game has set up so that  the DM must follow the "rule of the rest", taking the choice out of  their hands and requiring people to advise that they fight against that  choice.




I think the problem here is assuming that a nova strategy is _never_ acceptable. IMO, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

What's required is that the nova strategy have interesting and meaningful consequences. Then the use of the nova strategy becomes an interesting strategic option, but not the _only_ strategic option.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 4, 2010)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> Perhaps you could also define some other resource that can be spent to earn "R&R".  I don't know what that would be, but it does make some vague sense that being allowed to rest isn't always dependent upon having gotten paid.




Quite possibly. One way would be to give everybody a fixed number of "free rests" every level, with additional rests costing money as above.

The important thing is to add a cost to resting, and/or a benefit to _not_ resting, so that there is a meaningful choice. I lean toward the former (cost for resting), because I think it is both easier to write the rules that way and easier to justify in game.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 4, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> This assumes that:
> 
> (a) Casters can't do anything useful with their spells except wage combat. (This isn't true.)



I should've said encounter or challenge, rather than fight. The problem's actually worse if one includes non-combat challenges. If there's, say, one non-combat and one combat encounter per day then the wizard will dominate both. At least in the latter the fighter can do something, in the former he's useless. If both had been combat encounters then the fighter would be of some use in both, though still inferior to the wizard.

Vancian resources distributed unequally between classes force the DM to have many challenging encounters each day to balance the classes. I often don't want to have a lot of challenges each day. I seldom use dungeons, and never large ones, nor I think have any of the DMs I've gamed with. They were probably regarded as implausible and boring.

Giving all classes the same amount of Vancian resources solves this aspect of the 15-minute day problem. All can nova to an equal degree.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Aug 4, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> I should've said encounter or challenge, rather than fight. Vancian resources distributed unequally between classes force the DM to have many challenging encounters each day to balance the classes. I often don't want to have a lot of challenges each day. I seldom use dungeons, and never large ones, nor I think have any of the DMs I've gamed with. They were probably regarded as implausible and boring.




I'm not sure why you feel a dungeon is the only place you can have lots of interesting encounters/challenges. Thinking over recent media I've been consuming:

- Assassin's Creed 2
- Inception
- Sherlock Holmes stories
- Harry Potter
- With a Single Spell
- Leverage
- Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
- Die Hard

Of these, only Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog fails to feature multiple interesting encounters/challenges per day. Not every day. But on some days. And that's all you need.

Particularly if the DM doesn't hand the PCs a crystal ball so that they can perfectly anticipate the contents of any given day. Uncertainty is also a factor in balancing classes that need to prep their spell lists. (And, again, you seem to gravitate towards "every day must be like this". But that's not the case. If you occasionally have the unexpected happen -- as it should -- then the PCs can't have certainty even when they might get away with it.)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 4, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Particularly if the DM doesn't hand the PCs a crystal ball so that they can perfectly anticipate the contents of any given day. Uncertainty is also a factor in balancing classes that need to prep their spell lists. (And, again, you seem to gravitate towards "every day must be like this". But that's not the case. If you occasionally have the unexpected happen -- as it should -- then the PCs can't have certainty even when they might get away with it.)



I played in a 3e game mostly set in a city. The typical adventure would be, over the course of a day, one serious encounter followed, fairly regularly, by an ambush from a creature that was after us, a lumi paladin from MM3 that kept coming back to life, more powerful, after we killed it. With only two encounters a day the wizard, me, could easily outshine the non-Vancian fighter/rogue in both. The encounters would normally be pretty challenging, requiring the expenditure of a lot of resources. We quite often had to run away in fact. Entirely right that they should have been challenging imo, easy encounters would have been boring, and, with only the lumi ambush to consider I could've still nova-ed, there's no reason not to.

Now you're saying if the pre lumi encounter was fairly easy then I should've let the fighter/rogue handle it, conserved my spells. Well, I didn't, and I don't think I ever suffered for it. I'm a wizard, I cast spells. Every round!

There were times when we faced more than two encounters per day - the occasional dungeon or the time an army of squamous things attacked the town. But on both occasions we could easily see them coming, it wasn't a surprise. I continued to cast spells every round during these adventures. In the dungeon I was reduced to using my wand of magic missiles (5th lvl) at one point - this was our signal to retire. I don't think I ever used a crossbow or dagger, I was always doing something wizard-y (except when I was overcome by a ragewalker's u-go-berserk power).

Bad GMing you say? I think not. This was an excellent game, probably the best D&D campaign I've played in. Good party, good rapport and teamwork between the players, great GM. His prepared material, improv, NPCs and character voices were all first rate. Lots of exciting and challenging encounters and several great moments. That's what I want in a game, not endless small encounters each day to force the Vancian casters to use their x-bows.

Problem is, D&D doesn't work with this approach, not if one values PC balance, and I do.

Like I said upthread the only time I've ever seen D&D work as it's supposed to, with a x-bow wizard, is in the PC game Temple of Elemental Evil. That's because I played it with a great many fights per day, a dozen or more, and the large majority are minor. Only for the big fights does one need the wizard, and in those, I noticed that the wizard spell choice was absolutely key to victory. Problem is that, for me, and most of the people I game with, lots of minor fights don't work in a face-to-face game. They're mostly boring and implausible.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 4, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I've read/seen enough fantasy fiction to encounter more than a few spellcasters who... fire crossbows or use a sling...




Such as?

We're talking about them being "supposed to" be carrying and shooting with such gear as a regular thing, not about its happening once in a blue moon. About all I can think of offhand is Jaelith in the Witch World.

Not that it would be to the point, anyhow. Some of the reasons things were as they were designed to be had to do with making for a good game! Messing up the class system of "separate spheres" is what I was harrumphing about. I said not a word against "spellcasters who hoard their power, eschewing the use of magic _until it is absolutely necessary."_

The game was not meant as a "simulator" of  Tros of Samothrace or The Worm Ouroboros, of The Well of the Unicorn or The Blue Star, of Mary Poppins or Five Children and It, of The Twilight of Magic or The Magician's Nephew, or any other particular fictional world.

If that's what you want, then you've got your work cut out for you. It was no secret surprise, though, no false bill of goods, at least in the OD&D and 1st ed. AD&D books.


----------



## BlubSeabass (Aug 5, 2010)

We've seen several answers and solutions to this 15-minutes work day, and I'd liked to summarize them a bit. First, I'll try to explain what's the problem with the 15-minute work-day, and why it can hurt the gameplay experience. Then I'll go through some of the interesting things posted here. I'll give some links to things I found relevant, for people just tuning in or wanting to reread that post. I shamelessly may have copied one of your opinions, but certainly not all said in the links is represented in my post, especially not the counter-arguments.

*What is the problem with the 15-minute work day?*
Skip this if you already agree =). To see the problem we need to make a few premises:
1) Resource management, or the problem of how to spend your resources, is a vital part of strategy.
2) Different strategies is what makes the game fun. The ability to tackle problems on several ways, one more effective then the other, is a major aspect of RPG's in general.
3) Nova, or using all resources from best to worst to create a large spike of damage, is the superior resource management strategy if those resources can be re-used in the next challenge.
4) Optional- Full resources strongly favor spellcasters, while low resources favor warriors.

The 15-minute work day is the problem in which the PC's can immidiately regain their resources after a challenge by resting. This and premise 3, results into Nova always being the superior strategy. The players will be strongly encouraged to Nova, and probably will do this if able. This and premise 1 result in the strategy mostly being the same all the time, since one strategy is  superior. This and premise 2, lead to a boring and repetitive game (always using the same superior strategy). The balance is directly gone with premise 4 and the option to always regain your resources.
*Conclusion: The 15-minutes work day encourage the same superior tactic, which leads to boredom and imbalance.*
Relevant posts IMO: Stalker0, Cerebral Paladin, Dannyalacatraz, Arscott, MichealSomething's blog, Doug Mcrae, Lost Soul, Jgbrowning, Myself =D, Storminator Beginning of the End and Dausuul

*How do we fix this?*
It's pretty obvious that in this case, rest should be discouraged, or _not_ resting should be encouraged. Here are some of the solutions, with my opinion.
*DM's mercy:* Most people here who didn't find the 15-minute work day a problem, agreed that resting, and therefor when the party regains resources, is at the hand of the DM. The DM is the one who decides when rest is available. He could control this by environment, but also by bad consequences. Since the DM can be unpredictable, players are forced to take more care of resource management. The bottom line is, the environment, not the mechanics, discourage the rest.
_My opinion:_ It's basically what most good adventures do right now. It works fine in reality, but I have three problems with it. First, it is taking away the option from the player, something I wish to avoid. Second, the DM has to prepare for the things the PC's are going to try to get a rest. I think some here could write a book about "How the DM got rope-tricked." Penelizing this creativity with, " you just can't" is not something I like. Finally, it doesn't solve the mechanic, it just walks around it.
Relevant posts: Dannyalacatraz,  Ariosto, Dannyalcatraz II, Jgbrowning, Stalker0, Beginning of the End and Silvercatmoonpaw2.

*Redifine your resources:* This I've seen alot. Abilities usable once per day become usable once per session. Every resource is usable at will. Everybody gets equal resources. If everyone get's equal resources, the imbalance of nova is gone. If abilities are usable x times a session, resting loses it's replendishing ability. One nice idea is to make resources unlockable after x rounds. Resources would then have to be earned in though fights. Nova-ing is not possible anymore.
_My opinion_: While most certainly do adress a lot of the problems, I don't like messing with the resources of the PC's. If they want to nova, its up to them. Most of these ideas consist of taking away options from the player, which I don't like. Making every resource usable at will actually turns every battle into novas. The one of rebalancing resources over the classes solves imbalance, but still leaves nova the superior tactic.
Relevent posts: Starfox, Arscott, Ariosto, Tuft, Billd91  and Doug Mcrae.

*Punish the sleepy ones:* Redefine rest so that it costs something to rest. This could be in simple consequences, but Dausuul had the sweet idea of resting taking longer and costing money. Storywise, they would relax with their favourite gal, spend quality time with family, drink till the sun rises or spend a night playing a tabletop RPG with some friends. This penalizes resting, and thus does not more encourage the same Nova tactic.
_My opinion:_ Pretty sweet, but doesn't get my favor for 2 reasons. First, it influences the setting pretty badly. Are there girls available? Is your family close? Where is the rum? Even worse, when you're in a dungeon, and you _need_ to replendish your resources, you can't rest! You'll have to go back to town, spend some days etc. while the lich slays the hostages one by one. The second reason has more to do with my own likes and dislikes, and I prefer giving the players then taking things out of their hands, even though when its way more practical.
Relevant posts: Dausuul and Dausuul II

*Praise the heroes:* Give them something for not resting. Many things have been said, prominently XP rewards, but milestone bonusses and resources are also mentioned. The player is rewarded for not resting in a (often temporary) bonus.
_My opinon_: Yay! Finally something I agree with! I don't like XP awards for the same reasons others didn't like them, and as I stated above, I don't like messing with resources. But milestone bonusses (for not-4e I guess that would be after-encounter bonusses) are the way to go. They give something a player can't get any other way, and challenges the benefits of resting in a balanced and gradual way. Nova is still a valid tactic, but so is moving on.
Relevant posts: Stalker0, Kurtomatic, Mark CMG and Uder

Obviously I haven't included everyone and their thoughts, but I was getting confused, so I tried to summarize the big lines.
I like this discussion way too much...


