Quote from: moonsweeper;1083852Just do what I do...

1) short rests are 5 min, not all PCs have to short rest at the same time.
2) max 2 short rests per long rest.
3) collect XP after a long rest according to the special XP multiplier.
4) XP = (Total number of encounters) * (Book XP) * (25%)

For some reason players don't long rest right before a suspected boss fight when they only get 25% of the XP.
They also seem to push themselves farther for the increasing multiplier..."Hey guys, if we can get through a seventh encounter, we will get 175% XP."

Hey, that's VERY clever. I might just try that if I start a new campaign. Thanks much!

Quote from: moonsweeper;1083852Just do what I do...

1) short rests are 5 min, not all PCs have to short rest at the same time.
2) max 2 short rests per long rest.
3) collect XP after a long rest according to the special XP multiplier.
4) XP = (Total number of encounters) * (Book XP) * (25%)

For some reason players don't long rest right before a suspected boss fight when they only get 25% of the XP.
They also seem to push themselves farther for the increasing multiplier..."Hey guys, if we can get through a seventh encounter, we will get 175% XP."

That seems a clever incentive, but that's just XP tax by another name. You'd have to have four encounters to get the Book XP. "Gamers" would just agg easy stuff beforehand, or agg & flee, to game your formula to ensure minimal book XP. Eventually GM v. Player antagonism will develop because the conversation is being supplanted by hopes that mechanics will dampen an organisms' desire for exploitation.

Is this really helping when we could talk with the players about campaign progression management and alternate XP methods? We already had DMG discussions in earlier editions about session minimums until level up, defining what makes an encounter meaningful in the first place, and alternate means of gaining XP. The math is less important than the conversation same-paging table expectations about character progression in the first place, in my experience.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1083813Changing the rest variant does not help.

Why not?

QuoteNor does the XP budgets handle mono-encounters per long rest well.

Just eyeball it.

Edit: Sorry, that sounds flippant - but it's just that I don't really feel the CR system is much of a guide anyway.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1083950That seems a clever incentive, but that's just XP tax by another name. You'd have to have four encounters to get the Book XP. "Gamers" would just agg easy stuff beforehand, or agg & flee, to game your formula to ensure minimal book XP. Eventually GM v. Player antagonism will develop because the conversation is being supplanted by hopes that mechanics will dampen an organisms' desire for exploitation.

1) They have no incentive to "Agg" an encounter since they will get XP for intelligently avoiding the fight if they get a chance.

..For example they avoid the Giant Thulean Sloth whose hunting ground they wander into...cripple a horse and sneak out while the sloth starts eating...same XP as fighting the sloth

2) My players also seem to be uninterested in 'gaming' the system by 'instigating easy encounters'.

...probably because I don't use 'balanced' encounters...especially on the wandering monster tables.

3) It's a sword and sorcery style campaign world so the threat of combat is dangerous.

...Resurrection and the like are off the table. Getting reduced to 0 HP takes you out of a fight until after it is over, possibly with permanent injuries.  PCs have a limited number of luck points to burn to avoid death or crippling injuries.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1083950Is this really helping when we could talk with the players about campaign progression management and alternate XP methods? We already had DMG discussions in earlier editions about session minimums until level up, defining what makes an encounter meaningful in the first place, and alternate means of gaining XP. The math is less important than the conversation same-paging table expectations about character progression in the first place, in my experience.

I am not sure how this even applies to the situation?

Why would a player even be interested in 'campaign progression management'?...My players have the XP table, they know what garners XP...what else do they need?
I am not even sure what you mean by 'session minimums until level up'...it may take 1, 3 or even 10 sessions depending on what the players are doing/accomplishing.
PCs get XP for Gold, overcoming threats (combat or avoidance of) and miscellaneous objectives/role-playing...so ANY 'encounter' could be meaningful depending on what occurs.
I gave the players all of the XP info (multipliers, etc.) at the start and told them to have at it...I'm pretty sure everyone was on the same page.

If they want the DM management headache...I am happy to be a player.

Quote from: TJS;1083954Why not?


Just eyeball it.

Edit: Sorry, that sounds flippant - but it's just that I don't really feel the CR system is much of a guide anyway.

If the problem is "5 slog fights before the 6th one is interesting" changing how long it takes to have a long rest can't help.

The CR system doesn't work in 5e, so I assumed they meant using xp budgets to make encounters.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1083970The CR system doesn't work in 5e, so I assumed they meant using xp budgets to make encounters.

The ironic thing to me is 4e's XP budget system ran into problems when using opponents way outside the PC's level because the +1/level improvements with a 30 level spread could render an opponent a non-threat but still technically worth XP. It probably would have worked better with a CR-based system where opponents don't add threat linearly.

By contrast, 5e's much flatter math (linear hp progression, slowly scaling attack/defense numbers) where low level foes can remain a real threat would actually run better with 4E's encounter budget system for evaluating threat.

In short, 4E and 5e would have been better off if they’d swapped encounter building systems.

Quote from: moonsweeper;10839571) They have no incentive to "Agg" an encounter since they will get XP for intelligently avoiding the fight if they get a chance.

..For example they avoid the Giant Thulean Sloth whose hunting ground they wander into...cripple a horse and sneak out while the sloth starts eating...same XP as fighting the sloth

2) My players also seem to be uninterested in 'gaming' the system by 'instigating easy encounters'.

...probably because I don't use 'balanced' encounters...especially on the wandering monster tables.

3) It's a sword and sorcery style campaign world so the threat of combat is dangerous.

