# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  DM hard limiting rests, shutting down rest spells

## chiner

Session 0, the DM says, "when you head down dungeons, I will dictate how many short and long rests you get, you cannot sneak in extra rests with spells like Tiny Hut. I have calculated how many encounters you are expected to fight each day. If you leave and come back another day, all dungeon monsters will reset as well."

Is this a red flag? It sounds like he's forcing 6-8 encounters every day and shutting down any creative ways to recover resources. Tiny Hut can still be challenged by things like Dispel Magic and burrowing, or the monsters using that time to lay a trap.

----------


## Dork_Forge

IMO no, but that's because he was upfront about this in session 0. It just sounds like he doesn't want to deal with spells like Tiny Hut and what not disturbing the balance of his predesigned encounters.

He could have been burned by those spells previously, or may just not like having his limited time consumed by prep that doesn't get used.

To address Tiny Hut in particular:

I don't believe burrowing does defeat it, and your suggestions are a bit short sighted if that is a tactic your party would use regularly. Sure, Dispel and traps can be used, but ultimately that will get stale for both sides after a while and regardless the traps set up, if you got the rest your party would shrug off disproportionate encounters with the resources and know you could carve out safe space in a dangerous place whenever you pleased.

I would see this as an opportunity to know what kind of combat game you were getting into, it's refreshing in a way and if there's nothing else that bothers you about the DM then just decide on if Tiny Hut etc. is where you draw the line.

----------


## Amnestic

> Tiny Hut can still be challenged by things like Dispel Magic


How commonly do you fight an enemy that has dispel magic? One in every 5 encounters? 10? 50? It will vary drastically, of course, depending on the area and enemy type - not a whole lot of wandering arcanists in an undead swamp - but if a large number (say, an even 50% - a coinflip of those monsters patrolling a dungeon) can do it would that seem antagonistic to the party/the hutter?

How commonly do you expect Tiny Hut to be dispelled to be a 'fair'? Speaking personally the number is probably less often than I would be satisfied with when I'm wearing my DH hat.

While the DM might have phrased it better, they're being up front and frankly deciding when the party gets to rest it already what the DM does. If they decide "no rest here, wandering encounter time" then...they'll do so. They're just saying the quiet part out loud

----------


## Cheesegear

> Session 0, the DM says, "when you head down dungeons, I will dictate how many short and long rests you get, you cannot sneak in extra rests with spells like Tiny Hut. I have calculated how many encounters you are expected to fight each day. If you leave and come back another day, all dungeon monsters will reset as well."
> 
> Is this a red flag?


Yes. When the DM signposts for you to go to a dungeon, don't. Do anything other than what the DM wants you to do.

If you get a quest to do a dungeon crawl; _In-character_ (that's the important part) you say that a dungeon crawl sounds too scary and you'll do something else to acquire a magic item or two, and once you feel confident in your abilities, then you'll do the dungeon. This is important because your DM says the dungeon resets if it _is_ too scary and you decide to leave.

Ask the DM how long it takes to travel to the next town. Go there. See what quests are in the other town.

When your DM says **** like this, the best move is to walk away from their encounters. Not the table. I can't stress that enough. I also can't stress; Do *not* be disruptive. You just keep asking the DM what else there is to do until you find something that _you_ want to do.

The DM can't tell you when you can rest. Well, they can. But not really in the 'You can't rest unless I say so.' sense. They have to hide the railroad. The DM _can_ tell you that it's unwise to short rest in a hostile location - and fudge a random encounter when you try. The DM _can_ tell you that if you go away to long rest, the hostiles will have discovered the effects of whatever you've done, and they can...Take steps accordingly (e.g; set traps and ambushes).

But "The Whole Dungeon Resets" means
a) You've done an entire session to be back where you started. That hurts _him_ and _you_. Because that means that there's no point in actually doing anything unless you feel you *can* complete it before you leave. I can't imagine wasting an entire session...I mean...Well, players do. But I can't see it being the DM's prerogative to have a session mean nothing. 
b) Say you storm a base. In that time you kill 14 Hobgoblins. But you see a Devastator coming along and you think it's time to bounce. You want to have a Long Rest, and have the casters re-jig their spells now that they know that the DM is on the ball and there's a Spellcaster in the mix - and a pretty good one, too. The implication of the camp resetting is that the Hobgoblins were spontaneously able to "create" 14 new Hobgoblins in 8 hours. Where? How? ...What? Explain this DM. If the Hobgoblins have an airship they can port in reinforcements with, the players are going to want that.

That being said, the thread title could be 'DM is railroading us. What do?'
If you _know_ the DM is trying to railroad you, all's you can do is not follow the rails. At best, you upset the DM because they worked on something that you don't want to do. At worst, you disrupt the table and the DM's railroading gets even _more_ obvious as they try and force you onto the tracks.




> It sounds like he's forcing 6-8 encounters every day...


It sounds like your DM thinks D&D is a video game where the coded script resets itself. When you Abandon Quest and Re-Up the Quest, the whole Quest is reset. D&D isn't. That.

It just shows that your DM isn't going to be a great improviser. That's okay. Not all DMs are. But there's a difference between "Improvising is hard." and "I have calculated how many combats you'll be having per day/session." ...It also sounds like your DM wont allow you to resolve combats _without_ violence, for whatever that's worth to you.

----------


## Mastikator

That is how you design *dungeons. But the DM should not show his cards like this. A dungeon should have the adventuring day number of encounters and have a "check point" or two for short rests. Trying to long rest in a dungeon should incur a failed state, the denizens should either flee with their treasure (because they know they are going to lose and die) or set up an ambush with traps, cover, the works, in order to win against the players. The denizens should be roleplayed as if they are people who want to live, and who want to win, and want to avenge their fallen comrades.



*anything can be a dungeon, outdoors can be a dungeon, mansions, castles, cave systems, anything can be a dungeon.

--

Tiny hut is easily defeated BTW, you don't try to get through it, you set up traps and ambush the party the second it goes down. You bring the whole dungeon into attacking position with ranged at the back, melee right next to it. This would destroy a party, the party is not wearing their armor (or if they were, they got no hp back) and the party does not have time to respec their spells (it takes a minute per spell level). They won't have any prep time, and the denizens do. The only thing the party can do to stop this is to interrupt their own long rest.
Tiny hut long rest in a populated hostile dungeon should be incredibly stupid. Even if you are well hidden the denizens will realize that they are under assault and will scout for the intruders. If they are truly unable then they should not just assume the intruders are gone, and if the intruders don't have the means of fighting then they ought to leave with all of the treasure.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Yes. When the DM signposts for you to go to a dungeon, don't. Do anything other than what the DM wants you to do.
> 
> If you get a quest to do a dungeon crawl; _In-character_ (that's the important part) you say that a dungeon crawl sounds too scary and you'll do something else to acquire a magic item or two, and once you feel confident in your abilities, then you'll do the dungeon. This is important because your DM says the dungeon resets if it _is_ too scary and you decide to leave.
> 
> Ask the DM how long it takes to travel to the next town. Go there. See what quests are in the other town.
> 
> When your DM says **** like this, the best move is to walk away from their encounters. Not the table. I can't stress that enough. I also can't stress; Do *not* be disruptive. You just keep asking the DM what else there is to do until you find something that _you_ want to do.
> 
> The DM can't tell you when you can rest. Well, they can. But not really in the 'You can't rest unless I say so.' sense. They have to hide the railroad. The DM _can_ tell you that it's unwise to short rest in a hostile location - and fudge a random encounter when you try. The DM _can_ tell you that if you go away to long rest, the hostiles will have discovered the effects of whatever you've done, and they can...Take steps accordingly (e.g; set traps and ambushes).
> ...


