Quote from: MearlsAs we did in 4th Edition, with D&D Next we are paying close  attention to the basic math of the game and how monsters, characters,  spells, and healing interact. Rather than focus on the encounter, we are  now focusing on the adventuring day. That means that during the typical  adventure, we expect the average party to defeat X levels worth of  monsters over Y rounds of combat. In other words, we're assuming that an  adventure includes a certain amount of combat, and this amount is  defined in terms of rounds and enemies.

(Emphasis mine)
They're fucked.

Quote from: Bill;561047Just curious: How many people out there like 1E, 2E, and 4E, but dislike 3E, 3.5, and Pathfinder?


As a player, I don't pay as much attention to the version of dnd I am playing.

When I DM, I greatly prefer 1E, 2E, and 4E.



It may be heresey, but I think 'feeing like dnd' is more about the DM than the system.

I like 2E, think 3e does some good things and some bad things, don't enjoy 4e (i just didn't like the mechanics) and didn't really care for pathfinder (i think mostly due to the aesthetics and the fact that I did think 3e needed some fixes--just not the ones 4e proposed). i don't play enough 1e to comment on the system, but I have read the 1E DMG several times and think it has a spirit a lot of the later books are missing.

I never understood why limiting the 15 minute day was so hard.  Do all the monsters in the game world suddenly stop to allow the party to rest up?  I don't think the party needs an extra incentive to keep adventuring instead of waiting every time for the MU to re-memorize spells.  The incentive is already there: wandering monsters to interrupt you, intelligent monsters who know that you've just invaded their dungeon and just because you holed up in a store room doesn't stop them from rallying and attacking en force.

It reminds me of that Growing Pains episode where Mike stays home sick and is shocked to find out that the world still moves like normal without him.

Quote from: Bill;561055In my opinion, the 'correct' way this should be handled is:
DM tweaks the strength of the undead to keep things challenging, without punishing the players for using good strategy.

Fixed number of encounters is terrible, but may be useful for a novice DM. Maybe.

XP incentive? I personally can't stand players being motivated to 'kill one more orc to level.' I prefer to raise the party level by one as a reward for major accomplishments in the campaign; combat or non combat.

For me the solution is to let it happen when it would be reasonable to do so, but the Gm should always bear in mind the things that would plausibly make this sort of behavior difficult. I mean if there is nothing to stop them from backing up heading to town and refreshing, no need to invent an arbitrary mechanic for it. Some adventures this just might happen. But my experience in play is if the Gm has any sense of how to maintain a believable setting, there are plenty of problems that can arise when players engage in 5 minute adventuring days. Over the course of an average campaign I think it tends to wash.

There is also a sort of natural mechanism to keep this in check. It is only a problem if it bothers the people playing the non casters. In most games I run, when the non casters get annoyed at casters for stopping every five feet to recharge, they pressure them to press on.

Welcome to the RPG Site, Azure Lord.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;561034I read the article with interest. I am glad they finally seem to understand that many of use don't need characters to all be in sinc in the course of an adventuring. I was pleased to see mearls say its okay for the wizard to have his moments and stomp through some early encounters. On the other hand I hope they are not going in the direction of structuring the game aorund x number of encounters per day. This really is just as bad as class parity for me because it is still about rationing power and fun in a highly controlled way. I want my adventures to be varied. I really hated the encounter first design promoted during late 3e (i.e. Build the adventure around set encounters).

Seems you missed this
"What does this mean for the five-minute adventuring day? DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger. The solution to the problem rests in the DM's hands, who can use the tools and guidelines that we provide, plus keep track of how long fights take and adjust adventures accordingly."

Quote from: Sommerjon;561089"What does this mean for the five-minute adventuring day? DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger. The solution to the problem rests in the DM's hands, who can use the tools and guidelines that we provide, plus keep track of how long fights take and adjust adventures accordingly."

Bad news. This is the same shit all over again. It's encountardization, but just with a change of scale. Instead of the encounter as the base of all going ons at the game table, it's going to be the adventuring day and the number of rounds of combat you can take in a day.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;561076I never understood why limiting the 15 minute day was so hard.  Do all the monsters in the game world suddenly stop to allow the party to rest up?  I don't think the party needs an extra incentive to keep adventuring instead of waiting every time for the MU to re-memorize spells.  The incentive is already there: wandering monsters to interrupt you, intelligent monsters who know that you've just invaded their dungeon and just because you holed up in a store room doesn't stop them from rallying and attacking en force.

I think there is like a spell or two that easily gets around this idea.

Quote from: Sommerjon;561089Seems you missed this
"What does this mean for the five-minute adventuring day? DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger. The solution to the problem rests in the DM's hands, who can use the tools and guidelines that we provide, plus keep track of how long fights take and adjust adventures accordingly."

Expected encounters per day <> expected rounds of combat per day its all the same budget wankery. Shit happens when it happens. Any game that tries to dictate otherwise is full of fail.

Quote from: Benoist;561092Bad news. This is the same shit all over again. It's encountardization, but just with a change of scale. Instead of the encounter as the base of all going ons at the game table, it's going to be the adventuring day and the number of rounds of combat you can take in a day.

I guess everyone just 'takes 10' on the die and sees what happens?

This is, I think, the most stupidest game design concept ever.  Based around rounds of combat what-da-fuck-ever.

I am in full "wait and see" mode until this puppy is actually out. I am NOT liking what I am hearing.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;561095Expected encounters per day <> expected rounds of combat per day its all the same budget wankery.

No it's not.

D&D even back in the precious 1e was based around encounters per day.  Once players got to a certain point they wanted to stop unless through DM wankery 'forcing' them to go on.  Same thing in 2e, 3e, and 4e.  

Quote from: Exploderwizard;561095Shit happens when it happens. Any game that tries to dictate otherwise is full of fail.

Shit happens when the Dm wants it to happen.

Quote from: Marleycat;561099I am in full "wait and see" mode until this puppy is actually out. I am NOT liking what I am hearing.

I'm trying to stay positive like you, but it is getting harder as time goes on.

Quote from: Azure Lord;561030After the furor caused by the most recent WotC article about the five-minute workday, I'm at a loss at how WotC will create a system that can satisfy them.  The current screaming whinefest is that everyone needs the same power schedule or the game is ROONED FOREVAR.  People who like D&D have tried explaining solutions to this (random encounters, playing monsters intelligently, assuming a reactive environment, introduction of spellcasting timers, making spells more difficult to cast in the middle of combat, etc.) but to no avail.  Unfortunately, it turns out that people who hate D&D aren't interested in playing D&D.  They want a game that has the D&D label but doesn't play anything like D&D.

I made an effort to engage productively with folks in that thread and point out the many relatively simple ways to avoid the 15 minute day (I'd never even heard of this phenomenon until a few years ago when it started showing up in online discussion forums). As others have pointed out, it's mostly just a matter of not having the game world suddenly freeze whenever the PCs aren't looking.

I made no headway at all. The immediate response to the idea that there might be negative consequences to taking a day off and letting the bad guys regroup/get away/whatever was "STOP TRYING TO DEPROTAGONIZE ME!!!!!"

:rolleyes:

Quote from: StormBringer;561069(Emphasis mine)
They're fucked.

Agreed.

They are screwed because they are trying to control how you run your world by dictating a certain number of combats per day.

Thought they had learned their lesson with 4e. Guess not.

Might be sticking with 2e.