Quote from: jgants;518266In my experience, it is not usually the mage (or even more often, the cleric) who is out of spells and insisting everyone go back; it is the entire party going "the cleric is out of healing spells, time to head back" or "the mage used up her fireball spell, we may as well go back".

All I can say in that I have never encountered this in 35 years or so of playing and GMing D&D. However, very little of that has been done with WOTC editions of D&D.  If I (as a GM) did have a group that regularly insisted on doing this no matter what happened in the world, I'd tell them to stop doing it or to find another GM. If I was playing with a group that did this, I'd find another group to play with.

As far as I can tell the 15 minute work day taken to this extreme is a player-issue not a rules or setting or GM issue. Therefore I would not try to solve it with rules or in-game GM-foo.

Quote from: Benoist;518295Of course I was being rude. It's TCO for fuck's sakes. :rolleyes:


D&D is not a generic fantasy game. It's never been.

if the OGL and the d20 explosion and the OSR couldn't convince you I never will....

Quote from: jibbajibba;518328if the OGL and the d20 explosion and the OSR couldn't convince you I never will....

Not the same thing. You are mixing up flexibility with genericity. The D&D game is a flexible game system that can be taken with moderate changes in any number of directions. Variants on the game can lead to all sorts of different role playing experiences, but these are just that: variants, house ruled versions that take the game in different directions.

The D&D game itself is not generic. It's not GURPS. It has a set of particular themes, ideas, a conceptual design that informs the core experience of its game play. Which is why such things as Vancian magic and classes and levels and HP and AC all these things are considered "sacred cows" by some.

It can be made to be modular, in that it would accomodate for different play styles and inclinations based on its core design, but it is not generic in nature. It has never been. Every time some game designer or other believed it'd be good for the game to be "generic" or "something else" is when the game started to suck, which invariably leads, sooner or later, to financial disaster.

Quote from: Benoist;518332Not the same thing. You are mixing up flexibility with genericity. The D&D game is a flexible game system that can be taken with moderate changes in any number of directions. Variants on the game can lead to all sorts of different role playing experiences, but these are just that: variants, house ruled versions that take the game in different directions.

The D&D game itself is not generic. It's not GURPS. It has a set of particular themes, ideas, a conceptual design that informs the core experience of its game play. Which is why such things as Vancian magic and classes and levels and HP and AC all these things are considered "sacred cows" by some.

It can be made to be modular, in that it would accomodate for different play styles and inclinations based on its core design, but it is not generic in nature. It has never been. Every time some game designer or other believed it'd be good for the game to be "generic" is when the game started to suck, which invariably leads, sooner or later, to financial disaster.

A generic fantasy game or a fantasy game that can keep it's core but allow variants with degrees of modularity is a sematic distinction.

Quote from: jibbajibba;518335A generic fantasy game or a fantasy game that can keep it's core but allow variants with degrees of modularity is a sematic distinction.

It's not. It's a very important distinction that directly informs whether 5e will be a success or failure.
If you can't see that by now I doubt you ever will.

I will say, on the record, that the last D&D game I was in as a player did, in fact, use the 15 minute work day concept. Specifically the party wizard would burn spells like candy then bitch until we let him rest, no matter what was going on in the world.

Note that he had reserve feats.

Note that we did, in fact, wind up with a magic bedroll of 'extra-restyness' just for him.

Note that, despite being a relatively new spellcaster myself (playing the cleric), I rarely had this problem. In fact, in order to assure you all of my inherent awesome prowess as a player, in that game we had a veritable surplus of healing magic.... and I blasted the fuck out of shit all the time (To the point where the wizard complained I was wasting magic/actions I could have spent running all over the field touching people in their ouchies. I contend that no one ever died, so my healing/casting balance was quite good, thank you very much...)

In the campaign I ran after that, using 3.5E, I designed a 'mega dungeon' that was made of discreet parts that more or less needed to be done over a period of time, with consequences for lingering. It worked quite well, I believe... though I do regret designing the 'final boss' segment in a fucking spiral of tiny rooms.... hundreds of tiny rooms, some barely big enough for the whole party (given, you know, the utterly massive 5-foot squares they all occupied. Four people in a ten foot square room isn't comfortable, but fuck, man!)... never do that. Never, never, ever do that.

It did make for an interesting strategic challenge, however... so there is that (also: its funny when you pile on enough weak ass, easily beaten monsters... with fear. Even that one in twenty fail rate utterly changes the dynamics of the fight...)

Quote from: Justin AlexanderMore generally, it's not like the only way to reinforce your position is to dig a moat. Usually just putting the complex on alert and concentrating your forces is more than enough to turn an easy fight into a tough one.