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Aug 5, 2010)

My opinion on the milestone/after-encounter bonuses is it offers nothing to help the DM know how the encounters will pace.  Players can still choose how many encounters they want to have.  Encounter balance is messed up because the amount of resources used up is out of the control of the one who has to calculate the whole deal.


----------



## GlassJaw (Aug 5, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> ...there are only two ways to prevent the 15 minute adventuring day




There's a third actually:

Get Trailblazer!!!

*hides!*


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 5, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> Another way of looking at the problem is this: There are two varieties of the 15-minute adventuring day. The first is the "nova" (the PCs use all of their most powerful abilities in a single encounter and then rest); the second is the "forced rest" (the PCs are out of resources and must rest/retreat to recover them).
> 
> These are two _different_ problems.



There is at least one more type, only present in pre-4E games. Pre-4E, "nova" really only has meaning for casters. Fighters couldn't nova. So this third type of problem is when some characters (casters) systematically run out of resources before others, forcing the others to rest before they would otherwise.



Beginning of the End said:


> So what would be the absolute _worst_ way to fix the 15-minute adventuring day problem?
> 
> (1) Give all classes daily powers (increasing the mechanical incentive for nova strategies).



This one actually solves the third type I mentioned above. At least all characters can nova, so that the party doesn't end up resting just because the wizard's out of spells.

This is the form of the 15-minute adventuring day that really affected the groups I played in. The players knew they were better off resting, if they could, once the wizard used up his good spells.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 5, 2010)

In my 4E hack, I messed around with Extended Rests.

[sblock=Refreshing Character Resources]
All Classes:
Each 6 hours of rest you recover 1 healing surge and reset your APs to 1.

Daily Powers vary for different classes.

Martial Classes:
Carousing: Must engage in an act of physical enjoyment with another character.

Divine Classes:
Liturgies: A specific ritual (not Ritual) that the divine character performs.  They vary based on the god worshipped (ranging from funerals and marriages to giving financial advice, raising the dead, and mock drownings).
Rites: A specific ritual (not Ritual) that the divine character can perform alone, but it requires some Sanctified Incense (GP).  Again, these vary based on the god worshipped (dancing naked under the moon, sleeping in a fresh grave, human sacrifice).

Wizards:
Spend 16 hours of uninterrupted study, during which time you do whatever crazy thing that helps you memorize the spell.  If you're interrupted the entire session is lost.

Warlocks:
Must satisfy their pact obligation.  Blood sacrifice of sentient beings, learning someone's most terrible secret, ritual sex, cannibalism, mindless destruction, and showing people The Yellow Sign.

*

These things take time, require the PCs to integrate themselves into the setting, introduce NPCs, reveal the setting in motion, reveal the consequences of the PC's actions, and introduce complications.  They're all social in nature, even the Wizard (he needs to lock himself up somewhere safe, but doing so he freaks out the regular people around him) and the Warlock (who breaks and destroys social order).

That leads to more adventure based on the choices the PCs make.  This is the middle level of play; the high level is when PCs control settlements and make decisions for their wards.

I call it a Fantasy Western because the game is about imposing your own social order on the frontier, whatever that may be.[/sblock]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 5, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> Such as?
> 
> We're talking about them being "supposed to" be carrying and shooting with such gear as a regular thing, not about its happening once in a blue moon. About all I can think of offhand is Jaelith in the Witch Worl




Well, besides the ones mentioned by others?

Most of the spellcasters in Thieves' World and Discworld are like that; Elric & most of the other incarnations of the Eternal Champion; the spellcasters in Harry Turtledove's _Darkness_ series; Niven & Pournelle's "Warlock" series of stories; the spellcasters in Gordon Dickson's _Dragon Knight_ series; the casters in Terry Brooks' _Shannara/Word & Void_ series; Barbara Hambly's spellcasters are generally stingy with magic, as are the Elves in Mercedes Lackey's modern fantasy books; many of the sword & sorcery spellcasters found in foundational works like the Fafhrd & Grey Mouser or Conan stories rarely use their powers (though, in all fairness, many are also more accurately "multiclassed" in D&D terms)...

Oh yeah...and that black dude in "Krod Mandoon." 



> The game was not meant as a "simulator" of Tros of Samothrace or The Worm Ouroboros, of The Well of the Unicorn or The Blue Star, of Mary Poppins or Five Children and It, of The Twilight of Magic or The Magician's Nephew, or any other particular fictional world.




In its original formulations, the game wasn't meant as a simulator of any particular fantasy work _at all._  Besides Vancian/Lieber-ian/Moorcockian/Howardian/Tolkienian influences, you can find the work of other fantasy authors, Biblical/religious/mythological ideas ("Sticks to Snakes", anyone?) from all cultures, and liberal dashes of horror, sci-fi and other genre fiction tossed in for seasoning.

It was meant for the players to be able to simulate all kinds of magical worlds, and its flexibility is pretty impressive...which is why I've never had a problem running that kind of spellcaster and never seen the 15 minute workday in person.

My casters?  I _expect_ them to be unable to cast spells at some point- for whatever reason- and that I'll be able to contribute to the party's success even then.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 5, 2010)

Thinking a bit more about why I wasn't a parsimonious wizard and cast a spell every round* in combat.

1) I'm a wizard. Wizards cast spells. It distinguishes me from the non-caster(s).
2) Each player character is expected to contribute their utmost to a combat. Holding back on spells, when they weren't needed later on, could be seen as slacking, and risking the lives of the other PCs. By and large our encounters were very challenging. If the wizard doesn't cast his best spells, we may die.
3) There's a competitive element between the players to see whose character can contribute the most to victory.
4) I want to play the game. Playing the game means doing things now, not maybe or maybe not doing something later in an encounter which may happen, but probably won't. Live for today, not a tomorrow that may never come. I tend to be short-term in my approach to virtually everything, so the way I play D&D is unlikely to be different.

Dannyalcatraz and Beginning of the End have said that the risk of another encounter is enough to make a wizard parsimonious. Not for me it wasn't, or, I think, any other Vancian caster I've seen played. Factors 1-4 seem to be strong enough to outweigh that risk.

Another aspect to consider in the computer game ToEE I mentioned upthread is that a single player controls the whole party - five PCs. This leads to a very team-focused approach and it doesn't matter if one character is holding back most of the time. If it was a face-to-face game with a single player controlling the wizard then that player would most likely be bored shitless. I would be.


*I should note that my PC was a specialist wizard so I had more spells than the base.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 5, 2010)

> 1) I'm a wizard. Wizards cast spells. It distinguishes me from the non-caster(s).



Granted.



> 2) Each player character is expected to contribute their utmost to a combat. Holding back on spells, when they weren't needed later on, could be seen as slacking, and risking the lives of the other PCs. By and large our encounters were very challenging. If the wizard doesn't cast his best spells, we may die.




The problem is that you don't know if they will be needed later on or not.

Besides, its not like I'm doing _nothing_- I'm doing damage with my ranged weapons; I'm doing coup-de-graces on helpless foes; I'm watching for that blasted invisible, teleporting foe we keep encountering, etc.

And, FWIW, being able to save the party's bacon with a well-placed lightning bolt in the 6th encounter of the day simply rocks.



> 3) There's a competitive element between the players to see whose character can contribute the most to victory.




Never felt that pressure.



> 4) I want to play the game. Playing the game means doing things now, not maybe or maybe not doing something later in an encounter which may happen, but probably won't. Live for today, not a tomorrow that may never come.




Playing the game for me means playing my PC the way he should be played.  If he's a hothead, he'll go all Leeroy Jenkins.  But my spellcasters tend to be more thoughtful.

Recent exception: Adragon, the Mage-Brute.

Besides, casters who live for today may not live to see tomorrow because they got ganked when they encountered some brigands after going nova...


> Dannyalcatraz and Beginning of the End have said that the risk of another encounter is enough to make a wizard parsimonious.




...in the context of generally playing with GMs who:

often DID have another encounter waiting- IOW, the risk was recognizably high and actually recognized.
would not give the party a break just because the Wizard was out of spells- IOW, they wouldn't fudge in-game reality to favor the party.

Besides, if the fighter accuses you of "slacking," remind him that he can swing his sword all day and that you only have 3 fireballs to cast in that same time period...

"Sure, I could have used one of those to save you 3 minutes of slogging through kobold guts, but who will be whining when the 45' long Frost-Drake comes screeching out of the sky and I'm fresh out?  You will...but not for long."


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My casters?  I _expect_ them to be unable to cast spells at some point- for whatever reason- and that I'll be able to contribute to the party's success even then.



We fought a golem in the 3e game I've described and I remember being quite annoyed that, after casting haste, all I could contribute was aid another. Aid another falls well below my threshold for an acceptable level of contribution.

Complete Arcane, with its superior SR ignoring conjurations, wasn't out then. These days I'd have been able to blow that golem away with orbs and suchlike. (I regarded glitterdust as, tho powerful, not fitting my PC's personal style.)

I'm just like this guy:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Pq56pHtnY]YouTube - ‪CRAZY german KID(playing counter strike)!!‬‎[/ame]


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> "Sure, I could have used one of those to save you 3 minutes of slogging through kobold guts, but who will be whining when the 45' long Frost-Drake comes screeching out of the sky and I'm fresh out?  You will...but not for long."



Frankly I'm amazed those kobolds were living and prospering in that area at all, if frost-drakes coming screeching out of the sky on any given day is more likely than not.

The worlds we are being forced to create, by the rules of the game, stretch credulity to breaking point.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 5, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> Frankly I'm amazed those kobolds were living and prospering in that area at all, if frost-drakes coming screeching out of the sky on any given day is more likely than not.
> 
> The worlds we are being forced to create, by the rules of the game, stretch credulity to breaking point.




Uh...just ran into that very setup in a published 4Ed adventure.  The kobolds were either worshiping the thing or were its slaves- since I'm not the DM, I don't know for sure.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 5, 2010)

All I'm saying is this: the 15 Minute Workday is a CLASSIC example of a YMMV kind of thing.  It stems not from the rules- its the playstyle- and changing the rules to minimize its likelihood of occurring is (to me) more likely to result in unpleasant side-effects.


----------



## Baumi (Aug 5, 2010)

Dungeoneer said:


> This is blue-skying it a bit, but I think it would be cool if you had a system where Daily powers had to be 'unlocked'.  Either by reaching milestones or by performing heroic feats.  If players knew that they could really break out the big guns once they'd been in a few fights, that would really encourage them to press on.




That is so simple and absolutely brilliant! 8D


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> All I'm saying is this: the 15 Minute Workday is a CLASSIC example of a YMMV kind of thing.  It stems not from the rules- its the playstyle- and changing the rules to minimize its likelihood of occurring is (to me) more likely to result in unpleasant side-effects.




No, it stems from the rules. Without a certain specific set of rules--namely, the ones that provide massive incentives to rest and no incentives not to--the 15-minute workday would not exist, and in games where such rules are not in force, it _does_ not exist.