This just comes across as passive-aggressive or antagonistic. If you're just going to flat out refuse the adventures in front of you then find another table, that's a waste of everyone's time and frankly disrespectful to the DM when they have been very frank. 

The DM hasn't said 'you must go into this dungeon!' They'e just laid down expectations for what the players can expect when in the dungeon environment. The DM is actually doing their job, but like Amnestic said they're saying the quiet part aloud. Is it elegant and the sign of a seasoned DM? Not particularly, but it's honest and what DMs will do anyway, they're just being honest about it rather than doing it behind the screen.

----------


## Mastikator

> This just comes across as passive-aggressive or antagonistic. If you're just going to flat out refuse the adventures in front of you then find another table, that's a waste of everyone's time and frankly disrespectful to the DM when they have been very frank. 
> 
> The DM hasn't said 'you must go into this dungeon!' They'e just laid down expectations for what the players can expect when in the dungeon environment. The DM is actually doing their job, but like Amnestic said they're saying the quiet part aloud. Is it elegant and the sign of a seasoned DM? Not particularly, but it's honest and what DMs will do anyway, they're just being honest about it rather than doing it behind the screen.


Indeed. When players change their plans at the start of the session they sabotage the prep and force the DM to improvise. It's unfair to expect the DM to deliver high quality D&D if they have no time to prep, and downright rude and obnoxious if the DM did prep, all that time spent prepping down the drain.

A good player should tell the DM in advance they have no interest in going into a given dungeon, it's perfectly fair to not accept a dungeon crawl that you have no interest in, but tell the DM in advance.

I often offer players multiple choices for their next adventure, players vote on what they want and I pick the most popular option. Prepping an adventure is not hard, really, but it does take a couple of hours bare minimum to make it good. And more time can be spent to refine it further (often I have ideas when I'm doing other stuff, so having a whole week of prep time *really* helps deliver high quality D&D). If the players were to decide to sabotage my efforts by changing their plans just to spite my next adventure I would feel betrayed, and probably kick them from the group. We're all supposed to be on the same side, it's a team effort. Anyone who is not a team player is not a D&D player material or DM material.

----------


## stoutstien

> Session 0, the DM says, "when you head down dungeons, I will dictate how many short and long rests you get, you cannot sneak in extra rests with spells like Tiny Hut. I have calculated how many encounters you are expected to fight each day. If you leave and come back another day, all dungeon monsters will reset as well."
> 
> Is this a red flag? It sounds like he's forcing 6-8 encounters every day and shutting down any creative ways to recover resources. Tiny Hut can still be challenged by things like Dispel Magic and burrowing, or the monsters using that time to lay a trap.


Sounds like he just doesn't have the system experience to deal with unplanned resource recovery. 5e as a rule doesn't lend itself to this sort of structure so I can understand the frustration that occurs. 
Is it a red flag? No they are being upfront and clear for the what and why.  Not the best phrasing but it's intent is understandable.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Session 0, the DM says, "when you head down dungeons, I will dictate how many short and long rests you get, you cannot sneak in extra rests with spells like Tiny Hut. I have calculated how many encounters you are expected to fight each day. If you leave and come back another day, all dungeon monsters will reset as well."


The DM *always* dictates how many short and long rests the PCs get, so that's nothing new.

That he thinks you can "sneak in extra rests" is puzzling, as is the "I have calculated how many encounters you are expected to fight each day", and to me those things indicate the DM does not master the system yet.

The whole "all dungeon monsters will reset as well" is not something I would ever do, unless the PCs are specifically in a place like the afterlife plane of Ysgard where all who die on the battlefield come back the next dawn.





> That is how you design *dungeons. But the DM should not show his cards like this. A dungeon should have the adventuring day number of encounters and have a "check point" or two for short rests.


I strongly and vehemently disagree. A dungeon is an environment where many encounters exist, there is no reason for an "adventuring day number of encounters" or times for short rests to be set in stones.

A dungeon should have as many encounters as the PCs trigger by entering it and doing their thing. I can be "all of them at once" if they mess up and let the guard in the first room alert everyone, it can be "no one in the dungeon realizes the PCs are doing their stuff because they split into two teams and one of them has managed to distract everyone with a false attack."




> Trying to long rest in a dungeon should incur a failed state, the denizens should either flee with their treasure (because they know they are going to lose and die) or set up an ambush with traps, cover, the works, in order to win against the players. The denizens should be roleplayed as if they are people who want to live, and who want to win, and want to avenge their fallen comrades.


If the PCs are spotted by those who control the area, sure, but there are many dungeons where there isn't only one faction in charge of everything, and many more dungeons where the ones in control have blind spots.

Ex: if Drow and Duergars are fighting for who will own Dragonmaw Fortress, it's likely there are places where a group of a few individuals can camp with neither sides being willing to send patrols to check. 

But yes I agree that if they notice there is an hostile presence inside their walls, the denizens will do whatever they can to counter such hostile presence, be it by fleeing or by reinforcing their position. 




> Tiny hut is easily defeated BTW, you don't try to get through it, you set up traps and ambush the party the second it goes down. You bring the whole dungeon into attacking position with ranged at the back, melee right next to it. This would destroy a party, the party is not wearing their armor (or if they were, they got no hp back) and the party does not have time to respec their spells (it takes a minute per spell level). They won't have any prep time, and the denizens do. The only thing the party can do to stop this is to interrupt their own long rest.
> Tiny hut long rest in a populated hostile dungeon should be incredibly stupid. Even if you are well hidden the denizens will realize that they are under assault and will scout for the intruders. If they are truly unable then they should not just assume the intruders are gone, and if the intruders don't have the means of fighting then they ought to leave with all of the treasure.


Also agreed.

Tiny Hut can work if the PCs have retreated to somewhere the denizens of the dungeon won't check during 8 hours, but if the dome get spotted they should be facing all the forces and tricks the denizens' leaders can muster.




> This just comes across as passive-aggressive or antagonistic. If you're just going to flat out refuse the adventures in front of you then find another table, that's a waste of everyone's time and frankly disrespectful to the DM when they have been very frank.


Agreed. There is nothing wrong with saying "this is not for me, sorry" and leaving the table. 




> Sounds like he just doesn't have the system experience to deal with unplanned resource recovery.


Indeed. From what little we know, I get the impression the DM doesn't feel they have the experience/confidence to handle the unexpected, so they're over-planning (or overly rigidly planning). Or maybe they just prefer that kind of "nothing unexpected enforcement". 