Quote from: jgants;518266Yes, I agree that works, but as I said, my experience is that approach exacerbates the problem by making the PCs even more cautious.

Quote from: jgants;518266My point wasn't that the 15 minute workday isn't an unsolvable problem or even that it is a big deal, just that it does happen and often I find there are no good ways to prevent it. I see it more like jhkim, its a byproduct of playing the game with players who use strategy.

Agreed with jgants.  A number of people (BedrockBrendan, Justin Alexander, Benoist, and others) have pushed forward the idea that the enemy would organize, reinforce, and/or strike back if the PCs retreated or holed up.  

That wasn't the average case for me because in my D&D experience, we typically weren't dealing with a single unified group of intelligent enemies.  Most often, we were dealing with isolated groups along with a mix of unintelligent monsters and tricks/traps.  

Still, it would happen, and I like a good tactical clash.  However, in my experience, more active and/or intelligent opponents do make my PCs more cautious.  For example, I thought we were likely to be attacked while we retreated, then I would generally want to retreat earlier so that we can successfully deal with that attack - rather than wait until everyone is wounded and we are low on spells.  

A few people have commented on spellcasters throwing off spells uselessly, which wasn't my experience.  In my play experience, our principle was that we would use the minimum spells to get the job done - but if we had a choice between casting a spell and someone getting chopped into, we would prefer using the spell.  Also, we always kept a bunch of spells in reserve in case we were attacked while retreating and/or camping.  The more dangerous it seemed, the more we would hold in reserve for our retreat.  

This seems opposite to what the posters want to encourage.  So, do other players react opposite to the way I do?

Quote from: Imperator;518202Very interesting. Could you post an example of one of these rosters?

I've started a new thread for it.

Quote from: jgants;518266Having a reactive world can come up some times, but my adventures are rarely in the vein of "there's this giant group of well-organized intelligent humanoids and you are invading their base".

I'm not seeing how giving PCs multiple goals has anything to do with anything about the 15 minute workday.

I find that when the players have lots of things they want to accomplish, they'll try to accomplish them. The more stuff they try to do in a day, the less likely a 15 minute workday becomes.

For a non-"base invasion" example: In my current campaign the PCs have gotten tied up in the politics around the equivalent of a local cardinal declaring himself the equivalent of Pope. One facet of that is that the church's official Order of Knighthood (to which one of the PCs belongs) has split: One half is loyal to the "False Pope"; the other half is basically running a local "religious rebellion" in an effort to take back the church. The PC knight has managed to position himself as a spy (the False Pope thinks he's loyal to him, but he's actually loyal to the rebels).

At this point, both the False Pope and the rebellious knights have their own plans and agendas: Street skirmishes. Political machinations. Public rallies. Et cetera. There's nothing here which compels the PCs to stay involved, but if the PCs want to be involved, then there's a daily or near-daily demand on their attention because that's what the world is like when people are actively pursuing their agendas.

Meanwhile, the PCs are also involved in trying to seal the Banewarrens (a complex filled with evil artifacts that has recently been breached by the Pactlords of the Quaan). They've responded to that situation by arranging for a group of NPCs to guard the entrance to the Banewarrens: But there are currently two other groups trying to get access to the Banewarrens. There's no "drop dead deadline", but there is a constant time pressure because these other groups are actively pursuing their competitive agendas.

The PCs themselves have learned that there's Banewarrens-related lore in a place called Alchestrin's Tomb. The tomb itself is a largely non-reactive dungeon complex: The PCs could easily attack, draw back, and attack again if they wanted to.

But, of course, there's the pressure being put on them from the other Banewarrens groups. And the guardians they placed on the Banewarrens are occasionally getting attacked. And there's the church politics to deal with. And a creature that escaped from the Banewarrens on their watch is starting to kill people around town. And then some old baggage from earlier in the campaign (that I scheduled months ago) crops up: Local gangsters want to hire the PCs for a heist, which will clear a debt that the PCs theoretically owe the gangsters.

And the thing is: They don't have to do any of this stuff. I didn't make them cut a deal with gangsters. I was actually shocked when they got tangled up in the church politics (which I thought were going to just be a backdrop of "current events"). And there are lots of scenario hooks that they reject.

But the consequence is that the players in this campaign are constantly pushing themselves to do everything that they're capable of doing: And that means they can't indulge themselves in a 15-minute workday. 15-minute workdays are wasteful.