Some people may have a playstyle that compensates (effectively relying on the DM to create a counter-incentive), but that doesn't mean the problem arises from everyone else's playstyle.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 5, 2010)

Interesting observations in this thread. It's got me thinking.

I'm always considering new house rules for my game. Now I think I want to encourage the party to keep adventuring, but to provide some justification for resting.

Maybe I'll do away with the limited healing surges per day, and instead put a cap on the number of surges per encounter. If you want to spend more surges than that during the encounter you can, but you'll take some sort of wound. You only ever need an extended rest for the purpose of recovering from these wounds.

(It's like if you keep pushing yourself to exercise, you can keep going, but you'll be sore, and possibly break something if you're not careful. Maybe you can go over the limit by 1, which lowers your defenses by 2. If you go over the limit by 2, then any critical hit that hits you in the same encounter inflicts a serious wound, like a broken arm or swollen eye.)

Daily Powers instead become Awesome Powers. To use an awesome power you have to spend an action point. You get 1 action point at the start of the first encounter between extended rests, 2 at the start of the 2nd, 3 at the 3rd, and so on. You can't use the same 'awesome power' more than once in the same encounter.

(Maybe at 11th level you get an extra 1 action point per encounter, and an extra 2 at 21st level.)

[Magic item daily powers I don't like in the first place. I'm still not sure what to do with them.]

I think this would encourage players to keep going and build up momentum.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> No, it stems from the rules. Without a certain specific set of rules--namely, the ones that provide massive incentives to rest and no incentives not to--the 15-minute workday would not exist, and in games where such rules are not in force, it _does_ not exist.
> 
> Some people may have a playstyle that compensates (effectively relying on the DM to create a counter-incentive), but that doesn't mean the problem arises from everyone else's playstyle.




But the rules also allow for those DM counter-incentives. So the remedy stems from the rules as well. Which, I think, puts it back into a play-style thing.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 5, 2010)

billd91 said:


> But the rules also allow for those DM counter-incentives. So the remedy stems from the rules as well. Which, I think, puts it back into a play-style thing.




If a bunch of houses are built with faulty wiring which catches fire if you run the washer and the dryer at the same time, the cause of the resulting fires is not the "laundry-style difference" of some people doing a single load of laundry and some people doing several in a batch. The cause is the wiring.

The rules set up the incentives which drive the problem. And the remedy certainly does not stem from the rules--it is merely _allowed_ by the rules, in the same way that the houses with the bad wiring allow you to run only one load of laundry at a time.

To some extent, it's a semantic difference. However, the usual corollary of someone saying "this is a playstyle problem" is "you people shouldn't mess with the rules, either fix your substandard playstyle or live with the consequences." Which drives me up the wall--if you don't want to tinker with the rules, what the heck are you doing in a rules-tinkering thread?--so I go into battle-ready mode as soon as "playstyle problem" comes up.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> To some extent, it's a semantic difference. However, the usual corollary of someone saying "this is a playstyle problem" is "you people shouldn't mess with the rules, either fix your substandard playstyle or live with the consequences." Which drives me up the wall--if you don't want to tinker with the rules, what the heck are you doing in a rules-tinkering thread?--so I go into battle-ready mode as soon as "playstyle problem" comes up.




It's a refereed role playing game in which the rules are not really intended to cover all eventualities, most particularly the specific circumstances in which the rules are applied. Play style is almost always relevant in some way even if the rules have some effect.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 5, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> ...Barbara Hambly's spellcasters are generally stingy with magic...




I have written nary a word against being "stingy with magic".

I have written a word against m-us packing crossbows.

I pointed this out to you in that very post you quoted. You repeatedly ignore what I write, and pretend that I have written what I have not!

Elric never used a crossbow that I recall. I don't think a single crossbow appeared in the whole saga! I reckon the Melnibonean an elf type, anyhow.

Elric does not have kit for sorcery with him on his wanderings, apart from the Ring of Kings.

For that matter, the Old Race of the Witch World could also be treated as elves.

An m-u with other than thrown missiles is just fine in 4e, IIRC. It's another wrench in the works, though, for 3e or old D&D.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 5, 2010)

billd91 said:


> It's a refereed role playing game in which the rules are not really intended to cover all eventualities, most particularly the specific circumstances in which the rules are applied. Play style is almost always relevant in some way even if the rules have some effect.




Relevant? Sure. I have no problem with playstyle differences entering the discussion. What I have a problem with is playstyle differences being used as an attempt to cut off discussion of the rules.

"Well, when considering [proposed rules change], we should think about the playstyles of groups that encounter the 15-minute workday issue. Since the fix is targeting them, how is that rules change going to interact with their playstyles?" Perfectly fine.

"This is a playstyle issue. Changing the rules will only create more problems." Not fine... unless you can back up that statement with some really solid logic, and I have a hard time imagining what logic you could muster that would cover every ingenious rules-based solution that anybody might come up with ever.

Now, to be fair to Dannyalcatraz, as I look back at what he said, he was fairly careful to couch it in terms of his own experience and wasn't trying to generalize it across the board. Still, I'm not sure what it contributes to the discussion. I mean, if your group hasn't got a problem with the 15-minute work day, great! Carry on as you were, nothing you need to concern yourself with here... unless, out of the goodness of your heart or simple intellectual curiosity, you want to lend a hand with those of us tweaking the rules to prevent the problem in our own groups. Which is what this thread is about--tweaking rules and incentives, not playstyle. If we were looking to tweak our playstyle, we'd be in a different thread.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> "Well, when considering [proposed rules change], we should think about the playstyles of groups that encounter the 15-minute workday issue. Since the fix is targeting them, how is that rules change going to interact with their playstyles?" Perfectly fine.
> 
> <snip>
> Which is what this thread is about--tweaking rules and incentives, not playstyle. If we were looking to tweak our playstyle, we'd be in a different thread.




Fair enough, but I'd be sure to keep in mind that optimization-oriented play styles are usually going to push hard at incentives of any sort built into the rules, even if they seem pretty innocuous to a more casual style. That's one of the major reasons we've seen so much discussion around save-or-sit/die spells, 15 minute workdays, mulitple-attribute dependent classes, feat taxes, CODzillas, and wizard = win button.


----------



## BlubSeabass (Aug 5, 2010)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> My opinion on the milestone/after-encounter bonuses is it offers nothing to help the DM know how the encounters will pace.  Players can still choose how many encounters they want to have.  Encounter balance is messed up because the amount of resources used up is out of the control of the one who has to calculate the whole deal.




To be fair I don't really understand your point. Do I understand it correctly that you wan't to keep the pace of the encounters in the hand of the DM? Thus you prefer environmental rest places, to reset the resources and dictate the pace in which the PC's try a challenge and take a nap?

If so, I see your point. It's like in games like final fantasy, where a save point after a long time means you better get ready. You don't want the PC's to walk into your BBEG with 20% of their resources left. Setting resting places and the PC's always using them gives the DM control and anticipation over the difficulty of a challenge. Two very important factors in the fun-o-meter of an encounter. A very valid point.

Still, this is on the edge of metagaming and railroading. I think other techniques are better for warning, like foreshading, dramatic entrances,interrogations or other clues. If they are used correctly, not only does emersion rises, but the players can anticipate the difficulty of the upcoming challenge. If they expect to meet the BBEG in the room ahead, and don't think they are up to the challenge, they can always go back to rest at your specific rest point.

That said, high CR ambushes do become more dangerous. The party may think they can handle the next normal battle, but may not be prepared for a serious challenge. To be honest, I think that is quite charming =3.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 5, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Fair enough, but I'd be sure to keep in mind that optimization-oriented play styles are usually going to push hard at incentives of any sort built into the rules, even if they seem pretty innocuous to a more casual style. That's one of the major reasons we've seen so much discussion around save-or-sit/die spells, 15 minute workdays, mulitple-attribute dependent classes, feat taxes, CODzillas, and wizard = win button.




A good point, and one which I think supports my preference for a "cost-to-rest" approach. Attempts to exploit a cost mechanic are much more predictable than attempts to exploit a bonus mechanic; the goal of exploiting a cost mechanic is almost always the reduction/negation of said cost, but the goal of exploiting a bonus mechanic could be anything.


----------



## Tequila Sunrise (Aug 6, 2010)

Great article, Stalker0! I've never been much concerned with the 15 minute workday, even during my 3e career when spells like Rope Trick all but begged to be abused. But now I'm thinking about it...


Stalker0 said:


> If we increased the number of power sources for characters that were based on milestones, it would allow a character to compensate for their loss of power in new and interesting ways. A player would lose some resources by adventuring but gain new ones. Overall the player can choose to play his character with the flavor he wants, and the system is behind him, not against him.



I haven't read the whole thread, but it seems to me that there's a quick and dirty way of adding more carrot to 4e: instead of starting every day with an AP and getting another every 2 encounters, why not start the day with none and gain an AP _every_ encounter?

It's not as interesting as home brew milestone feats and features, but it's simple and easy to implement. [Heck, my group has a "How many encounters did we do last session? How many APs did I spend? How many should we have left?" dilemma every second session. So this house rule would make our lives easier. )

And chances are, somebody's already thought of this, so bring on the rehash discussion!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 6, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> I have written nary a word against being "stingy with magic".
> 
> I have written a word against m-us packing crossbows.
> 
> I pointed this out to you in that very post you quoted. You repeatedly ignore what I write, and pretend that I have written what I have not!




I've read what you wrote and I'm not ignoring it- I'm just practicing the same economy with my words as I do with my "magic."

IOW, please feel free to interpret "stingy with magic" as I did when I wrote it: preferring to use mundane/non-spellcasting solutions to problems over actually casting spells...until its time to cast spells.

That can mean using a crossbow; that can mean using a sword; that can mean sticking a foot out to trip a foe; that can mean walking across the room to get a key off a belt-hook on a dazed foe; all instead of "magic-ing" the problem away- even while combat rages on!

I'm not going to go through thousands of pages of various novels and stories to pick out exactly how particular spellcasters did this in their own way.  I have better things to do.

Going back to your original post:



> I'll eat the stars on my pointy hat before I'll go about pretending to be a mechanic or even a, pardon my French, warrior. Dignity of the profession, man, and conduct unbecoming! It sets a bad example, I say.
> 
> I suppose the cleric gets a missile weapon, too, so that she can also be played as she's 'supposed' to be played? Why not give her more attack spells while we're at it?
> 
> ...




There is no one way a class is "supposed to be played."  For me, that phrase should _never_ be applied to a class: it is more properly limited to being another way of saying the _particular PC _has to be played true to itself- you don't play the "hot-tempered thick-headed barbarian chieftan" as a hypercautious academic genius, for instance, nor (probably) should the "bookish acolyte" be charging into battle ahead of everyone in the party.

And classes?  They exist to delineate degrees of expertise in various areas of adventuring competence.  But just because one slings spells for a living doesn't mean that one cannot be competent with a bow.  Not as proficient as the guy who does it all day and has done since childhood, to be sure, but competent nonetheless.

Why have them?  In short, classes are useful for helping define a PC.