So, to answer OP's question:




> Is this a red flag?


Not as such, but take it for what it is: he is being open about how his games will be. In consequence, if you don't think you'll enjoy it, don't play with this person, but there is no reason why some people wouldn't have a great time with that playstyle.

----------


## Leon

Well within their remit to do so and letting you know upfront is good. Take it or leave it with that info.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> Session 0, the DM says, "when you head down dungeons, I will dictate how many short and long rests you get, you cannot sneak in extra rests with spells like Tiny Hut. I have calculated how many encounters you are expected to fight each day. If you leave and come back another day, all dungeon monsters will reset as well."
> 
> Is this a red flag? It sounds like he's forcing 6-8 encounters every day and shutting down any creative ways to recover resources. Tiny Hut can still be challenged by things like Dispel Magic and burrowing, or the monsters using that time to lay a trap.


It would be one for me yeah. However, my advice would be play like if that was never said and see for yourself, maybe the rule isn't as limiting as it seems, if it does indeed start clashing with the roleplay, then consider what to do.

----------


## Mastikator

> I strongly and vehemently disagree. A dungeon is an environment where many encounters exist, there is no reason for an "adventuring day number of encounters" or times for short rests to be set in stones.
> 
> A dungeon should have as many encounters as the PCs trigger by entering it and doing their thing. I can be "all of them at once" if they mess up and let the guard in the first room alert everyone, it can be "no one in the dungeon realizes the PCs are doing their stuff because they split into two teams and one of them has managed to distract everyone with a false attack."
> 
> If the PCs are spotted by those who control the area, sure, but there are many dungeons where there isn't only one faction in charge of everything, and many more dungeons where the ones in control have blind spots.
> 
> Ex: if Drow and Duergars are fighting for who will own Dragonmaw Fortress, it's likely there are places where a group of a few individuals can camp with neither sides being willing to send patrols to check.
> 
> But yes I agree that if they notice there is an hostile presence inside their walls, the denizens will do whatever they can to counter such hostile presence, be it by fleeing or by reinforcing their position.


A dynamic dungeon that is occupied by two or more forces at war with each other should be crafted with consideration of how an 8 hour will change the dungeon. Even if it was a stalemate before the players arrived, as soon as they infiltrate/assault the dungeon it should no longer be a stalemate. The players actions should cause a reaction from the population, and with 8 hours that reaction should be _game-changing_. A lot can happen in 8 hours. One side can win. Reinforcements can arrive. Barricades can be built. Traps can be placed. Treasure can be moved or looted. The new interlopers (the players) should be taken into consideration by the dungeon denizens.

Smart denizens should also be able to parley with the players, you may not have to fight 6-8 encounters, you can bribe, convince, deceive or bargain with them. Especially if the denizens are at war with another dungeon faction.

The important thing to take into consideration is long rest, the DM should consider whether the players are able to take a long rest or not. If they can take a long rest then the DM should create a spot where they can do that, and consider how the players actions affect the ecosystem and politics of the dungeon. If the DM creates a dungeon where there are no safe places to rest and the players escape the dungeon and head back to town to rest then the DM is well within their right to make the denizens either flee, reinforce or even hunt down the players. All of this is possible with a standard adventuring day.

The only way you can have a dungeon where it's safe to rest in a room you just defeated is a dungeon occupied by denizens that are not able to leave their rooms. It's possible, like constructs or mindless undead trapped in said rooms (such enemies serve as puzzles, they can be attacked, snuck past or disabled somehow, maybe they interact with the other magic of the dungeon?), but then that dungeon should be designed as such, and it's always possible to just put a time limit on the party. They need to go to the treasury of the dungeon and take the mcguffin today because tomorrow the BBEG uses his artifact to take over the world. If the players long rest they are defeated.

----------


## Cheesegear

> This just comes across as passive-aggressive or antagonistic.


The DM has stated outright that he will railroad you, if and/or when he gets the chance.

Now, DMs can absolutely do this - I've done it. But why would you tell the players that? Why would you _tell_ the players in Session 0, that oftentimes you simply wont take their actions into account when telling the story and/or running the game?

The DM has played their hand. I don't know why they would do that. But hey, it's done. And what's worse is that it was done around something really weird; Preventing Rests.

There are so many ways that a DM can prevent a Rest - Short or Long - without being so...Overt, that it boggles my mind that a DM would explain it that way. 'You can't rest because I decide when you can rest.'
...Yes. That's _technically_ true. But you shouldn't phrase it that way, because it puts players on the offensive immediately. If a DM has to be explicit about their ability to use - and abuse - Rule 0, they're not exactly being a good DM.




> If you're just going to flat out refuse the adventures in front of you then find another table


I didn't say flat out refuse. I said come back later. Force the DM to do something new this session, right now. And you'll do the dungeon next session. Three sessions from now.




> frankly disrespectful to the DM when they have been very frank.


And telling the players - outright - that before they even start, that their actions don't affect anything, isn't?

The DM is telling them upfront that when it comes to resting - and to a lesser extent, running away - they have no agency. They _must_ complete a scenario in the timeframe that the DM has set. Again. I have no qualms about setting a running clock; 'You understand that if you Short Rest, the hostiles get a free hour to do the thing?'

I can try and _convince_ my players not to Rest. I can remind them that they're in a hostile environment and that Short Resting in a location is likely to lead to a random encounter. Especially if the Bard starts singing for that free +d6. The random encounter is going to _further_ drain their resources, and interrupt the rest. Wouldn't it just be better to continue?

I don't want my players to Rest.
Do I tell them that? Hell no.
Do I _prevent_ them from taking a Rest, even though they want to? ...Not exactly. They need to be able to make their choices, and their choices need to have effects. Otherwise you aren't really playing an RPG...You're just playing a G.




> The DM hasn't said 'you must go into this dungeon!' They'e just laid down expectations for what the players can expect when in the dungeon environment.


I assume that to mean that the DM is planning for you to be in a dungeon. Otherwise why say that?

My question is, what happens to the DM - and to the game - if the party says that no, they don't want to go into a dungeon that the DM prepared?

Cool. I've been in that situation. Start rolling on the Xanathar's random encounter tables like...Immediately. Trying to see if I can string a story together - even a bad one.
Uhh...Okay. You don't want to do a dungeon...Uhh...Cool. No problem. Uhh...There's a bounty on a mating pair of Bulettes. Please kill one of them so we don't have more Bulettes. Do not kill both of them.

...This led to a story about going through the terrain trying to find the Bulettes, before the Bulettes found the party. The tanks did non-lethal damage to one Bulette, whilst the ranged and casters focused down the other one with their _inability_ to do non-lethal damage. ****. ****. How do I make this interesting?
Okay great. Turns out the pair have _already_ mated and there's a bunch of baby Bulettes.
Oh noes!
Bandits are also here for the Bounty. You didn't think you were the only Hunters, did you...

My _plan_ went out the window. I did what the players wanted to do...And suddenly they're discovering an exotic animal trading ring. Yeah. That's not what I had planned. Not even close.