...Resurrection and the like are off the table. Getting reduced to 0 HP takes you out of a fight until after it is over, possibly with permanent injuries.  PCs have a limited number of luck points to burn to avoid death or crippling injuries.



I am not sure how this even applies to the situation?

Why would a player even be interested in 'campaign progression management'?...My players have the XP table, they know what garners XP...what else do they need?
I am not even sure what you mean by 'session minimums until level up'...it may take 1, 3 or even 10 sessions depending on what the players are doing/accomplishing.
PCs get XP for Gold, overcoming threats (combat or avoidance of) and miscellaneous objectives/role-playing...so ANY 'encounter' could be meaningful depending on what occurs.
I gave the players all of the XP info (multipliers, etc.) at the start and told them to have at it...I'm pretty sure everyone was on the same page.

If they want the DM management headache...I am happy to be a player.

You are assuming your GM v. Player accord carries over due to the formula rather than personal familiarity with each other's tastes. The rest you say merely reinforces that your table understanding has nothing to do with "the math" as it does the relationship. That is my point; the communication, not the rules or tools, is my point.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1083970If the problem is "5 slog fights before the 6th one is interesting" changing how long it takes to have a long rest can't help.

But surely that has to be matter of encounter design (not all of which have to be fights)?

How can it be D&D if it's not a game of managing resources against attrition?

Quote from: Opaopajr;1083990You are assuming your GM v. Player accord carries over due to the formula rather than personal familiarity with each other's tastes. The rest you say merely reinforces that your table understanding has nothing to do with "the math" as it does the relationship. That is my point; the communication, not the rules or tools, is my point.

OK...I'm at a loss...
You say there are problems because
   (a)my 'maths' will lead to Player-GM antagonism and 'gaming' of the system and
   (b)because I didn't seek any player 'input' into campaign progression management.

I explained why this wasn't the case because I had pretty much short-circuited those problems with how I set up the reward 'system'.
You claim this isn't because of the reward 'system', but I just showed in more depth why the 'system' works.

No offense, but I'm not sure I understand what your actual argument is...:confused:

Quote from: Razor 007;1083607What the hell?  Go hang out on TBP, for instance......

It's an echo chamber for people who want to run D&D into the ground again.  It won't be very successful, but at least a few people will get what they wanted.

Well remember, the SJWs who are now trying to claim ownership over 5e utterly despised it at first. They liked 4e in the sense that it devolved D&D into what they always thought it ought to be.

The only reason they changed their tune was that 5e turned out to be a huge success, and they wanted control over the product.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1083970If the problem is "5 slog fights before the 6th one is interesting" changing how long it takes to have a long rest can't help.

I can see why you'd make that mistake, but it's incorrect. When there is no feasible long rest within the scope of the adventure, any encounter that attrites resources becomes 'interesting' because it reduces the likelihood of ultimate success. PCs will even seek to avoid fights they know they can win because too many of those can result in eventual defeat.

IME slog fights are the result of "every battle must challenge the PCs", so the threat level gets ramped up, every fight takes 2 or 3 hours, and it becomes a slog. A quick easy fight that still affects future likelihood of success does not feel sloggy.

I really like to have HP divided into 2 groups: stamina and health. That would allow to incorporate some of 4e ideas, that were a bit gamey in the first place, but could be more understandable.
When fighting, stamina-part is what is reduced first. Stamina is also fast to re-generate once combat is over. You could also apply 4e stuff like "healing surge", "second wind", in combat healing or stuff like that. Also have effects/penalties like "bloodied" if health part is not full.

This idea is used in https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/135361/Fantasy--Old-School-Gaming

Quote from: jux;1085747I really like to have HP divided into 2 groups: stamina and health. That would allow to incorporate some of 4e ideas, that were a bit gamey in the first place, but could be more understandable.
When fighting, stamina-part is what is reduced first. Stamina is also fast to re-generate once combat is over. You could also apply 4e stuff like "healing surge", "second wind", in combat healing or stuff like that. Also have effects/penalties like "bloodied" if health part is not full.

This idea is used in https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/135361/Fantasy--Old-School-Gaming

It was also used in Starfinder.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1083770Nobody disliked 4e BECAUSE their classes were balanced. Myself - I disliked 4e because they balanced through symmetry - which is the absolute easiest/laziest way to balance. Symmetry works well in competitive 1v1 environments (chess/go etc.) but in a long-running co-op game with a bunch of players, I want me some variety in character styles.

4e's character styles became much more distinct in PHB 2 and PHB 3, but opinions were set already because PHB 1 didn't do a good enough job showing how the symmetry was just skeletal, but in actual play the differentiations became notable.

Dailies were a bad idea for non-spellcasters. Even as a 4e fan, I can't defend why my fighter or thief can't try that cool signature trick more than once per day.  

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1083770And the monsters were even worse on that front. They all felt very samey.

I disagree. The concern about samey is actually an issue with many OSR monsters, especially at low level. The monster roles in 4e is something I definitely took to heart when revisiting my OD&D games to bring more tactical variety to monsters.

Unfortunately, here again the MM 2 was notably better than MM 1 for 4e. There clearly were internal project management problems at WotC that didn't dig deep enough into playtest issues before 4e's launch and then they spent their later years trying to scramble with new books.

But it was too late because if your PHB doesn't grab people, they don't buy PHB 2 or Essentials or whatnot.

Sadly, the best 4e core game is Gamma World as it built on the lessons learned too late.  But of course, WotC dorked GW's launch with their attempt to combine CCG elements and unnecessary goofiness.

Monster Manual 3 and the Dark Sun Creature Catalogue were very very good.