Despite my long love affair with D&D, even my favorite form of the game- 3.5Ed- is only my 3rd favorite RPG system.  The top spot?  My favorite system of all time is HERO, a classless system.  (HEY, I heard that snort!)  However, were I running Fantasy HERO, I'd probably have at least 2 sets of standard package deals* for players to use for their PCs.  

* For those who don't know, a "package deal" in HERO is a collection of powers, skills, talents and disadvantages meant to supply a standardized baseline for some discrete group- useful for describing races, classes, professions, bloodlines, training, curses, and other "types".


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Aug 6, 2010)

BlubSeabass said:


> To be fair I don't really understand your point. Do I understand it correctly that you wan't to keep the pace of the encounters in the hand of the DM? Thus you prefer environmental rest places, to reset the resources and dictate the pace in which the PC's try a challenge and take a nap?



What I want is to ease off on the amount of predicting and changing the DM has to do with crafting adventures.  The specific problem proposed is of burning through resources quickly and then doing whatever activity is necessary to replenish those resources.  I have read proposals that harass the PCs or make the world change while the PCs rest, and I have read proposals to create rewards to encourage the PCs to move forward.  All create more for for the DM.

Letting the DM control where or when the PCs can replenish their resources is to put less guessing-work in.  I wasn't thinking of a "video game save point"-type situation; the example I had in mind was stating that all "per day" stuff refreshes at sunrise.  It's still "per day", but now the DM doesn't have to predict between which encounters the PCs will replenish their resources because they can place "sunrise" between any number they want and balance those encounters accordingly.  (Also leads to tense situations where you have to hold off the enemy long enough for sunrise to come.)  Of course this example doesn't work perfectly, it was just the first one I could think of.



BlubSeabass said:


> Still, this is on the edge of metagaming and railroading. I think other techniques are better for warning, like foreshading, dramatic entrances,interrogations or other clues. If they are used correctly, not only does emersion rises, but the players can anticipate the difficulty of the upcoming challenge. If they expect to meet the BBEG in the room ahead, and don't think they are up to the challenge, they can always go back to rest at your specific rest point.



Thing is that if we're going to require dramatic techniques of warning I'm going to use dramatic techniques of deciding when things are allowed to replenish.  If it's important that the confrontation with the BBEG be the next "scene" then at least some resources are probably going to be replenished between "scenes".  If dramatic moments are important than then method of replenishing is going to be based on them.  I am not going to mix a game and a story like that.  I am fully willing to rules to drive a story, but they will be rules created for the purpose of telling a story.

If instead a game is what is desired then I am not going to care one iota about immersion in some "story world".  I think game worlds are interesting on even their immersion breaking points.

I'm sorry for the rant, I just feel like I'm being asked to combine contradictory expectations.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 6, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> *Defining the Subject: Do we have a problem?*
> 
> What is the 15 minute workday? Everyone has their own personal version of the concept, but to generate a good discussion we need to define the concept specifically.
> 
> ...




I'm afraid I disagree with your concluding premise here - you ask whether we have a problem, and then state one possible reason for it to be a problem, and then go on to talk about solutions to this 'problem'.

But... Until WotC started talking about the 'problem' of the 15 minute workday it was a subject which almost NEVER came up in discussions as a problem on ENworld that I recall - and there have been lots of discussions (generating heat and light). Psions introduced problems with nova-ing in a big way with their PP mechanic, and that got discussed, but general 15-minute workdays? Not a problem.

The real question about whether or not it is a problem isn't down to some game theory, it is whether it was spoiling the games of lots of people. I think the evidence is that it wasn't, in that there would have been a lot more discussion of it over the last 10 years if it had been a problem!

I think that Danny really nails it here:



Dannyalcatraz said:


> My take on the 15 Minute Workday is this: it is not an artifact of the game, but rather, an artifact of playstyle.
> 
> I've been playing since 1977, in a variety of communities, in several states, in a variety of different RPGs and with literally scores of different players...and I've never seen it.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying that it only exists under certain conditions.
> 
> ...




Now, you could argue that since 3e put the focus on the 'encounter' as the unit of play rather than the 'adventure' or the 'dungeon', it started to make it more likely that some people would develop a playstyle which supported "burn all the spells in an encounter, then bug out and refresh', after all, people 'knew' they were 'supposed' to do 5 encounters a day (or whatever) because the system was 'balanced' around that proposition.

Kamikaze Midget had a brilliant post on this issue somewhere, but try searching for a post that contains the word 'Adventure'! If I can find it, I'll edit it in here.

Regards


----------



## BlubSeabass (Aug 6, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm afraid I disagree with your concluding premise here - you ask whether we have a problem, and then state one possible reason for it to be a problem, and then go on to talk about solutions to this 'problem'.
> 
> But... Until WotC started talking about the 'problem' of the 15 minute workday it was a subject which almost NEVER came up in discussions as a problem on ENworld that I recall - and there have been lots of discussions (generating heat and light). Psions introduced problems with nova-ing in a big way with their PP mechanic, and that got discussed, but general 15-minute workdays? Not a problem.
> 
> ...




Aaah but here is where I don't agree with you. 

You say that the 15-minute workday never has been a big issue, in which I agree. But what gets generally discussed? Things that are in control of the players. Why? Because the DM can't just tweak that the way he wants; he needs to justify it.

Here is the catch with the 15-minute workday. It is a minor flaw, which a DM can easily fix through environmental changes. The problem (the rest) is only there when it's not stopped (you say granted). But the flaw is in the game-mechanics. If the DM does not fix this constantly, every game and while designing every dungeon, it's gonna be there. 
More experienced players may not have this problem, since they are used to good adventures. But newer DM's may bump into this problem. That it's easily patched doesn't mean it's not there.

Now it just depends on how you want to fix it. Most of you seem to be cool with the small leak, and wrap a handkerchief around it every week. That's fine, it's your game and cost-efficient. Some of us, including me, seek the more complicated ways to fix the mechanics, in which I favor Stalker0's approach.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 6, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> There is no one way a class is "supposed to be played."



That's for you to say of your own game design. I'm talking about Gygax's game design, and what others have made by mangling it.

Do you seriously think it makes no difference when one class (fighter) gets stuck in the same old limits, while others (clerics and magic-users) encroach on those?

The overwhelming weight of evidence says it does indeed make a difference. It may even make the "everything you can do, I can do better" kind of difference. (In the short run, the OD&D cleric can be just that, vs. the fighter, even without any changes. The Moldvay/ Marsh/ Cook B/XD&D makes m-us pretty pathetic next to elves.)



> But just because one slings spells for a living doesn't mean that one cannot be competent with a bow.



Actually, yes it does, by the old rules, and for good reason.
It's this little thing called "game balance".
Again, you can create a different balance in a different game. However, blindly screwing around with something that's in balance tends to produce something that's out of balance.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 6, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Why have them?  In short, classes are useful for helping define a PC.



So are things that are not classes -- templates, packages and so on -- in which category I would put the so-called "classes" of WotC's 3e.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 7, 2010)

BlubSeabass said:


> Here is the catch with the 15-minute workday. It is a minor flaw, which a DM can easily fix through environmental changes. The problem (the rest) is only there when it's not stopped (you say granted). But the flaw is in the game-mechanics. If the DM does not fix this constantly, every game and while designing every dungeon, it's gonna be there.




I think we probably draw the bar at what is a 'flaw' in game mechanics at different places - I think that a trick combination which allows someone to do 10000 damage is a flaw, but a whole lot of other stuff (including the nature of the issue under discussion) isn't a flaw in a game system but just a reflection of the flexibility of the system.

From 3e onwards there has been an increasing desire to 'balance' stuff, but I wonder whether it is chasing after hobgoblins (in the literary sense!) as more and more rules and more and more special cases get introduced which in turn introduce new corner cases... and the illusion of a system as perfectly balanced as, say, chess (or perhaps Magic the Gathering?) becomes the standard to be desired in itself.

Was there less mathematical balance in OD&D, BD&D, AD&D etc? Certainly. Was there less fun then? I don't think so; in fact some of my most fun times were playing all kinds of classes back in the 70's and early 80's, at all kind of levels. If the 15 minute workday was a real problem then you would have found it back then more than any other time - natural healing was sloooow and magical healing was much harder to come by, and wizards had fewer spells. It sounds like a classic recipe for 15 minute workday, but it still didn't happen back then.

Cheers


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 7, 2010)

Really interesting, Stalker0!

I'm still having some difficulty wrapping my mind around what, exactly, the problem with the "15 minute adventuring day" *is*. I mean, if the PC's can go nova in every fight, and fight big, powerful, significant enemies, and risk total party kill in every fight, what does it matter how many fights there are? If there's only one big, significant battle per session, then the adventuring day is 15 minutes, and that's fine. 

Even in 3e (but moreso in 4e), I have trouble with "filler combats," combats that are there basically to pad out levels to get to the "right XP." If the PC's victory is essentially a foregone conclusion (as it often is), why bother statting out the fight? If there's a challenge involved, what's wrong with "going nova" to confront a nova-level challenge?

I guess this is how I understand the problem of the 15 minute adventuring day: it's a problem when the party doesn't feel *challenged*, and, in D&D typically, the war of attrition and long-term resource management (LTRM) has been how the DM ramps up the challenge.

That's less true in 4e (though somewhat true: healing surges and dailies somewhat limit it).

I mean, in the 4e game I run now, we have one combat in a 3-hour session (partially because combats take quite a while, partially because that's just how it's laid out, partially because I have 6 PC's). Generally, this means that the party gets a "15 minute adventuring day" by default. There's no milestones, because there's not enough time in the session to have more than one combat. 

I've got no real problem with that, as a DM, and I'm not sure if the players do (they haven't mentioned anything yet anyway). Each combat is still challenging and relevant (I usually ramp up the challenge level with a high per-encounter XP budget). As long as the heroes are challenged, they needn't be accosted over and over again by wave upon wave of "assumed victories" only hoping that Goblin #240 gets a lucky crit in simply with the law of averages.

Basically, LTRM, I've found, isn't a great way to measure a challenge. 

That said, in FFZ, I find myself trying to add an element of it. Instead of milestones, FFZ characters get Limit Breaks if they keep going, and Limit Breaks are essential to beat some of the tougher monsters. I've also been thinking about using gil as an element of LTRM: that the party can fail their goal because they can't afford to "get supplies and training." Not sure if that's the best plan, though.

Of course, in FFZ, pacing is very important, and the combats go fairly quick, so the issue of "sameyness in combats" comes up more often than in 4e or 3e. 

But I think, overall, D&D could benefit from taking a page from FFZ and Iron Heroes in controlling the pacing of when big powers are available. Some characters (some builds?) might not begin their day with dailies or encounter powers. They might have to "earn them," through milestones or through specific combat conditions. 

A way to work in a Limit Break System into D&D4e, for instance, would be: "Once per encounter, when the character is bloodied, they gain a Crisis Level. Once they gain 3 Crisis Levels, they can use their Daily Power." 

Essentially, that's how FFZ limit breaks work. In FFZ, different summons change when you get those levels (so a character with a healing summon might gain a Crisis Level when they heal an ally, or a character with a chocobo summon might gain a Crisis Level when they flee combat), but they "ramp up" to your big guns. You can't just wake up in the morning and start blasting things with your nuclear bomb.