> The DM is actually doing their job, but like Amnestic said they're saying the quiet part aloud.


As I said; I hope it's that. But I don't think it is. I think the DM has told them he's going to railroad them, and he's the DM, so that's it.

Otherwise my advice to the OP, is to ask 'Well, how often are we going to be in a dungeon?'

A _planned_ session is nice to have. I love 'em. But a lot of times - like, most of the time, actually? - that plan goes out the window the second your players get involved. And the DM needs to *ahem* plan for their plan to well, not work. What do you do when you don't want your players to Short Rest after every fight, but you don't want them to, because Challenge? You think of something. You don't just say 'No Tiny Huts allowed.'

My preferred fix, of course (as seen in other threads), is to try to Quantum Ogre the party back to what I want to do _in a way that makes sense_. But, as is obvious; Quantum Ogre can't always work. Go to Xanathar's and think of something fast. Xanathar's RE tables have saved more sessions than I can count.

If you give your players a _choice_ in what they do, you should fully expect them to choose wrong. I know I do. It only takes one player with a bad idea, to convince the other four players that it's a good idea.

What does the DM do, when the party doesn't follow their rails? What does the DM do, when the party chooses wrong?
What do the _players_ do, whey they discover said rails? What if they don't like being on said rails?

If I understand you correctly (and I'm about 40% sure that I don't); Those aren't even real questions.

The DM _tells_ you that they're going to railroad you, and you accept it or don't play.

As always, the 'Don't play D&D' advice is really strange to me. But _c'est la vie_.

----------


## Brookshw

> This just comes across as passive-aggressive or antagonistic. If you're just going to flat out refuse the adventures in front of you then find another table, that's a waste of everyone's time and frankly disrespectful to the DM when they have been very frank. 
> 
> The DM hasn't said 'you must go into this dungeon!' They'e just laid down expectations for what the players can expect when in the dungeon environment. The DM is actually doing their job, but like Amnestic said they're saying the quiet part aloud. Is it elegant and the sign of a seasoned DM? Not particularly, but it's honest and what DMs will do anyway, they're just being honest about it rather than doing it behind the screen.


This, if you're not interested in the type of campaign they're going to run, put on your adult pants and talk about it.

To the OP, DM wants to run challenging dungeons with limited resources access. That's fine, perfectly acceptable type of game, and has communicated that up front, another good thing, clearly they want to communicate and establish expectations. These are all good signs, not red flags.

----------


## Unoriginal

> A dynamic dungeon that is occupied by two or more forces at war with each other should be crafted with consideration of how an 8 hour will change the dungeon. Even if it was a stalemate before the players arrived, as soon as they infiltrate/assault the dungeon it should no longer be a stalemate. The players actions should cause a reaction from the population, and with 8 hours that reaction should be _game-changing_. A lot can happen in 8 hours. One side can win. Reinforcements can arrive. Barricades can be built. Traps can be placed. Treasure can be moved or looted. The new interlopers (the players) should be taken into consideration by the dungeon denizens.
> 
> Smart denizens should also be able to parley with the players, you may not have to fight 6-8 encounters, you can bribe, convince, deceive or bargain with them. Especially if the denizens are at war with another dungeon faction.
> 
> The important thing to take into consideration is long rest, the DM should consider whether the players are able to take a long rest or not. If they can take a long rest then the DM should create a spot where they can do that, and consider how the players actions affect the ecosystem and politics of the dungeon. If the DM creates a dungeon where there are no safe places to rest and the players escape the dungeon and head back to town to rest then the DM is well within their right to make the denizens either flee, reinforce or even hunt down the players. All of this is possible with a standard adventuring day.


I don't disagree with that 




> The only way you can have a dungeon where it's safe to rest in a room you just defeated is a dungeon occupied by denizens that are not able to leave their rooms. It's possible, like constructs or mindless undead trapped in said rooms


This I don't agree with, unless you meant "the only way you can have a dungeon where the denizens won't react to your long rest attempt after you've done something noticeable".




> The DM has stated outright that he will railroad you, if and/or when he gets the chance.
> 
> Now, DMs can absolutely do this - I've done it. But why would you tell the players that? Why would you _tell_ the players in Session 0, that oftentimes you simply wont take their actions into account when telling the story and/or running the game?


It's honesty.

I much prefer a DM who outright state they're going to do it and you can take it or leave it to a DM who think players are too dumb to notice they're a railroader.




> As always, the 'Don't play D&D' advice is really strange to me. But _c'est la vie_.


The advice is actually "don't play D&D with people whose playstyle or personalities don't work with yours".

Not playing D&D is a bummer, sure. Playing D&D with people who make it not enjoyable is both a waste of your time and actively painful.

Therefore, "no D&D" is better than "bad D&D".

----------


## MrStabby

I am of the school that there are a lot of different viable and legitimate playstyles for D&D.  A DM having a particular style is not a red flag at all.  Sure, it may mean their table is less suited to you but they set the style of the game.  I won't castigate them for having the wrong type of fun.  Now I would criticise them if they hadn't told you.

On the other hand, imagine you are a player at the table and the opposite call had been made.  Imagine you rocked up with a fighter or a rogue wanting to excel at long adventuring days and your strength was in those circumstances where resources were constrained.  Then, because a DM is very permissive with resting and avoiding encounters all the casters are always using lots of high level spells and your class abilities have been obviated.  Then equally you would look to complain.

Giving people the information they need to know to enjoy your game or to decide that that style of game is not for them just seems like good DMing.  Sounds like a good session zero and setting common expectations.

----------


## Catullus64

Not only do I not see this as a red flag, but it sounds like your DM has his priorities in order for how to run a very specific kind of game; one which is highly tactical, and keyed tightly around the rhythms of dungeon exploration. It's a more old-school mentality, particularly the bit about dungeon monsters resetting every time you leave to rest; that part hasn't been in fashion in quite a long time. This does not look to me like railroading, just a game with a somewhat limited and linear structure (which, I remind the Playground, are not the same thing.)

----------


## EggKookoo

> The DM has stated outright that he will railroad you, if and/or when he gets the chance.


I don't see any railroading. I myself enforce the RAW rule that you can only benefit from one long rest per day. I try to limit how many short rests you can have between. Usually after the third short rest, I'll start making it hard for the PCs to get more.

This isn't railroading. It's just a resource management mechanic.

----------


## Raven777

Just chiming in that when for stylistic reasons you dislike magic thwarting some fantasy tropes like resting in the wildernes/dungeon and being ambushed, or trekking over the vast overland journey...

The trick is not being the DM. _The trick is playing the caster_.

"You should cast Tiny Hut / Teleport".
"Can't, never learned that spell. (mutters) And never will."

 :Small Tongue:

----------


## stoutstien

Honestly whole master puppeteer DM angle of trying to hide pacing restrictions behind narrative props gets old fast. if the issues are purely meta then address them as such.

----------


## Mastikator

> I don't disagree with that 
> 
> This I don't agree with, unless you meant "the only way you can have a dungeon where the denizens won't react to your long rest attempt after you've done something noticeable".


