I don't agree that those that try to use it want slow campaigns.
No, I didn't say that everyone who uses it wants slow campaigns. I meant that the crowd of people who do want slow campaigns is the target audience of Gritty Realism. It says so in the DMG: "It’s a good option for campaigns that emphasize intrigue, politics, and interactions among other NPCs, and in which combat is rare or something to be avoided rather than rushed into."
It just causes more downtime. How is that fun for the players? They can optionally take downtime if they want to at any point: these optional rules just force it at times they don't want it.
The point is that if you play a campaign like described in the DMG quote above, where you spend very little time fighting, it makes sense story wise that the adventuring day is spread out over several days. If you play such a campaign, then the standard resting rules mean that everyone is always fresh in every fight, resource management for long-rest balanced classes (casters) is no longer necessary, and short-rest balanced classes are just underpowered compared to their long-rest balanced classes.
Besides, I honestly don't see how it is less fun for players. "You spent a week of downtime. What do you want to do next?" doesn't sound more tedious than "You spent 8 hours sleeping. What do you want to do next?" Only difference is that one allows the narrative to progress more naturally than the other.
My point is that the rules can be right for some campaigns and if you find that they just slow your game down unnecessarily, then your campaign was not the target audience of this variant rule.
I don't agree that those that try to use it want slow campaigns.
No, I didn't say that everyone who uses it wants slow campaigns. I meant that the crowd of people who do want slow campaigns is the target audience of Gritty Realism. It says so in the DMG: "It’s a good option for campaigns that emphasize intrigue, politics, and interactions among other NPCs, and in which combat is rare or something to be avoided rather than rushed into."
It just causes more downtime. How is that fun for the players? They can optionally take downtime if they want to at any point: these optional rules just force it at times they don't want it.
The point is that if you play a campaign like described in the DMG quote above, where you spend very little time fighting, it makes sense story wise that the adventuring day is spread out over several days. If you play such a campaign, then the standard resting rules mean that everyone is always fresh in every fight, resource management for long-rest balanced classes (casters) is no longer necessary, and short-rest balanced classes are just underpowered compared to their long-rest balanced classes.
I agree with lots of the points that you make in this post, and that a set of "gritty realism" rules can work for certain types of campaigns. I still protest however that changing rest durations does not achieve this goal (at all).
Besides, I honestly don't see how it is less fun for players. "You spent a week of downtime. What do you want to do next?" doesn't sound more tedious than "You spent 8 hours sleeping. What do you want to do next?" Only difference is that one allows the narrative to progress more naturally than the other.
My point is that the rules can be right for some campaigns and if you find that they just slow your game down unnecessarily, then your campaign was not the target audience of this variant rule.
The reason that it's less fun for players (in my view) is that it interferes with the PCs ability to get on with things when they want to. I don't object to the concept - I object to the implementation because the rule should make combat more dangerous: but it doesn't make it any more dangerous at all. There is a big difference between a set of rules that make engaging that corrupt baron truly nerve-shredding, and a set of rules where combat is no more dangerous than it was before, but you know you have to wait a full week before you can deal with the corrupt baron, and then it's just business as usual.
If I was playing gritty realism in a campaign and wanted combat to be "we should really avoid this" then I believe that the key would be to make it dangerous, not just boost the recharge time. I would thereby do the following:
No death saving throws. When you reach 0 hit points, you are dead.
Critical hits don't deal double damage. Instead, they knock you unconscious.
Unconscious creatures revive after an hour.
No resurrection spells of any type
For me, this would achieve the desired effect much more efficiently if you want to make your PCs really nervous about entering combat (and I may try this one day!).
I think we are talking about different kind of goals. I wasn't talking about a campaign in Hardcore mode. Even though the DMG says that it's meant to make combat something "to be avoided", I don't think the goal is to make combat extra lethal. It's more that the consequences of combat (making you vulnerable because it takes longer to recover) can have a stronger impact on a more realistic narrative. Your players won't fight 5 times a day, but rather something like 5 times a week.
As for "wait a week and then it's business as usual": When players in a campaign with standard rules go dungeon crawling, they also don't just take a 8 hour nap after every fight and then it's business as usual. RAW provides a limitation for how many long rests you can do (1 in 24 hours) and DMs are encouraged to provide consequences for players meta-gaming and having 5-minute adventuring days. For example, if your party does a dungeon where they just do 1 encounter, then cast tiny hut, twiddle their thumbs for 24 hours and then do a long rest, then a DM would provide consequences like monsters besieging the tiny hut or the dungeon inhabitants taking their treasure and leaving while the group rests.