I'm also debating making MP a resource that, like in FFTA-2 (and similar to FF13) charges up at the start of an encounter, meaning that powerful abilities take longer to use. 

In fact, I might experiment a bit with such a system in D&D4e soon. But I'd probably just prefer to play some FFZ with some folks. 

(BTW, another thing I like about FFZ's summon system is that it's a group resource: the party controls the summoned creature after it executes it's "nuclear bomb" power)

I'd also *adore* for WotC to take the good advice you gave about mechanics emphasizing archetype and apply it to skill challenges, because that's one space that frickin' needs it.


----------



## Coldwyn (Aug 7, 2010)

I think the nova/15mins problem is related with (mishandling) the CR-System.
When an party encounetrs a critter of equal CR, that encounter should sap 25% of the availlable resources, right?
As a dm, I build quite a lot of encounters where the CR budget exceeded that limit by a huge amount, mainly because I don´t find 4-on-1 fights to be very interesting or cinematic. Ok, so here it is me forcing the players to use nova tactics b/c I mishandle the CR system.
As a player, I always hope for a ton of charged items and scrolls to burn through. I really had to force myself not to hoard items but to hoard spells for the appropriate moment.
Also, as a tangent, I think there´s a correlation why there used to be a large number of threads on gish-style casters in char-ops boards.


----------



## Oldtimer (Aug 7, 2010)

RangerWickett said:


> Daily Powers instead become Awesome Powers. To use an awesome power you have to spend an action point. You get 1 action point at the start of the first encounter between extended rests, 2 at the start of the 2nd, 3 at the 3rd, and so on. You can't use the same 'awesome power' more than once in the same encounter.



Hmm, this got me thinking...

How about adding some more Action Points and just giving another use for them?
1. You gain an Action Point after every encounter.
2. You cannot spend more than one Action Point per round.
3. You can spend an Action Point to use an available Daily power without expending the use of that power.

That way you'll have more of an incentive to save Dailies for later when you have more Action Points. Right?

Obviously, this is a 4e solution, but something similar might work in 3.x as well. Weren't Reserve Feats giving a similar incentive for casters in 3.x?


----------



## BlubSeabass (Aug 7, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think we probably draw the bar at what is a 'flaw' in game mechanics at different places - I think that a trick combination which allows someone to do 10000 damage is a flaw, but a whole lot of other stuff (including the nature of the issue under discussion) isn't a flaw in a game system but just a reflection of the flexibility of the system.
> 
> From 3e onwards there has been an increasing desire to 'balance' stuff, but I wonder whether it is chasing after hobgoblins (in the literary sense!) as more and more rules and more and more special cases get introduced which in turn introduce new corner cases... and the illusion of a system as perfectly balanced as, say, chess (or perhaps Magic the Gathering?) becomes the standard to be desired in itself.




I see your points. I think you are right about more rules would easily lead to more more corner cases.

I'm relatively new to tabletop RPG. I started out (as DM) 2 years ago, using 3.5, and switched to pathfinder a bit more then half a year ago. I just played with the core books, so no modules or anything. And you're right, even with new people the 15-minute workday has never been a real problem. The players mostly prefered to move on (Though the druid hated to prepare spells, and the sorcerer mostly used debuffs-making him less novatastic, and we never got to high levels). The few times I did anticipate it would be a problem, I just changed the environment so resting was impossible. The social and DMing aspect of the game seemed to fix the problem by itself.

Now I did play neverwinter nights, which uses the same mechanics. And there I abused resting till I got bored with the game. There was no DM to stop me, and no fighter who didn't want to keep guard. Point is, that because of this, I do see it as a mechanical flaw, but one practicly solved. This and the idea of thoughening up after each encounter just appeals me. But I understand your point very well, and it will probably be the point of view from which I will DM.


----------



## knightofround (Aug 7, 2010)

One suggestion I haven't seen in this thread yet would be replacing the Daily-power system with a combo system. So you'd still have three tiers of powers: at-will, encounter, and daily, however you could only use them on round 1/2/3 respectively. After using the 3rd tier you'd reset back to 1, and work your way back up. However, the key difference is that you never "run out" on your combos. You can't nova by dropping 6-8 dailies within 4 rounds like other classes, but you never "run out" of encounter and daily powers either.

Heck, you could even have higher level powers add additional levels to your combos. So you could eventually get 1/2/3/4, or 1/1.5/2/3 (where using the 1.5 power would be optional.) On turn one your attack would start off as a scorching burst, on turn two it would rush back towards you in the form of burning hands, and on the third turn it would coalesce into a flaming sphere.

Given what they've done with psionics and essentials, I don't think such a combat system is totally out of the realm of possibility. I think it makes more sense for the martial power source, whose vancian powers always felt a bit awkward.

I kinda like the idea of using healing surges as resources to limit how far the party can go each day. But this could be offset by giving incentives to continue onwards; like start with 0 action points after an extended rest, gain 1 AP per encounter that is of equal CR or higher (its important not to hand out AP for trivial combats), and you can spend multiple ap per encounter (but not per round). This way, players can still "nova"...but "nova"-ing requires a several hour workday instead of a 15 minute workday.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 7, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm still having some difficulty wrapping my mind around what, exactly, the problem with the "15 minute adventuring day" *is*.



Apparently, it's that many people don't like having that option as such an appealing one.

In changing the rules that facilitate it, the OP seemed to want to reduce decline in powers, while some others want to increase incentives to press on despite declining powers.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 7, 2010)

Ariosto said:
			
		

> Apparently, it's that many people don't like having that option as such an appealing one.




Right, but why not? How does it create a negative effect at the table? What specifically happens to make it an issue? What's the deal with it? What does it cause that is negative? How is it un-fun?



> In changing the rules that facilitate it, the OP seemed to want to reduce decline in powers, while some others want to increase incentives to press on despite declining powers.




I see that as more of a narrative issue, an issue of "rising action." In standard D&D for every edition, the rising action is often a form of attrition: the tension increases as the party gets closer and closer to true irrevocable death, as their LTRs depleted.

In the more modern editions, the pain and tension of death and LTRM has been lessened, so there's less "rising action" on the side of the DM. The action is now on the players' side, and they still have recharge mechanics that date back to the grey box, without the troubles that come along with running out of resources that that edition provided.

If the problem is one of lacking a rising action, you can basically do two things: put back in some resources that the party can almost never recover (like an idea I had of allowing extended rests only once per adventure), or ramp up the party's power so that they're doing more incredible things as time goes on (this is essentially how a lot of fighting anime works: they never just assemble Voltron right away).


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 7, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Right, but why not?



If that is relevant to the matter at hand -- suggested "game design" to change the situation -- then I am sure that someone will point out how.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 7, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I see that as more of a narrative issue



Well, the OP posed it as a "mechanical" issue.



> they still have recharge mechanics that date back to the grey box, without the troubles that come along with running out of resources that that edition provided.



"The grey box"? I don't think you mean Forgotten Realms Second Edition!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 7, 2010)

Ariosto said:
			
		

> If that is relevant to the matter at hand -- suggested "game design" to change the situation -- then I am sure that someone will point out how.




Well, it's relevant, because changing "the situation" might not change the root of the problem, if we don't understand the root of the problem in the first place.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 8, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Right, but why not? How does it create a negative effect at the table? What specifically happens to make it an issue? What's the deal with it? What does it cause that is negative? How is it un-fun?




As a strategy it's too good - it radically reduces the level of challenge.  Consider the dungeon delves that WotC released - three encounters in a row.  Challenging to go through without rest; little challenge if the PCs can take as long as they want.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 8, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> > There is no one way a class is "supposed to be played."
> 
> 
> 
> That's for you to say of your own game design. I'm talking about Gygax's game design, and what others have made by mangling it.



_My _game design?  What are you talking about?

I've been playing AD&D since 1977- and still in an active 1Ed/2Ed hybrid game that started back in 1985- and I've played my fighters in a variety of ways.  Dumb guys, smart guys, tactical guys, "Leeroy Jenkinses", ranged fighters, guerilla fighters, unmoving walls of meat & metal, polearm guys, in-close knife-fighters and so forth.

Later editions of the game introduced even more flexibility in PC design.

So I reiterate- there is no one way a class is supposed to be played.



> Do you seriously think it makes no difference when one class (fighter) gets stuck in the same old limits, while others (clerics and magic-users) encroach on those?



Magic has let everyone encroach on the Fighter's shtick since AD&D- spells like _Mordenkainen's Sword_, potions of Heroism or Super-heroism, etc.- started the trend early on.

If the spellcaster wants to burn spells to fight like a fighter when he could be doing other things, let him.  When he gets stuck on the front line surrounded by foes (just like the fighter usually does) and the need for real magic is needed...well, the party will just have to wait while he fights his way out of his pickle of the moment.  (Hope no enemy spellcaster can dispel his magically-gained melee prowess...)

But how does this "encroachment" issue matter to the 15 minute workday?  




> Actually, yes it does, by the old rules, and for good reason.
> It's this little thing called "game balance".




_Now_ who is being selective?

I _specifically_ said in that very post that a spellslinger wouldn't be as good with a bow as someone who is a dedicated bowman.  In fact, the very next sentence is:



> *Me*
> 
> Not as proficient as the guy who does it all day and has done since childhood, to be sure, but competent nonetheless.




I'm not saying that a spellcaster with a bow will ever be the equal of a warrior similarly equipped.  That's not what I'm saying with "competent" or "proficient"- I'm saying he is proficient with the weapon as per the rules of the game and can use the weapon as is intended.  He may not be able to fire 2 arrows into a single target simultaneously, but he can put one on a hostile target 50 feet away.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 9, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> So what would be the absolute _worst_ way to fix the 15-minute adventuring day problem?
> 
> (1) Give all classes daily powers (increasing the mechanical incentive for nova strategies).
> 
> (2) Create a hard cap on the amount of healing any single character can receive (introducing a hard limit resulting in forced rests that didn't previously exist).



I can see the logic of your point, and yet I've found that 4e _has_ mostly solved the 15-minute adventuring day problem for my group (before 4e we played RM, which has a PP-based magic system and suffers very badly, IME, from the 15-minute syndrome).

Given my experience, I should be able to work out what has gone wrong with your logic. In the case of daily powers, the relevant consideration is that (at least for the PCs in my game) they are often quite situational, and hence they don't support a nova strategy. I do have a sorcerer PC whose player likes to nova, but he does this by putting as many interrupts (all encounter powers, I think) into his build as possible.

In the case of healing surges, the relevant consideration is that (at least for the PCs in my game) there is a limit on how many surges they can spend during a combat. And of course they can't spend more than 4 once combat is over. So while healing does impose a hard limit, it is not a 15-minute one.

Another feature of 4e that has helped reduce 15-minute days for my group is that an extended rest doesn't give any benefit if you've taken one in the past 24 hours. This is a bit like a watered-down version of Dausuul's approach up thread - compared to RM, this is a serious enough time cost for resting that the players don't always reach for it as their preferred option.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 9, 2010)

Coldwyn said:
			
		

> I think the nova/15mins problem is related with (mishandling) the CR-System.



You know, I just realized something about my experience with the 15-minute adventuring day. I think a DM's mishandling of the EL system has a lot to do with it.