Depends on the dungeon, a castle with two factions at war with each other over control merely getting in and being in should eventually alert either side to your presence. There should be patrols, and wandering denizens, people going from room A to room B even in a not-at-ongoing-battle castle. The longer you stay the more likely it is that you are found out even if you kill nobody. (if you kill or attack anybody then you better get a move on while you have the initiative, any rest and you give the initiative to the enemy)

----------


## MrStabby

> Honestly whole master puppeteer DM angle of trying to hide pacing restrictions behind narrative props gets old fast. if the issues are purely meta then address them as such.


I half agree.  I think the mean level of tolerance to ad hoc resting should be articulated outside of the game, but each region and dungeon and circumstance will have some variability around that, variability that I think is often better handled in character/in game.

----------


## Psyren

@OP - I strongly recommend you don't follow any of the advice Cheesegear gave in that post.

As for the DM's approach - I'm not wild about their phrasing ("sneak in extra rests" comes off as needlessly antagonistic, like he's assuming you'd attempt that unless admonished). However, warning you that you'll likely have multiple encounters per rest during session zero, and that leaving a dungeon will repopulate it, are totally fine. I would personally want clarification on how you level up - presumably you can't repeatedly leave and re-enter the dungeon to "farm XP" or saleable items - but it's worth double-checking on whether the respawned baddies will have any loot at all or if they'll purely be resource attrition speed bumps after the first time.

----------


## Unoriginal

> It's a more old-school mentality, particularly the bit about dungeon monsters resetting every time you leave to rest; that part hasn't been in fashion in quite a long time.


This is quite the opposite of everything I've experienced and learned on the topic. 

According to what I know, dungeons like the Tomb of Horror that were designed to reset if the PCs left were both exceptions to the large majority and had in-universe explanations for that odd phenomenon (for the Tomb of Horror, the explanation is that it's specifically set up to attract and destroy adventurers, as it's the only purpose of the building).




> "sneak in extra rests" comes off as needlessly antagonistic, like he's assuming you'd attempt that unless admonished


Also it's plainly not possible.

The DM controls if the PCs can take rests or not, regardless of any feature. 

To me it feels like OP's potential DM is under the impression the player can just cast a spell and dictate what happens, so they're overcompensating on the other direction.

----------


## Zuras

This isnt a red flag, more of an ingredients warning.  The wrapper says contains peanuts, so if you really hate peanuts or are allergic to them, dont eat it.  If you feel explicit rest restrictions interfere with your control over your character, then maybe the table isnt for you.

The fact that the DM said it outright ahead of time is a positive sign, and its often hard to know how DM policies will play out in practice.  DMs who sound absolutely dictatorial can actually end up collegial and collaborative if you both want the same style of game.

The only concerning bit, as described, is that the DM didnt really lay out their reasons in a way that convinced you.  It would be better if they had persuaded you up front, but you dont need great salesmanship skills to be a quality DM.

----------


## Amnestic

> presumably you can't repeatedly leave and re-enter the dungeon to "farm XP" or saleable items


Time to start up an entire town around the infinite resource dungeon!

----------


## Pex

> Session 0, the DM says, "when you head down dungeons, I will dictate how many short and long rests you get, you cannot sneak in extra rests with spells like Tiny Hut. I have calculated how many encounters you are expected to fight each day. If you leave and come back another day, all dungeon monsters will reset as well."
> 
> Is this a red flag? It sounds like he's forcing 6-8 encounters every day and shutting down any creative ways to recover resources. Tiny Hut can still be challenged by things like Dispel Magic and burrowing, or the monsters using that time to lay a trap.


Yes and no. There is a point to not wanting players to abuse rest/15 minute work days. However, it also reeks of DM tyranny controlling player behavior. For now it tells me not to play a class that relies heavily on short rests such as warlock, monk, and fighter. You have no control on when you get your stuff back.

Are there lots of house rules banning stuff and/or changing how things work? If yes, Do Not Play. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200. Not allowing homebrew and maybe some stuff from Tasha acceptable, but if you need your own handbook to handle rules changes don't get on the ride.

----------


## Witty Username

I would have some concerns with encounter design since rest mechanics are alot of what contribute to the games safety net. But DMs can definitely manage that. Use caution for monks, as they tend to have the most issues without enough short resting.

My personal table problems feel like the oposite of this though, the party forgeting rest mechanics rather that resting at every opportunity, you would think a party with not 1 but 2 warlocks would remember to short rest but apparently not.

----------


## stoutstien

> I half agree.  I think the mean level of tolerance to ad hoc resting should be articulated outside of the game, but each region and dungeon and circumstance will have some variability around that, variability that I think is often better handled in character/in game.


Aye. It's give and take.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

The proposed game reads like Diablo.
I myself would pass on the game, I can play Diablo on my own time.
I _guess_ Kudos are in order for the DM being upfront about running a bad game.  I can not say I find the idea that praiseworthy.

5e is swingydice go cold for the PCs, and the DM is rolling crits left and right means an unscheduled rest is going to be in order.

Players determining when to take a Short Rest is a boon for a DMbut hey the DM in the original post will learn this from experience, methinks.

----------


## nalgarryn

Rests restore resources. Dungeon crawl consumes resources progressively.

If the players increase their resource pool. that means the DM needs to create challenges to consume more resources.

Sounds like the DM doesn't want to be put into the position of having to do this on the fly. I would work with the DM.

The easiest way for the DM to do this is add extra simple monsters (like summons) to the encounters; the risk, since action economy is so crucial, is that they miscalculate and there's a lot of death on your part. Work with the DM.

----------


## Samayu

It sounds like he wants to hold you the average number of encounters per rest. If so, what's the problem? Sure, you seldom get ahead, but you also seldom get behind. If you find yourself dying a lot, then you can have a talk with him. 

It sounds to me like he's worried he can't balance the challenge level like he wants, so he's trying to eliminate the wild cards. This makes him not so much of a jerk as a guy who hasn't figured it all out yet. So I say give him a chance. He's told you this upfront, so assume good faith. Talk with him about it over time if you feel it becomes a problem.

The only thing that worries me is the part about "you cannot sneak in extra rests with spells like Tiny Hut." You can't snaek an extra rest with a spell. It only means your safer when you do rest. This indicates he might have funny ideas about how things work.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

I am about to run a dungeon that "respawns" all the monsters overnight both in-universe and out of universe. Explicitly so--the players AND characters know this. In fact, that's why this particular place hasn't been cleared out despite 30 years of active (but periodic) attempts. Because no one has gotten to the deep part where the thing that is reanimating all these undead is before having to retreat due to injuries, losses. Especially given the block that is that Damned (in the literal sense) Door.[1]

However, it's also such that the party likely _can_ short rest without too much difficulty, as long as they've cleared the "zone" where they currently are and it's not too late in the day. Because the reset is _literally_ once ever 24 in-universe hours, at a particular time of day.

Would I do this regularly? No. It takes particular in-universe contrivances to make sense. Do I normally control resting? Lolno. Do I normally police the adventuring day? Nah, that'd take way too much effort while still allowing people to act and choose.