This group is probably somewhat unusual in their magpie-like desire to pick up shiny things until their capacity to deal with them is overflowing. But even if the campaign were just limited to the Banewarrens-related stuff, the fact that there are living NPCs with proactive agendas would prevent the PCs from resting into a 15-minute workday. Or, if they did, there would be consequences for it. (Which would probably include "all of your allies are now dead because you didn't help them when they called" and "the bad guys won because you gave them 23 hours to molest the Banewarrens unopposed while you hung out back at the inn".)

tl;dr: If the PCs have a reason to be involved in the world, then they can't simply sit back and do nothing if the world will roll on without them.

Quote from: jhkim;518411A few people have commented on spellcasters throwing off spells uselessly, which wasn't my experience.  In my play experience, our principle was that we would use the minimum spells to get the job done - but if we had a choice between casting a spell and someone getting chopped into, we would prefer using the spell.  Also, we always kept a bunch of spells in reserve in case we were attacked while retreating and/or camping.  The more dangerous it seemed, the more we would hold in reserve for our retreat.

This seems opposite to what the posters want to encourage. So, do other players react opposite to the way I do?

Nope. Conservative and strategically smart use of daily resources is pretty much exactly what I want to encourage.

The problem of the 15 minute workday isn't "oh no! my players have chosen to retreat at the appropriate time to regain their strength!". The problem of the 15 minute workday is "oh no! my spellcasters blew all their spells in the first two encounters of the day (thereby rendering those encounters completely unchallenging and screwing up the balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters)!"

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518424The problem of the 15 minute workday isn't "oh no! my players have chosen to retreat at the appropriate time to regain their strength!". The problem of the 15 minute workday is "oh no! my spellcasters blew all their spells in the first two encounters of the day (thereby rendering those encounters completely unchallenging and screwing up the balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters)!"

Agreed, this is spot on to my mind.

Quote from: jhkimA few people have commented on spellcasters throwing off spells uselessly, which wasn't my experience. In my play experience, our principle was that we would use the minimum spells to get the job done - but if we had a choice between casting a spell and someone getting chopped into, we would prefer using the spell. Also, we always kept a bunch of spells in reserve in case we were attacked while retreating and/or camping. The more dangerous it seemed, the more we would hold in reserve for our retreat.

This seems opposite to what the posters want to encourage. So, do other players react opposite to the way I do?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518424Nope. Conservative and strategically smart use of daily resources is pretty much exactly what I want to encourage.

The problem of the 15 minute workday isn't "oh no! my players have chosen to retreat at the appropriate time to regain their strength!". The problem of the 15 minute workday is "oh no! my spellcasters blew all their spells in the first two encounters of the day (thereby rendering those encounters completely unchallenging and screwing up the balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters)!"

As far as I can tell, though, these are both part and parcel of the same thing.  From the character point of view, I very much want encounters to be un-challenging, and I don't give a damn about balance of spellcasters.  While we're on the same team, I as a thief will absolutely prefer to have my enemies knocked down by spells than get chopped into.  

To me, this came across clearly when we used a concrete example: i.e. the dungeon under the keep from Keep on the Shadowfell.  Looking at it from a character perspective, my reaction was that it made a great deal of sense to retreat and re-group after dealing with the first nine goblins (i.e. rooms #1 and #2).  However, you thought that doing so was exactly an example of the problem.

Quote from: jhkim;518448As far as I can tell, though, these are both part and parcel of the same thing.  From the character point of view, I very much want encounters to be un-challenging, and I don't give a damn about balance of spellcasters.

Yes. Which is why the 15-minute adventuring day happens: If the campaign world sits around like a static lump (no active opponents; no active competition; no active allies), then there isn't any reason for the PCs not to blow all their most powerful abilities and then head back home to rest up. In the absence of any competing interests, it's a perfectly rational strategy.

But that's not what you're describing: What you're describing are PCs who are using a mixture of abilities to deal with a reasonable number of encounters (with "reasonable" being dependent on the nature of the situation) and then retreating with a sizable strategic reserve in case of unforeseen difficulties.

There may be some people who have an aesthetic dislike for hit-and-run tactics (for reasons that I couldn't begin to fathom), but hit-and-run tactics aren't inherently the same thing as the 15-minute workday.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;518471Yes. Which is why the 15-minute adventuring day happens: If the campaign world sits around like a static lump (no active opponents; no active competition; no active allies), then there isn't any reason for the PCs not to blow all their most powerful abilities and then head back home to rest up. In the absence of any competing interests, it's a perfectly rational strategy.

But that's not what you're describing: What you're describing are PCs who are using a mixture of abilities to deal with a reasonable number of encounters (with "reasonable" being dependent on the nature of the situation) and then retreating with a sizable strategic reserve in case of unforeseen difficulties.