As a DM, I hadn't really seen this concept come up very much after about 3rd or 4th level. At low levels, the PCs have few resources (like only two or three 1st-level spells), and they can use them up quickly. But once they get more resources, they can hold out longer on an adventure.

When I've designed adventures for my group, I usually had several encounters with an EL below the party level. I didn't really mindfully follow the D&D3 DMG guidelines for ELs, but looking over my adventures, my "design it by gut feel" method often ended up in alignment with the DMG guidelines.

This design methodology is something I've followed since my earliest D&D days -- BD&D, AD&D, into D&D3. I just saw the guidelines in the D&D3 DMG as confirmation that my tried and true methods, learned from and based on classic D&D adventures, were good.

Once the PCs were 5th, 7th, 9th levels and higher, we could play through many encounters, deep into dungeons, without the PCs having to rest and regain resources.

But then, about a year ago, our group agreed to run a round-robin-DM campaign. We'd each run an adventure, in turns. This is when I started noticing the 15-minute day.

To illustrate what seemed to be happening (D&D3 game):

I'd make an adventure, with, say, 10 encounters:
1- EL = PL -3
2- EL = PL -2
3- EL = PL -5
4- EL = PL -1
5- EL = PL -2
6- EL = PL
7- EL = PL -4
8- EL = PL -3
9- EL = PL
10- EL = PL +2

The PCs could, if they were strategic and "good", make it all the way through the adventure in one game day. Probably, though, they'd have to rest at least once, taking two game days to complete it.

But then when another guy in our group ran his adventure (10 encounters):
1- EL = PL
2- EL = PL
3- EL = PL
4- EL = PL
5- EL = PL
6- EL = PL
7- EL = PL
8- EL = PL
9- EL = PL
10- EL = PL

Then another guy in our group, seeing how long it took us to go through the previous adventure (because we had to rest after every few encounters), would make a shorter but tougher adventure (5 encounters)

1- EL = PL +1
2- EL = PL +1
3- EL = PL +1
4- EL = PL +1
5- EL = PL +1

Then the next guy to run an adventure, saw how relatively easily we started handling the encounters would up the ante even more:

1- EL = PL +2
2- EL = PL +2
3- EL = PL +2
4- EL = PL +2
5- EL = PL +2

Eventually it got to the point where we'd rest after every encounter. We'd meet every next encounter with a full resource dump. It took everything we had to survive the encounters, and we'd be completely spent at the end. Our game sessions would be just one or two major encounters.

It even got to the point where when we got good at overcoming the major ELs that the DM handwaved a duplicate encounter because he knew we'd win it.

Then one of the guys used a _Dragon_ magazine adventure -- one apparently designed based on the DMG guidelines. I saw PCs throwing their biggest resources into a fight that really didn't need it. We'd wipe out a couple EL = PL -2 encounters easily, and then everyone wanted to rest to recover resources. This adventure was pretty easy, but it took us several game days to get through.

I tried talking to the other guys about this, but the general opinion seemed to be that fights below PL weren't interesting (to the DM running the adventure). Only "challenging" encounters were worth the effort. And the general consensus was that the DMG idea of "challenging" (that is, EL = PL) was not strong enough. Only ELs of PL +2 and more were actually challenging to the PCs -- "challenging" in this case, meaning balls-to-the-wall, use all our resources to survive and overcome.

So the 15-minute day became annoying, but the DMs always made high challenges that required "recharging" before each one.

It was a vicious cycle.

Bullgrit


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 9, 2010)

Bullgrit said:
			
		

> We'd wipe out a couple EL = PL -2 encounters easily, and then everyone wanted to rest to recover resources.



For example (D&D3 game):

We entered a room where about a dozen human zombies rose up and shambled to us. We had two tanks up front (including my war cleric). If I wanted to, my cleric could have destroyed all the zombies with one turn undead. But I decided to hold that resource in case something worse showed up later. We two tanks could kill the zombies in melee easily, and the zombies were unlikely to hit our ACs. 

Basically, give us a few rounds (what, 5 minutes?), and we'd be moving on to the next encounter. But the wizard PC threw in a fireball and killed all the zombies.

First off, we tanks were a bit miffed at having a fireball thrown into our melee (it missed us by 5'). But then I got to thinking how much of a waste it was to use a 3rd-level spell on a dozen basic zombies.

This causes the 15-minute day.

Bullgrit


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 9, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> This causes the 15-minute day.




That + the lack of consequences for that choice.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 9, 2010)

Bullgrit, I have never seen a 4e combat last 5 minutes. I can't imagine having 5 combat encounters in a single night's game.

Personally, I prefer to run games like I see TV series and novels: one or two plot-significant combats at most, and only once in a blue moon will we throw in a plot-non-significant combat, usually to add some flavor or show how bad-ass the PCs are. 

Heck, even the idea that "fighting for your life" could be 'filler' is unappealing to me. If you have more than one fight in a day, by rights you should be looking for how to get the hell out of there and find some place safe. But that's just the way I want to run my game.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 9, 2010)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Bullgrit, I have never seen a 4e combat last 5 minutes. I can't imagine having 5 combat encounters in a single night's game.



Sorry, I wasn't talking about D&D4. My examples were from a D&D3 campaign. I keep forgetting that D&D4 is the basic assumption -- the current edition always is.

Bullgrit


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 9, 2010)

I've been playing a PC game called King's Bounty and it has some interesting mechanics - Rage and Mana. Both can be spent to cast spells. Rage is generated by fighting and declines when you're out of combat. Mana mostly only regenerates out of combat. So Mana encourages you to rest between fights (like Vancian magic) whereas Rage encourages you to press on.

It shows that, purely thru mechanical means, a system can encourage the 'press on' or '15-minute day' styles of play. D&D has mostly had a Mana type of mechanic. Any encouragement to press on, or conserve resources, does not come from the system, but from the DM/world/consequences.

4e has something like a Rage mechanic in Action Points, but they probably need to be strengthened a bit before one would see the end of the 15-minute day.

One could even imagine a D&D where there was no Mana-type mechanic, only Rage. Every fight makes you better and better, like the Incredible Hulk. It would need something to prevent such a process getting out of hand. But such a mechanic, if sufficiently strong, would certainly spell the end of the 15-minute day.

World of Warcraft also has Rage and Mana tho they are the preserve of different classes, leading to an interesting contrast of styles. Warriors have Rage and are thus incentivised to press on. Several caster classes have mana and are thus incentivised to rest.

D&D - Not videogame-y enough!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 9, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> I tried talking to the other guys about this, but the general opinion seemed to be that fights below PL weren't interesting (to the DM running the adventure). Only "challenging" encounters were worth the effort. And the general consensus was that the DMG idea of "challenging" (that is, EL = PL) was not strong enough. Only ELs of PL +2 and more were actually challenging to the PCs -- "challenging" in this case, meaning balls-to-the-wall, use all our resources to survive and overcome.



This is my view as well. I find the non-challenging fights to be dull.

4e seems to have managed a cunning trick by making PC hit points relatively low so it's quite likely a PC will drop every fight. It makes them feel challenging even tho I don't think they really are.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Aug 9, 2010)

RangerWickett said:


> Personally, I prefer to run games like I see TV series and novels: one or two plot-significant combats at most, and only once in a blue moon will we throw in a plot-non-significant combat, usually to add some flavor or show how bad-ass the PCs are.



Exactly the same here.  I think fights should be plot points, not the whole reason for the story.

Of course I realize D&D wasn't designed for that, and that it would have to be pretty heavily retooled to fit that idea.  But I'll ask anyway.


----------



## Skyscraper (Aug 9, 2010)

I don't like the milestone resource - I find it makes things unnecessarily complex and adds book keeping that I'd rather not have. We've ditched that resource entirely in our games (e.g. use of an action point is an encounter power).

Consequently, I'm not too fond of a rule based on milestones.

I would rather see some press-on incentives that pick off on existing rules.

Someone suggested an incremental XP multiplier: that sounds like a neat idea (though not for me, I've ditched XPs too. We've kept everything else if you're wondering  ).

One idea would be to give the PCs a bonus after every encounter. For example,  each PC could choose one of the following bonuses after each encounter: +1 to AC, non-AC defenses, attack rolls or damage rolls or +1d6 to crits, without possibility to get the same bonus twice until you've had each bonus at least once (i.e. to get +2 to attack rolls, you need to first get through at least 5 encounters; and to get +3 to attack rolls you need to get through at least 10 encounters). This would beaf up the PCs though and would also increase book keeping, so I don't know that I would want this mechanic. Well, 15-minute work day is not a problem in any group I play, so the question is moot for me anyway, I'm just participating to the brainstorming here.

Sky


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 11, 2010)

> I think fights should be plot points, not the whole reason for the story.



I see the fights as the framework for the story -- any story comes out of the series of fights. I play D&D to battle monsters and discover treasure. "Story" is the icing on the cake.



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 4e seems to have managed a cunning trick by making PC hit points relatively low so it's quite likely a PC will drop every fight. It makes them feel challenging even tho I don't think they really are.



Huh? I have to ask about this. I don't play 4e, so maybe I've misunderstood the numbers I've seen, but aren't 4e hit points higher than they've ever been? I mean, like 25 hp at first level, and up from there?

Bullgrit


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 11, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> Huh? I have to ask about this. I don't play 4e, so maybe I've misunderstood the numbers I've seen, but aren't 4e hit points higher than they've ever been? I mean, like 25 hp at first level, and up from there?




Yeah, I blinked a little at that. It does seem to be the case that 4E characters go negative more often than in previous editions, but teasing out why is difficult. As you say, hit points (and more importantly, hit point to damage ratios) have gone up, not down, in 4E*.

I think the main reason is the way negative hit points work. Before 4E, going negative was a seriously dangerous business. If you were playing by the rules as written, there was only a narrow buffer zone between "unconscious" and "dead." Even at first level, a solid crit could slam you down to -10 in one shot, and as you leveled up and damage output increased, that buffer zone narrowed to a sliver. So when PCs went negative, there was a fair likelihood they wouldn't get back up. A campaign that sent PCs into negative hit points frequently was going to see a pretty high casualty rate, and there was a strong incentive to do whatever was necessary to avoid it.

In 4E, however, the buffer zone grows as you level up, and there aren't nearly as many attacks that can take you all the way to negative bloodied in one go. In addition, you always have at least three rounds before dying, thanks to the death saves rule. As a result, going negative is a much less risky proposition. PCs are more willing to court it, and DMs can crank up the difficulty high enough to make it happen frequently without risk of a TPK.

Moreover, the "count up from zero" rule means that there is even an _incentive_ to go negative. (For those not familiar with 4E, when you use a healing effect on a character at 0 or less hit points, all negative hit points are erased and _then_ the healing effect is applied; you count up from zero, hence the name.) I have often seen leaders deliberately hold their healing powers until somebody drops, because you get more bang for your healing buck that way--positive hit points cost money, but negative hit points are free.

All that said, a 4E DM who wants to put the fear back into negative hit points has the tools to do so. All that's required is monsters willing to take an extra round and coup de grace fallen PCs. But the DMG actively discourages that, urging DMs to avoid attacking unconscious characters. It's emphatic enough that a novice DM of my acquaintance thought it was an actual rule.