But is this a red flag? It's a sign of a particular style that may or may not work for everyone. But not necessarily of a DM who is "bad" or "controlling". At least IMO.

[1] an entity much like the Demon Door-type mobs from various FF games (a door with arms, mouth, and nasty magic) which the party believes they've found a way around without fighting.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> Session 0, the DM says, "when you head down dungeons, I will dictate how many short and long rests you get, you cannot sneak in extra rests with spells like Tiny Hut. I have calculated how many encounters you are expected to fight each day. If you leave and come back another day, all dungeon monsters will reset as well."
> 
> Is this a red flag? It sounds like he's forcing 6-8 encounters every day and shutting down any creative ways to recover resources. Tiny Hut can still be challenged by things like Dispel Magic and burrowing, or the monsters using that time to lay a trap.


This is more or less the way we play.  You get 1 long rest and 2 short ones with roughly 6-8 encounters in between.  An exception was in Avernus where characters needed to find somewhere sheltered in order to get the benefits of a long rest.

The game is balanced (in theory and in practice when I prep) around this kind of day, and I think it's good to lay that out before hand in session 0.  It'd be a pretty big shock for players who are used to regularly Nova, then be told, "No, you can't benefit from another short rest, and foes have likely become aware of you regardless of whether you stop or not." after they've burned up most resources.

----------


## Tanarii

No, it's not a red flag.  They've told you how they're going to handle resting in session 0, which is a good thing because there are a bunch of ways to handle it in 5e.  It's a somewhat normal way for DMs to handle it, taking it entirely out of the players hands.

If you don't like it, then that game is not for you.  That doesn't make it a red flag though. If anything, the session 0 explanation is a green flag.




> The advice is actually "don't play D&D with people whose playstyle or personalities don't work with yours".


The advice I was seeing was "don't be an antagonistic player and try to sabotage/derail the DMs game because you don't like the session 0 rules."  Joining a game after the session 0 rules have been laid out, with full intent to sabotage or otherwise do an end run around them, and/or actively derail the planned sessions, is extremely antagonistic and disruptive behavior.

----------


## MrStabby

> It sounds like he wants to hold you the average number of encounters per rest. If so, what's the problem? Sure, you seldom get ahead, but you also seldom get behind. If you find yourself dying a lot, then you can have a talk with him. 
> 
> It sounds to me like he's worried he can't balance the challenge level like he wants, so he's trying to eliminate the wild cards. This makes him not so much of a jerk as a guy who hasn't figured it all out yet. So I say give him a chance. He's told you this upfront, so assume good faith. Talk with him about it over time if you feel it becomes a problem.
> 
> The only thing that worries me is the part about "you cannot sneak in extra rests with spells like Tiny Hut." You can't snaek an extra rest with a spell. It only means your safer when you do rest. This indicates he might have funny ideas about how things work.


I don't think it's about even about having figured it out.  DMing is all about compromise.  More freedom means less balance.  More 'danger' means less scope for unoptimised characters. More 'creativity' means less relative value from more fixed abilities.  There are good things and bad things from every ruling.  I don't think the DM hasn't got a grip of things - I think that they have just made a judgement that this element of player freedom is worth trading for a more balanced game with more classes being somewhat viable and more of a different type of fun.

----------


## Rynjin

I'm not sure where this meme of "Well they told you up front so it's not a red flag" comes from, but that is exceptionally silly.

Of course it's a red flag. Objectively. It is something you clocked as odd, and stands out as something that does not appeal to you.

It being "up front" instead of hidden doesn't change that. Imagine you went on a first date and the person you're dating says "Yeah here's how it's gonna be. I decided when both of us go to bed, and how long we sleep. No sneaking in extra rests because you're tired; I'll know and I'll punish you for it."

The person being up front about it doesn't make them sound like any less of a psychopath lmao.

If anything, the utter lack of self-awareness or cognizance that this may come off as weird to some people is an even BIGGER red flag.

----------


## JackPhoenix

> I also can't stress; Do *not* be disruptive. You just keep asking the DM what else there is to do until you find something that _you_ want to do.


"Do not be disruptive", while advising for disruptive behavior. Seriously?

----------


## Boci

I get why the DM is doing it, but I prefer a more organic solutions, like just the threat what can happen when you take an 8 hour break mid-dungeon. Doesn't even have to be explicit just, "Rest as much as you want, but fair warning, something might change in the environment in response to that," and that tends to make player cautious enough to not take too many rests. There's an element of pride/enjoyment for the players too, they often want to clear an area with as few rests as possible, at least in my experience.

----------


## Unoriginal

> The advice I was seeing was "don't be an antagonistic player and try to sabotage/derail the DMs game because you don't like the session 0 rules."  Joining a game after the session 0 rules have been laid out, with full intent to sabotage or otherwise do an end run around them, and/or actively derail the planned sessions, is extremely antagonistic and disruptive behavior.


True, but that is a specific instance of the more general "don't play with people whose playstyle and/or personalities don't work with yours".

Sometime the playstyles/personalities not working together leads to one person being uninvolved in the sessions, sometime it causes them to be antagonistic and purposely disruptive, sometime it's a different result entirely.




> I'm not sure where this meme of "Well they told you up front so it's not a red flag" comes from, but that is exceptionally silly.


A red flag is a something worrying you perceive in how people act, if the person tells you upfront it's not a red flag. 

Like, if someone tells you "if you come to my party tonight, you should know me and my friends find it very funny to throw people in the pool at random moments and we're going to do it to the guests", it's not a red flag. That does not mean you should go to the party if you don't like being thrown in pools at random, watching other people be thrown in pools, or hanging out with people who think doing that is ok.

----------


## kazaryu

> I'm not sure where this meme of "Well they told you up front so it's not a red flag" comes from, but that is exceptionally silly.
> 
> Of course it's a red flag. Objectively. It is something you clocked as odd, and stands out as something that does not appeal to you.
> 
> It being "up front" instead of hidden doesn't change that. Imagine you went on a first date and the person you're dating says "Yeah here's how it's gonna be. I decided when both of us go to bed, and how long we sleep. No sneaking in extra rests because you're tired; I'll know and I'll punish you for it."
> 
> The person being up front about it doesn't make them sound like any less of a psychopath lmao.
> 
> If anything, the utter lack of self-awareness or cognizance that this may come off as weird to some people is an even BIGGER red flag.


i'm sort of with you in that this *could* be a red flag. after all, red flags tend to be fairly subjective, since they tend to  be based on individual experience. However, its also important to note that a 'red flag' is not the same thing as a 'deal breaker'  or at least it shouldn't be. a red flag is a cause for caution, it indicates that *maybe* something is wrong with a person, and you need to nope outta there. its usually just where there are multiple red flags (often picked up subconsciously) that it becomes time to leave.

with that context, i agree with you that this could easily be a red flag. However, its also not terribly unreasonable. As a DM i tend to overshare the Meta side of how i run things. For example, recently i shared with the players that things like long rests and short rests don't necessarily apply to everyone in the world (i.e. NPC's). Not everyone is going to be able to sleep overnight and just...bounce back up the next day ready to go. and i told them that because they were discussing the idea of backing out of a dungeon to long rest, but didn't necessarily want the boss to also reset. So i explained that....maybe he won't. So i tend to share quite a bit of the meta side, and how i think about things. and i try to be upfront about a lot of that so that im not constantly having to twist the parties arm, or come up with some bull**** in-game reason on the fly. i can just be like 'y'all, can we not do that please' or something to that effect. 