Gritty Realism rules enable you to do the same thing with a narrative that makes more sense outside of dungeon crawling. If your group meta-games and just takes a week of vacation after every encounter, then as a DM you can provide them with consequences. The corrupt baron could do all sorts of shenanigans while your party rests for a week. A lot more than they could with regular resting rules where your party is just absent for 8 hours. And if your party has gotten itself into trouble and is on the run, they will have to be a lot smarter to hideout somewhere for a week, rather than just 8 hours.
I am really enjoying, and appreciating, the very thoughtful discussion on this thread. Many thanks to all participants.
Thinking back to my original post, I think I mis-characterised what I am trying to achieve. It is not so much that I am trying to slow down the pace of the campaign, but rather to de-emphasize the role of combat in addressing the challenges put in front of the party. Indeed, I am hoping to have a great deal of time urgency in the campaign, as they will be facing a group of organized opponents to whom they cannot afford to cede the initiative. But what they will need to achieve will not always rely on combat, although it absolutely will at key moments. Their opponents are not static blobs, they will respond to the actions or inactions of the party, including by responding to inconclusive combat. The party should, I hope, feel that, when they engage in combat, they had better win right then and there, as they may not get a second chance.
What they do in their 'downtime' will be critical, they will need to gather information, forge and strengthen alliances, procure or produce resources and respond to the demands placed on them by the social structures within which they operate.
What I have gathered from the discussion so far is that the use of the Gritty Realism rules might not have much of a bearing on what I am trying to achieve either way. If combat is rare, but the encounters are decisive and widely spaced in time, it doesn't matter that much how long it takes for a long rest, since the party will usually get it between combats whether it's a week or eight hours. It might, however, affect the use of spells that are used outside of combat, which is also worth considering.
What they do in their 'downtime' will be critical, they will need to gather information, forge and strengthen alliances, procure or produce resources and respond to the demands placed on them by the social structures within which they operate.
Based on the statement you made here I think you have a good grasp of what you want to accomplish. For campaigns like these it is important to have an outline or timetable that keeps the DM on track with time. Our current campaign has elements that are much like you describe. There are three major sets of timelines that are prepared and the clock ticks down on them. We use an online fantasy calendar that incorporates weather, holidays, phases of the moon, and which allows the DM to hide or reveal events. Seasons, festivals, magic can all be affected by time and once again add to the richness of the world.
The way in which the characters interact with the campaign can move timelines or avoid events but time does march on. Recently the party made the choice to travel to a nearby town to gather information, resupply, and interact with various NPC's. They were presented with an opportunity to deliver some items to an ally and this took them several extra days to accomplish. Upon their return to a fort which serves as a jumping off point they found that a key ally had been ambushed and killed. If they had chosen to return directly they may have been able to prevent this but as they chose to assist the other ally this is where they ended up. The characters choices are thus meaningful and impactful and time has become a resource. Treating time as a resource provides a great deal of narrative power to you as the DM and provides tension and obstacles for the characters to overcome. Woe betide the poor party if they try and trek through the mountains in the middle of winter, they had best prepare for deep snow, cold temperatures, and vastly slowed movement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, I didn't say that everyone who uses it wants slow campaigns. I meant that the crowd of people who do want slow campaigns is the target audience of Gritty Realism. It says so in the DMG: "It’s a good option for campaigns that emphasize intrigue, politics, and interactions among other NPCs, and in which combat is rare or something to be avoided rather than rushed into."
The point is that if you play a campaign like described in the DMG quote above, where you spend very little time fighting, it makes sense story wise that the adventuring day is spread out over several days. If you play such a campaign, then the standard resting rules mean that everyone is always fresh in every fight, resource management for long-rest balanced classes (casters) is no longer necessary, and short-rest balanced classes are just underpowered compared to their long-rest balanced classes.
Besides, I honestly don't see how it is less fun for players. "You spent a week of downtime. What do you want to do next?" doesn't sound more tedious than "You spent 8 hours sleeping. What do you want to do next?" Only difference is that one allows the narrative to progress more naturally than the other.
My point is that the rules can be right for some campaigns and if you find that they just slow your game down unnecessarily, then your campaign was not the target audience of this variant rule.
I agree with lots of the points that you make in this post, and that a set of "gritty realism" rules can work for certain types of campaigns. I still protest however that changing rest durations does not achieve this goal (at all).