[size=-2]*Well, not entirely. In absolute terms, high-level 3E tanks have more hit points than their 4E equivalents. Take a 10th-level fighter with a base Con of 14. In 3E, that fighter will likely have at least +2 Con from items, and will average 90 hit points or so. In 4E, the same fighter will have 73 hit points. However, the 3E fighter will also be dishing out multiple attacks per round with damage likely in the 15-20 range per hit, while the 4E fighter gets only one attack for the same amount.[/size]


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 11, 2010)

Good analysis, Dausuul.  Sorry I can't XP you for it right now.



Doug McCrae said:


> 4e seems to have managed a cunning trick by making PC hit points relatively low so it's quite likely a PC will drop every fight. It makes them feel challenging even tho I don't think they really are.




I guess that is part of my problem with 4e; I see easily through that "cunning trick" and I find non-challenging fights to be dull when they last over half an hour!



RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 12, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> Huh? I have to ask about this. I don't play 4e, so maybe I've misunderstood the numbers I've seen, but aren't 4e hit points higher than they've ever been? I mean, like 25 hp at first level, and up from there?



Yes. About 25 hp at first level then most classes get 5 hp for every level thereafter. So a level 10 PC will have about 70, level 20 120 and level 30 170. That's probably a bit higher than previous editions, but it's low compared to 4e monsters. The typical normal monster will have its level times 8 in hp, plus Con plus 8. So a level 10 monster will have about 100, level 20 180 and level 30 260. Elite and boss monsters have twice or four times that amount.

PC damage output seems to be a bit higher than that of the monsters however, which balances things, plus they have healing, dailies, action points and other resources like healing potions that they can spend when they have to. And, unlike the monsters, they don't die at zero. The last one is probably the key factor.

In the most recent game I ran, the fights were with roughly equal level monsters and in two out of three, one PC dropped to negatives. I've not run 4e very much, this was only my third session as a DM of it, but I thoroughly enjoyed these combats. Somehow they felt tense, without being particularly deadly. PCs are supposed to be able to handle tougher fights, up to party level +4 of equal numbers of monsters, but they are expected to exhaust dailies to do this. A level +4 would be a typical BBEG encounter. The final encounter in Keep on the Shadowfell, for levels 1-3, is level 6. Orcus in MM1 is a level 33 solo, Demogorgon (MM2) is 34 and Lolth is 35 (MM3).

Check the power creep!


----------



## Sylrae (Aug 12, 2010)

As mentioned by a few people early in this thread, it's a matter of playstyle. When I GM, or most of my friends GM, there is rarely the opportunity to rest after 1 fight.

However one of the things I like most from anime, is that as characters get more desperate and are forced to press on, their resolve to not give up helps them do better. they may get stronger, may force themselves to get up and then their accuracy goes up, or they get tougher (depending on the character). I think I like the idea of both rewarding the players for pressing on, and the idea for making really important moments more epic.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 12, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:


> 4e seems to have managed a cunning trick by making PC hit points relatively low so it's quite likely a PC will drop every fight. It makes them feel challenging even tho I don't think they really are.





Raven Crowking said:


> I guess that is part of my problem with 4e; I see easily through that "cunning trick" and I find non-challenging fights to be dull when they last over half an hour!





Doug McCrae said:


> I thoroughly enjoyed these combats. Somehow they felt tense, without being particularly deadly.



My experience is closer to Doug's than RC's.

I remember some of the long threads debating this issue back before 4e was released, and the same issue came up then. My experience playing 4e has borne out my own predictions about how it would play - that the combats are not particularly deadly, _provided that_ they are played well by the players. The challenge, then, consists in playing well. It's a type of collective puzzle-solving endeavour for the players - for any encounter of party level + 4 or less there is a solution (or multiple solutions) available, and the challenge for the players is to identify and deploy that solution as the encounter unfolds at the table.

I can fully understand that this type of play may be unappealing to some. But it works very well for my group. We've come over from Rolemaster, and RM also involves this sort of play (because every round melee combat requires the player to call an OB/DB split, and every spell cast involves optimising for effect versus power point cost versus failure chance).

Those who prefer games where the tactics are less metagamey, less along the lines of a semi-mathematical optimisation of the party both individually and collectively in the two dimensions of maximising their impact on the combat while keeping themselves safe, are probably less likely to enjoy 4e. I would put games like RuneQuest, and at least some sorts of AD&D and 3E play, in this category.


----------



## napoleonbuff (Aug 12, 2010)

I had previously instituted that for every milestone, xp would go up 10% (e.g., after two milestones the players earn +20% xp).

This had very little effect.  The players would sometimes consider it, but for the most part it was the loss of their daily powers that would cause them to rest.

Toward that end, this last session I decided to make it that the players would also regain one daily power (attack, utility or item) per milestone, but never the same daily power twice in one day.

This made a big difference, as for once it was healing surges rather than daily powers that finally caused the players to rest (they got in five tough fights against monster's bumped to MM3 type damage).  This is exactly as I prefer it, as to me healing surges or story points, not lack of dailies, should be the motivator for resting.

I also let each ritual user use one free ritual per milestone (half cost for creating consumable items).


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 12, 2010)

As DMs are coming up with ways to get the PCs to press on in an adventure, how do you avoid pushing them into the "just one more room" mindset that leads to TPKs?

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 12, 2010)

I leave that up to them.


----------



## napoleonbuff (Aug 12, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> As DMs are coming up with ways to get the PCs to press on in an adventure, how do you avoid pushing them into the "just one more room" mindset that leads to TPKs?
> 
> Bullgrit




Fortunately, with a cleric, warlord and paladin in a seven-player party, there are plenty of ways for my group to avoid a TPK.

Plus, with the method I instituted, it seems like the players will never be too far down the power curve from where they started the day, so as long as they make sure they have some healing possibilities before going into an encounter, it doesn't seem like they'll be too far off from the first encounter of the day in terms of danger.

For example, this past weekend the warlord was down to just 1 healing surge after the fourth encounter, but the paladin still had both his lay on hands in reserves (and plenty of surges of his own), while the cleric had cure serious wounds (not to mention other surgeless healing).

After the fifth encounter, the warlord was out of healing surges, so even with multiple healing methods available, the party decided to call a halt.

At least with my group, I think the xp bonus and the ability to recover some dailies gives little mechanical incentives to press on, but not so much that they'll tend to being overly reckless.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 14, 2010)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I've been playing a PC game called King's Bounty and it has some interesting mechanics - Rage and Mana.




This must be a different game called King's Bounty than the one I remember (New World Computing, 1990). In that one, spells were single-use items like scrolls in OD&D. You could carry only so many at a time, and could buy more at a town that sold a particular spell.

Maintenance of normal and monstrous retainers also cost money week by week. How did you get money? By pressing on to capture villains and turn them in for the king's bounty!

That also scored pieces of a map. The game's victory condition was to locate a magic scepter before the king died -- so dilly-dallying could lose the game.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 14, 2010)

Ariosto said:


> This must be a different game called King's Bounty than the one I remember (New World Computing, 1990). In that one, spells were single-use items like scrolls in OD&D. You could carry only so many at a time, and could buy more at a town that sold a particular spell.
> 
> Maintenance of normal and monstrous retainers also cost money week by week. How did you get money? By pressing on to capture villains and turn them in for the king's bounty!
> 
> That also scored pieces of a map. The game's victory condition was to locate a magic scepter before the king died -- so dilly-dallying could lose the game.




Yeah, I was also thinking of that game when I saw King's Bounty brought up. It was the precursor of the "Heroes of Might and Magic" franchise, as I recall.


----------



## karolusb (Aug 14, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> The "problem" with the 15-minute work day is that the GM has a mental construct of "how things are supposed to happen" that the players playing smartly and sitting down to rest is disturbing enough that a smart tactical option is considered a "problem."
> 
> In other words, *narrative desire *- the desire to have a "plot" or a "story" - is being impinged upon because the GM desires things to happen in a certain way. We're the GM impartial and relying upon the players to drive the game (as opposed to a "plot") there is no more a feeling of unease or dissatisfaction from the 15-minute work day than one gets from from when the players use any other of their available options to perform better as a group.
> 
> ...




I think you have it exactly and specifically wrong.  

Across all systems here is the overarching problem with the 15 minute workday for me: An infinite resource can't be managed.  Players aren't "managing" rests if there is no disincentive to rest.  You aren't making a choice to rest, you are forced to rest by the rules.  

It makes a bad game (by skewing the rules), a bad narrative (nothing is ever accomplished this way in history literature or the real world, so it feels painfully artificial), and, if you prefer a simulation argument, people who sleep in musty underground tombs 6 days a week die young from nasty lung infections, so it makes a bad simulation as well.  (OD&D had a bunch of these effects built into the rules, since newer editions don’t you claim that they are attempts to overwrite the game with narrative, was the 1st ed disease chart a narraivist construct?)

The 15 minute workday affects different games differently:  I never saw it in 3.  Not sure if it was the rules (buff spells that lasted for hours) or the wide eyed nature of rediscovering d&d after a decade of mocking it.  

I have heard horror stories of 3.5.  Two friends both joined, at different times, a campaign that had exactly one play style, after a session or two of realizing that the characters they wanted to play didn't fit they had to build characters that did.  Every day was haste, fireball+fireball, fireball+fireball, fireball+fireball, sleep.  In that game the 15 minute workday would have made it unplayable for me.  Everyone in that game was a pure spellcaster, as any other character was completely impotent.  

I view it as a verisimilitude problem in 4, a problem with static dungeons, more than mechanics.  (In previous editions it didn't take very many rest interruptions with fighters out of thier armor for players to start thinking very, very hard about the value of a rest).  Since all players have equal types of powers, the gm can adjust the game if needed, and in reality around the time that frequent rests start to become tempting (once you have 3 daily powers) the game starts to have incentives to push on (items in paragon, especially rings) tend to have powerful milestone effects.  

As someone already pointed out every ShadowRun is a different type of 15 minute workday, once you go, you go, turning back is failure, no foot dragging.  

Not every game can be a frenzied race against time (and even these also take away the players choice), but some settings work pretty well this way.  I really liked the Red Hand of Doom's structure.  There was time, but not an infinite amount, cutting today short might mean having to push past your limits tomorrow (or failing to meet a critical objective).  Overall I think it is kinda of an ideal format, with competing incentives and disincentives, allowing for meaningful choices.  

When I was running a West Marches style 4E game we had a simple rule, rests happen in town.  Returning to town ends the game session.  By the time you got back to the tomb, perhaps someone else had already plundered it or maybe the residents realizing they were under siege packed up their loot and went home.  Never once had a game cut short early, or people complain about rests.


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 15, 2010)

karolusb said:


> I think you have it exactly and specifically wrong.
> 
> Across all systems here is the overarching problem with the 15 minute workday for me: An infinite resource can't be managed. Players aren't "managing" rests if there is no disincentive to rest. You aren't making a choice to rest, you are forced to rest by the rules.




I don't think of time as only a resource to be managed because I don't think of role-playing as "a game with resources" - I think of it as "playing pretend" - which is a much larger box. The player characters in a game have just as much time as we here in the real world have, and like the great explorers of history they have the option to rest when they think best or keep moving when they think best.