To me, what OP described is a similar idea. So, although i can acknowledge that it also sounds like an overly controlling DM. i'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and see how it actually shakes down in game.

----------


## NichG

I wouldn't choose to play that campaign, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it or with the DM for wanting to go that way. If you're interested in combat gauntlets and challenge-based gaming, could be fun. If you're interested in doing weird stuff within a world and finding the clever ideas that totally invalidate force or challenges, or  turn situations around on their head, I'd guess you'd probably chafe with this DM. So its down to taste and what you feel like playing.

----------


## Kane0

> Session 0, the DM says, "when you head down dungeons, I will dictate how many short and long rests you get, you cannot sneak in extra rests with spells like Tiny Hut. I have calculated how many encounters you are expected to fight each day. If you leave and come back another day, all dungeon monsters will reset as well."
> 
> Is this a red flag?


No, it's fine. Just dont plan to squeeze in more rests than expected, and actually prepare for fully rationed adventuring days in dungeons.

----------


## Rynjin

> A red flag is a something worrying you perceive in how people act, if the person tells you upfront it's not a red flag.


...What people choose to say and how they choose to present themselves is quite possibly the biggest thing you can perceive about how they act.

If something on the very surface level feels off to you, you're unlikely to find that what lay underneath appeals more.

----------


## No brains

Being kind of a pedantic language nerd, I think there can be something that is a 'red flag' and stated obviously. After all, pirates would raise a red flag when they intended to take no prisoners. Is that a red flag?

As for whether or not this is 'bad'... I can't definitively say. It restricts creativity and creates a slog, which can be bad, but if these are the restrictions that the DM has to put in place to allow them the difficult undertaking of actually running a game, it's neutral.

If you don't like the style, don't play. I would hope this builds the DM's confidence enough that they can allow more creative interactions with their encounters.

----------


## EggKookoo

It wouldn't be the internet if we weren't debating this, but...

A "flag" is an indicator of something, not the thing itself. The thing itself is... the thing itself.

----------


## Boci

> It wouldn't be the internet if we weren't debating this, but...
> 
> A "flag" is an indicator of something, not the thing itself. The thing itself is... the thing itself.


  Arguably the indicator here is that no DM has a rule / gaming style like this and doesn't let it influence their games in any other way. This implied a tightly controlled approach to encounter design that will be resistant to player disruption. What's this? My players bypass an encounter? Oh no they don't, I factored that encounter into this adventuring day, it is going to happen,"

----------


## Tanarii

> It wouldn't be the internet if we weren't debating this, but...
> 
> A "flag" is an indicator of something, not the thing itself. The thing itself is... the thing itself.


Yup. A red flag is a sign of a problem that requires attention.

It *could* be a red flag that this DM maybe inclined to make rulings that could cause table strife, when the time for rulings comes during play.

But I think that's highly unlikely.  Because they took the time to clearly spell this out as a Session 0, instead I think it's a green flag.  It indicates the DM probably has already thought about possible rulings that could cause strife, and put them in their Session 0.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> Session 0, the DM says, "when you head down dungeons, I will dictate how many short and long rests you get, you cannot sneak in extra rests with spells like Tiny Hut. I have calculated how many encounters you are expected to fight each day. If you leave and come back another day, all dungeon monsters will reset as well."
> 
> Is this a red flag? It sounds like he's forcing 6-8 encounters every day and shutting down any creative ways to recover resources. Tiny Hut can still be challenged by things like Dispel Magic and burrowing, or the monsters using that time to lay a trap.


On reading this a second time a was considering the use of the words, "creative ways to recover resources" and the mention of Tiny Hut (twice) as the example of such a way.  Tiny Hut is about the furthest thing from creative, particularly as it pertains to Wizards.  It's a button players can press as early as 5th level that doesn't even count against Wizard's daily spell loadout.

If players want a nova style game, one where they can press a button and replenish resources at any time then that's fine, but that has consequences.  Character balance is going to be way out of whack, and encounters are going to have to be far stronger to be challenging the party.  Some DMs and players want no part of this kind of campaign.

As a DM, I'd never say, "dungeon monsters will reset." as that ruins immersion.  However, it's not unreasonable to hold players to something resembling a normal adventuring day as defined by 5e.  If I, as a DM, had pushback by players against the idea of a normal adventuring day at the outset then it would be a red flag to me.

----------


## Marcloure

Tiny Hut is a cancer that has corrupted every 5e game I ran or played, so I can at least sympathize with your DM.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> "Do not be disruptive", while advising for disruptive behavior. Seriously?


Cheesegear is essentially arguing for civil disobedience.

One question I have, is the game under discussion a public game?
I think Resting restrictions as rule category could be warranted for a FLGS/Online game, in which people drop in and out.

I would be non-plussed in a home game, if the players did not control their own rests, in general.

A location or event that has restrictions on resting is fine.
Im even fine with restrictions on Long Rests, such as one has to be in a town or other point of civilization to rest.

Categorically, removing Short Rests from player control, just dispels the illusion of player agency, for me.  Might as well have a Short Rest trigger automatically after every 2-3 Encounters then, so as to have no interruptions in the Dungeon Delving.

----------


## Longshanks126

The only thing that's giving me pause is "you cannot sneak in extra rests". That to me is needlessly antagonistic. And is this DM banning Catnap, or the Genie Warlock? DM's already control when and where you can rest, so this whole situation just seems odd to me. Gives me the feeling of someone who has the "DM vs. Players" mindset.

----------


## JNAProductions

> This, if you're not interested in the type of campaign they're going to run, put on your adult pants and talk about it.
> 
> To the OP, DM wants to run challenging dungeons with limited resources access. That's fine, perfectly acceptable type of game, and has communicated that up front, another good thing, clearly they want to communicate and establish expectations. These are all good signs, not red flags.


Adding my voice to this.

The DM is being up front and honest about what they're gonna do. If you're still interested in the game, build an appropriate PC, and have fun! If it doesn't sound like something you'd enjoy, then politely decline the game. You could also, if you're on the fence, let the DM know that-ask them if you can sit in for a session or two with a PC that has an IC reason to potentially leave unexpectedly, and give the game a trial run.

----------


## Tanarii

> On reading this a second time a was considering the use of the words, "creative ways to recover resources" and the mention of Tiny Hut (twice) as the example of such a way.  Tiny Hut is about the furthest thing from creative, particularly as it pertains to Wizards.  It's a button players can press as early as 5th level that doesn't even count against Wizard's daily spell loadout.
> 
> If players want a nova style game, one where they can press a button and replenish resources at any time then that's fine, but that has consequences.  Character balance is going to be way out of whack, and encounters are going to have to be far stronger to be challenging the party.  Some DMs and players want no part of this kind of campaign.