The reason that it's less fun for players (in my view) is that it interferes with the PCs ability to get on with things when they want to. I don't object to the concept - I object to the implementation because the rule should make combat more dangerous: but it doesn't make it any more dangerous at all. There is a big difference between a set of rules that make engaging that corrupt baron truly nerve-shredding, and a set of rules where combat is no more dangerous than it was before, but you know you have to wait a full week before you can deal with the corrupt baron, and then it's just business as usual.
If I was playing gritty realism in a campaign and wanted combat to be "we should really avoid this" then I believe that the key would be to make it dangerous, not just boost the recharge time. I would thereby do the following:
For me, this would achieve the desired effect much more efficiently if you want to make your PCs really nervous about entering combat (and I may try this one day!).
I think we are talking about different kind of goals. I wasn't talking about a campaign in Hardcore mode. Even though the DMG says that it's meant to make combat something "to be avoided", I don't think the goal is to make combat extra lethal. It's more that the consequences of combat (making you vulnerable because it takes longer to recover) can have a stronger impact on a more realistic narrative. Your players won't fight 5 times a day, but rather something like 5 times a week.
As for "wait a week and then it's business as usual": When players in a campaign with standard rules go dungeon crawling, they also don't just take a 8 hour nap after every fight and then it's business as usual. RAW provides a limitation for how many long rests you can do (1 in 24 hours) and DMs are encouraged to provide consequences for players meta-gaming and having 5-minute adventuring days. For example, if your party does a dungeon where they just do 1 encounter, then cast tiny hut, twiddle their thumbs for 24 hours and then do a long rest, then a DM would provide consequences like monsters besieging the tiny hut or the dungeon inhabitants taking their treasure and leaving while the group rests.
Gritty Realism rules enable you to do the same thing with a narrative that makes more sense outside of dungeon crawling. If your group meta-games and just takes a week of vacation after every encounter, then as a DM you can provide them with consequences. The corrupt baron could do all sorts of shenanigans while your party rests for a week. A lot more than they could with regular resting rules where your party is just absent for 8 hours. And if your party has gotten itself into trouble and is on the run, they will have to be a lot smarter to hideout somewhere for a week, rather than just 8 hours.
I am really enjoying, and appreciating, the very thoughtful discussion on this thread. Many thanks to all participants.
Thinking back to my original post, I think I mis-characterised what I am trying to achieve. It is not so much that I am trying to slow down the pace of the campaign, but rather to de-emphasize the role of combat in addressing the challenges put in front of the party. Indeed, I am hoping to have a great deal of time urgency in the campaign, as they will be facing a group of organized opponents to whom they cannot afford to cede the initiative. But what they will need to achieve will not always rely on combat, although it absolutely will at key moments. Their opponents are not static blobs, they will respond to the actions or inactions of the party, including by responding to inconclusive combat. The party should, I hope, feel that, when they engage in combat, they had better win right then and there, as they may not get a second chance.
What they do in their 'downtime' will be critical, they will need to gather information, forge and strengthen alliances, procure or produce resources and respond to the demands placed on them by the social structures within which they operate.
What I have gathered from the discussion so far is that the use of the Gritty Realism rules might not have much of a bearing on what I am trying to achieve either way. If combat is rare, but the encounters are decisive and widely spaced in time, it doesn't matter that much how long it takes for a long rest, since the party will usually get it between combats whether it's a week or eight hours. It might, however, affect the use of spells that are used outside of combat, which is also worth considering.
Based on the statement you made here I think you have a good grasp of what you want to accomplish. For campaigns like these it is important to have an outline or timetable that keeps the DM on track with time. Our current campaign has elements that are much like you describe. There are three major sets of timelines that are prepared and the clock ticks down on them. We use an online fantasy calendar that incorporates weather, holidays, phases of the moon, and which allows the DM to hide or reveal events. Seasons, festivals, magic can all be affected by time and once again add to the richness of the world.
The way in which the characters interact with the campaign can move timelines or avoid events but time does march on. Recently the party made the choice to travel to a nearby town to gather information, resupply, and interact with various NPC's. They were presented with an opportunity to deliver some items to an ally and this took them several extra days to accomplish. Upon their return to a fort which serves as a jumping off point they found that a key ally had been ambushed and killed. If they had chosen to return directly they may have been able to prevent this but as they chose to assist the other ally this is where they ended up. The characters choices are thus meaningful and impactful and time has become a resource. Treating time as a resource provides a great deal of narrative power to you as the DM and provides tension and obstacles for the characters to overcome. Woe betide the poor party if they try and trek through the mountains in the middle of winter, they had best prepare for deep snow, cold temperatures, and vastly slowed movement.