There may be some people who have an aesthetic dislike for hit-and-run tactics (for reasons that I couldn't begin to fathom), but hit-and-run tactics aren't inherently the same thing as the 15-minute workday.

They may not be inherently the same thing, but in my experience, we would often reach what I considered to be a reasonable number of encounters within 15 minutes of forward-pushing activity (into the dungeon or other hostile area).  After that we would be on the defensive and spend the rest of the day doing travel back, covering our trail, fortification, crafting traps or other items, study, planning, and other non-forward-pushing activities.  

So this might not be exactly the 15-minute-workday that you were thinking of (which requires the PCs to be stupid and wasteful and the world to be completely static).  However, it is still a kind of 15-minute workday.

Just for fun: I've actually seen a fight (in the group mentioned in my last post) chopped up into 'spellcaster sized chunks'.

Knowing the monsters were trapped (undead guardian types that couldn't leave their tomb), the wizard insisted on fireballing the room, makign the entire party wait a day, fireballing it again, waiting AGAIN and seeing if he'd got 'em all.

Now, some of that was understandable: When we triggered the undead we were not tactically prepared and the rogue came within inches of munching (I believe this was the campaign before my cleric, but I wouldn't swear to it), so it felt like a hard, scary fight.

BUt seriously: he made the party camp out in hostile territory (where we were, ostensibly, doing recon on the big badguys of the campaign....) for three days so he could, essentially, solo the fight with his awesome spellpower.

Even though it didn't really take longer, at the table, than any other fight, it was both boring to watch and entirely aggrivating on principles.

Just because I enjoy arguing on forums doesn't mean I state things in bad faith or don't try to have a point. Benoist's blind hatred of me notwithstanding.

Quote from: Benoist;518281Leaving aside the fact that I don't take TCO seriously for a minute because I sure know better by now, I disagree with your admonition.

First: If what TCO describes about him zoning out of game sessions and wandering off to read comics while there's a part of the adventure he doesn't like that unfolds at the game table is true, I sustain that he is a piss poor player. This is a collaborative game. When my players are engaged in the game, they cheer at other people's dice rolls, they listen to whoever is talking, they do their best to make the game enjoyable to everyone. If, as soon as you do not get your way, you are just "tuning off" and leaving the game table, you are a selfish, lame, sucky player, and you should be told as much. I don't care for political correctness. I actually believe that just not saying anything to people who suck at playing the game stops them from improving, and leads directly to piss poor experiences which then lead to "fixing the game" to catter to these bad players. They have a choice not to suck, but they can't realize it if we don't step up and say: "dude. You are sucking right now, and you should stop."

I don't consider it sucking, and I've never been admonished or complained to about my behavior. I also wouldn't describe it as not getting my way, I'd describe it as dealing with parts of the game that I don't enjoy and bore me to fucking tears. I'm an action junkie, and when the game slows down to a crawl and people start poking every rock with 10 ft poles or start haggling with merchants for 30 minutes straight my eyes just glaze over. The least obvious way to tune things out is to just open the Player's Handbook and bury my head in it and let people assume I'm looking up rules. I do that a lot. I usually get up and excuse myself only when it looks like its going to be a while. As I am not enjoying that part of the game and bored by it, I find any contribution to the game I have in that state is usually disruptive, and it serves the game better by me staying out of everybody else's way and let them have their fun doing things I have no interest in.

Quote from: Benoist;518281Second: Dungeons & Dragons is not a generic game system. It's never been. It has central themes and concepts at the core of its design, like exploration of dungeons and the wilderness, like archetypes as character classes and races, like Vancian magic, and so on and so forth.

There are basically people who like these central ideas at the core of the game, and people who do not. People who do not may house rule the game in a number of ways, and you are right in saying that, in this regard, the D&D game is flexible. Not generic right out the gate, but flexible enough to accomodate a variety of tastes. So TCO may have the play experience he is (seemingly, again, if he's actually telling the truth this time, which I don't believe for a minute) searching for if he runs the game a certain way and adjusts a few rules to fit his playstyle (maybe aided by supplements to the game, or modules or whatnot - the game certainly can be modular, even though it's not generic at its core).

There are also people who don't agree with you on what is essential to the game. Vancian magic is not something in my opinion essential to the game. Its something that I enjoyed D&D in spite of, houseruled around, and was glad was gone when 4E was released. I do agree with you that there are a lot of things that make D&D what it is, I don't see Vancian magic as one of them though, and find it arrogant and condescending that you can't accept anyone else's opinion on the matter.

TCO's trolling is very subtle.