No one is EVER forced to rest by the rules. Playing when sub-optimal is just as fun as playing when optimal. Time is as much a resource to a PC as it is to me in the real world.



> It makes a bad game (by skewing the rules)




The rules are fine. Players can rest when they want to, but should expect, just like in real life, that situations change when time passes. All the reasons why people throughout history didn't rest even if it would have improved their overall ability apply to the PCs as well.



> , a bad narrative (nothing is ever accomplished this way in history literature or the real world, so it feels painfully artificial)




History is full of people making decisions to rest for resupply. It's also full of people who wanted to rest for resupply but didn't have the time for it. Time moves. Resting is a good strategy sometimes relative to goals and a bad strategy other times relative to goals.



> and, if you prefer a simulation argument, people who sleep in musty underground tombs 6 days a week die young from nasty lung infections, so it makes a bad simulation as well. (OD&D had a bunch of these effects built into the rules, since newer editions don’t you claim that they are attempts to overwrite the game with narrative, was the 1st ed disease chart a narraivist construct?)




Of course its a narrative construct as I use the term - that chart was an attempt to create a narrative - a narrative preferring action over caution.

I don't do the whole GNS thing and my words don't mean what GNS means. I "play pretend" instead.

If one actually "plays pretend" when gaming, the 15 minute workday isn't a problem. All the reasons why some groups of soldiers continue to march when low on supplies while others rest to resupply apply here as well, IMO.

joe b.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 15, 2010)

> no one is ever forced to rest by the rules.




qft.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 15, 2010)

Joe, don't you think the rules have some influence on the decisions the players make?


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 15, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> Joe, don't you think the rules have some influence on the decisions the players make?




Yes. However, the players need to understand that no rules-set will be optimal for an rpg given the complete openess of "the game" and play their PCs as if they were there, not as if they are a collection of rules. Regardless what system they're using.

I was reading The Temple of Elemental Evil recently and there was a quote that cuts right to the heart of what I'm trying to say. [Advice to the DM] "_In short - play each and every character and group as if you yourself were there_."

Sometimes you would rest, sometimes you would continue on, and that decision isn't an easy one because the world moves on while you rest. If a group chooses the 15 minute work day as SOP they'll face consequences because the world moves on. If they don't rest, they'll face consequences because they are not as powerful were they to rest.

Neither of those states makes for "better" play because the game is the *play*. Not the winning or the losing or achieving a goal or failing. The game is the *journey*, not the destination. The game is the event, not the outcome of the event.

The GM is responsible to make his world a living world as best as he can. If he does that properly, sometimes resting is the better decision, but sometimes it's not. The GM should try to remain impartial and let the players do what they think best, regardless what the consequences that has upon his adventure, campaign, or world.

The desire to have X happen is something a GM should avoid at all costs. X may happen or it may not. If it does cool, if not cool. The GM needs to understand that he's not in control of the group in any way, the players are. The GM is in control of world.

And, as always, this is all IMO, of course.

joe b.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 16, 2010)

Party A signs up for a session. A typical one-day descent into the pits takes a week of game time. These guys, though, just poke along until the first wandering monsters, then bug out and take a couple of days to recover.

After the third go, they're docked another week of time -- which is all that's left before Party B's scheduled expedition into the same dungeons.

"Sorry, guys," the ref announces, "but your turn here is over until Party B get theirs."
"But we've scored hardly any points!"
"That's due to your choice in how to spend your time. If I can get Mike to co-DM, then we can run you simultaneously starting after B's first day in the depths. Otherwise, they will get the same amount of time that you squandered."

Party B on their first day bring out a good haul of treasure. Along the way, they use up some of the magic arrows, potions and scrolls they have found -- in service of acquiring more loot and experience points.

"We left some copper for you," they tell Party A. "There's even some silver behind a secret door, if you can find it. Since you lack magic weapons -- such as these we found today -- we'll warn you that there's a wraith in the blue chambers. It would be inconvenient if any of you were to join the haunting of those halls."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 16, 2010)

> Across all systems here is the overarching problem with the 15 minute workday for me: An infinite resource can't be managed. Players aren't "managing" rests if there is no disincentive to rest. You aren't making a choice to rest, you are forced to rest by the rules.




Interesting. 

If you're playing a more "cinematic" style, like a TV show or a movie, then you don't really concern yourself with LTRM (long-term resource management). You have the combat, and maybe the next one, and that's it. Every combat should be almost a TPK, so that all the party's resources are drained in that one combat. 

If you're playing a more "sanbox" style, then I can see this infinite-recharge reducing the difficulty of a given party of the sandbox. It's healing that can keep getting done, and the DM can't stop it. Every combat is maybe 1/5th or 1/10th of the party's resources, and, if the party keeps recharging with 9/10ths of their resources left, then they probably won't feel very challenged. LTRM is basically where the challenge is -- each individual combat might not be that tough, but put together without rest, it becomes more and more difficult. 

It's an interesting stylistic distinction. I'm puzzling out how to deal with the LTRM aspect of a highly cinematic game right now, and it's a little puzzling. 4e seems to err heavily on the side of "cinematic," throwing a few bones (healing surges, milestones) to those who do it with LTRM being a central aspect.

Hmm...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 16, 2010)

jgbrowning said:


> I don't think of time as only a resource to be managed because I don't think of role-playing as "a game with resources" - I think of it as "playing pretend" - which is a much larger box. The player characters in a game have just as much time as we here in the real world have, and like the great explorers of history they have the option to rest when they think best or keep moving when they think best.
> 
> ...
> 
> The rules are fine. Players can rest when they want to, but should expect, just like in real life, that situations change when time passes. All the reasons why people throughout history didn't rest even if it would have improved their overall ability apply to the PCs as well.






jgbrowning said:


> Sometimes you would rest, sometimes you would continue on, and that decision isn't an easy one because the world moves on while you rest. If a group chooses the 15 minute work day as SOP they'll face consequences because the world moves on. If they don't rest, they'll face consequences because they are not as powerful were they to rest.
> 
> Neither of those states makes for "better" play because the game is the *play*. Not the winning or the losing or achieving a goal or failing. The game is the *journey*, not the destination. The game is the event, not the outcome of the event.





All excellent points. Thanks!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Aug 16, 2010)

> All the reasons why people throughout history didn't rest even if it would have improved their overall ability apply to the PCs as well.




QFT again!  This hints at the kind of thing I'm talking about.

A party on a delve may be beaten up and stretched thin, but just because THEY'RE in dire straits doesn't mean their opponents are.  They can't expect to find a quiet place to rest and recharge on enemy turf just because they're running on empty, and a DM is perfectly within the realm of fair play if he harries them -preventing from getting R&R- if they try.

If the PCs expend all of their non-renewable resources before they've cleared enough space in which they can reasonably expect to get some quiet time, then that is on them.

And that is 100% about playstyle.


----------



## Riverwalker (Sep 13, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If you're playing a more "cinematic" style, like a TV show or a movie, then you don't really concern yourself with LTRM (long-term resource management). You have the combat, and maybe the next one, and that's it. Every combat should be almost a TPK, so that all the party's resources are drained in that one combat.




I am toying with this in my current game and have experienced something interesting.  
For the first 4 levels of the party I ran straight 4e adventures (KotS and a Dungeon one), but for the past 2 levels I have run an adaption of an earlier edition scenario (Dwellers of the Fobidden City).  With KotS the players were much more likely to choose the '15 minute work day', but with DotFC they are taking on many more encounters.     
There are two main changes between the two situations that I can see:
- the structure of the scenario is more open, dynamic and player driven in DotFC
- my conversion of DotFC has meant a much greater variety of difficulty of encounters i.e. some are very easy and some are very hard, compared to KotS which were more consistently challenging.  Some fights are trival, and I suspect some groups would find them dull due to being too easy - my group rather enjoys the feeling of superiority they get from totally overwhelming some foes, and then the contrast of a foe they run from. 

These two changes have resulted in the players making a lot more decisions and risk assessments about pushing on or resting.  

Personally I enjoy them pushing on and 'doing more' in a game day.  I try hard to make each encounter interesting through terrain, role-play, story advancement etc rather than it always being a close run battle.

My experience so far is too limited, but I am tending towards making most encounters less resource draining than is usual for 4e.


----------



## AllisterH (Sep 13, 2010)

I've mentioned this before but I have a group of friends who are actual spleunkers.

People IRL crazy enough to go exploring in dank, dark caves...

and they would NEVER go into a cave unless they were at 90-100% in terms of gear/health. To recommend otherwise would be considered automatic grounds for explusion from their "community".

Thus, even with time sensitive situation, realistically, adventurers SHOULD be only going into crypts and caves at 100%.

As well, my friends either plan their trips such that either they make it in and out in under a certain timeframe or they PLAN ahead of time to camp at a certain time interval.

I honestly don't think it is players' metagaming when they want to rest once their resources are below 75%...going by my friends real life experience, that would be the most "realistic" thing to do.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 14, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Thus, even with time sensitive situation, realistically, adventurers SHOULD be only going into crypts and caves at 100%.
> 
> As well, my friends either plan their trips such that either they make it in and out in under a certain timeframe or they PLAN ahead of time to camp at a certain time interval.
> 
> I honestly don't think it is players' metagaming when they want to rest once their resources are below 75%...going by my friends real life experience, that would be the most "realistic" thing to do.




I agree with that 100%.

But as someone in your XP line points out, those caves don't even have monsters...and having a hostile force opposing your efforts means that, despite your best wishes, your plans may be disrupted.

You may have heard quotes like:



> "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy."
> _Field Marshall Helmuth Carl Bernard von Moltke	 _




or



> "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
> gang aft a-gley."
> _Robert Burns_




or



> "Make big plans, but change your plans as time changes."
> _Marchant_




or even BSG ep "_33_"

So, yes- the party may_ go in_ pre-planning their resting points, but once engaged with hostile forces, those plans may not be allowed to work.  The party may be harried, unable to fully rest and recuperate, driven to exhaustion, until some deciding factor either gains them respite or defeats them.

Now, not every campaign day needs to be run like the aforementioned episode of BSG.  Neither, however, should PCs routinely expect to be able to rest & recharge whenever_ they_ see fit, creating the 15 Minute Workday.

DMs- don't complain about short days when you're partly to blame: Master your Dungeon and reap the rewards.  Done right, your players will feel a sense of accomplishment if their PCs are pushed to the limits of their performance envelope from time to time.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 14, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I've mentioned this before but I have a group of friends who are actual spleunkers.
> 
> People IRL crazy enough to go exploring in dank, dark caves...
> 
> ...




Then again, if your friends knew that there were lethal monsters and traps in those caves, I'd bet that they wouldn't go in at all.

They are making serious plans because safety is (quite reasonably!) vital to their continued enjoyment of life and hobby. That isn't the case for adventurers going into caves, who have got other objectives, and other pressures upon them.

It is interesting and unsurprising to hear about their real world caving experiences, but I don't think it actually adds anything to the thoughts about PC hero adventuring because the contexts are so wildly different.

Cheers


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 15, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> I've mentioned this before but I have a group of friends who are actual spleunkers.
> 
> People IRL crazy enough to go exploring in dank, dark caves...
> 
> ...


----------