I basically eliminated LTH to long rest with a campaign rule that you had to pull out of an adventuring site to long rest, and it ended the session.  For an open-table different-players-every-time campaign it was a very useful rule.  (I did have a few special exceptions areas where players could schedule several sessions to explore as a group, locking those characters out until they returned.  Using LTH to safely long rest within such an area was fine and even smart, but still ended a session.)




> As a DM, I'd never say, "dungeon monsters will reset." as that ruins immersion.


Yeah that implies a certain kind of video game-y mentality.  "Things change if you spend time away" is by far the more normal DM attitude, and even "including possible 'dungeon restocking' based on procedural generation " if you're really going old school.

(Edit2: I should add that my campaign rule above has drawn the comment video-gamey.  Yes. Yes it is. It's a needed game conceit vaguely designed to map to in world activities.)




> However, it's not unreasonable to hold players to something resembling a normal adventuring day as defined by 5e.  If I, as a DM, had pushback by players against the idea of a normal adventuring day at the outset then it would be a red flag to me.


Agreed.  Especially since my general experience is even when they aren't artificially limited by a campaign rule (ie when I've run one-offs of a few sessions) I usually have to suggest resting.  Players just love to over-extend their PCs.  So I'd definitely find players intentionally pushing the idea that a 5MWD is normal a red flag to keep an eye on.

Edit: But it's worth keeping in in mind here that 3 Deadly encounters is a normal adventuring day. That's not a lot of combats if you're in a dangerous area.

----------


## Brookshw

> Cheesegear is essentially arguing for civil disobedience.


I'm not seeing it. This is an opt-in situation, not something you're forced to be subject to and have limited recourse against, you can completely reject the game and not have to deal with any of the DM's rules for it. Instead, accepting the premise when you really wanted to reject it, and then fighting against it, is both bad faith and deceptive, not to mention rude and a waste of time to everyone else who sat down to with the intent to engage in that game. To put it another way, if we agree to sit down and play checkers, and then I start moving my pieces like their chess pieces, it would be a pretty crappy play on my part.

----------


## Cheesegear

> "Do not be disruptive", while advising for disruptive behavior. Seriously?


Why does nobody understand how to actually talk to people anymore?

The Duke wants you to go to this dungeon to find a McGuffin! The rewards will be so great! You might be heroes!
No thanks. Can we do something else? We don't feel like we're up to that. Especially if we have to do it in one shot because "the dungeon will reset" if we give up halfway through. So let's just not do that. Are there any trading companies in town looking for Guards? We can do that to the next town, and we'll see what's over yonder before we come back.

That's all it needs to be. That's all it _should_ be. Is that what people think is disruptive behavior?

A planned session is nice to have - I have loads, I do Quantum Ogres, after all - but if you set up a plot hook for the session or the encounter, and the _players don't bite_; That's game.

So you come to the magical lake...The water looks _really_ tasty.
Nobody's drinking the water, DM.
Okay, so four of you drink the water.
...What?
Remember I said in Session 0, that if you come across water you have to drink it. You agreed to this. Otherwise you wouldn't be playing.

----------


## Psyren

> Adding my voice to this.
> 
> The DM is being up front and honest about what they're gonna do. If you're still interested in the game, build an appropriate PC, and have fun! If it doesn't sound like something you'd enjoy, then politely decline the game. You could also, if you're on the fence, let the DM know that-ask them if you can sit in for a session or two with a PC that has an IC reason to potentially leave unexpectedly, and give the game a trial run.


I find this eminently reasonable. If you're not sure that the kind of game will meet your needs, offer to run a trial PC. 

If the DM rejects this out of hand, that in itself might give you the information you need.

----------


## animewatcha

How many here play with 'Idle' games on steam or other game areas that do this? That is how this 'campaign' (as the DM said dungeon*s*) can be played. The same things can be ran over and over again to get your characters more resources and/or go through more efficiently. You have a continuous source of monster parts for better gear/spell components. Call the first one a 'playtest' of the rules for this DM. He is to note that the monsters are specifically to 'reset'. Not respawn/resurrect/etc. There is no upgrading of monsters to match the CR of the party or any thing of the sort. To do so would be an admission by him that his own 'rules' fail. If you are 'long resting outside' the main entrance and wild animals 'mysteriously keep interrupting'. Then it gets treated just like the dungeon. Constant source of loot. Again Dungeon 1 is a trial run for this whole format.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Why does nobody understand how to actually talk to people anymore?
> 
> The Duke wants you to go to this dungeon to find a McGuffin! The rewards will be so great! You might be heroes!
> No thanks. Can we do something else? We don't feel like we're up to that. Especially if we have to do it in one shot because "the dungeon will reset" if we give up halfway through. So let's just not do that. Are there any trading companies in town looking for Guards? We can do that to the next town, and we'll see what's over yonder before we come back.
> 
> That's all it needs to be. That's all it _should_ be. Is that what people think is disruptive behavior?


Players should want their adventurers to do the adventure.

Or, if you prefer: "If you're playing Descent into Avernus, don't play someone who will not go into Avernus".

That isn't a concern if the campaign is a sandbox, but I don't think OP's DM's campaign is one.





> A planned session is nice to have - I have loads, I do Quantum Ogres, after all


Any Quantum Ogre is lying to players that this choice matter.

Do you really think it's better than just checking with the players that yes, they actually want to play the adventure? 




> but if you set up a plot hook for the session or the encounter, and the _players don't bite_; That's game.


There is a large difference between "the players had an idea the DM didn't think of for how to handle the adventure" or "the PCs go do something to prepare before going for the adventure" and "the PCs don't go on the adventure."


If you're playing someone who will actively refuse to descend into Avernus, then you're disruptive to a Descent into Avernus table. 

Simple as that.

----------


## kazaryu

> Why does nobody understand how to actually talk to people anymore?
> 
> The Duke wants you to go to this dungeon to find a McGuffin! The rewards will be so great! You might be heroes!
> No thanks. Can we do something else? We don't feel like we're up to that. Especially if we have to do it in one shot because "the dungeon will reset" if we give up halfway through. So let's just not do that. Are there any trading companies in town looking for Guards? We can do that to the next town, and we'll see what's over yonder before we come back.
> 
> That's all it needs to be. That's all it _should_ be. Is that what people think is disruptive behavior?


 well, it depends. if you're going into a game with the intent of *deliberately* ignoring the content the DM puts out with the express intent of bullying the DM into creating content you're interested in then...yes. its disruptive. you don't need to go full psycho mode in order to be disingenuous, you just need to be playing from a bad faith perspective.



> A planned session is nice to have - I have loads, I do Quantum Ogres, after all - but if you set up a plot hook for the session or the encounter, and the _players don't bite_; That's game.



except you're not talking about a group of players that just _happens_ to not bite onto the plot hook you set up. you're suggesting that the player: 
1. decide, with no good reason, that the DMs dungeons must suck/be unfun.
2 play the game anyway, with the express intent of *deliberately* avoiding any and all dungeons out of spite. 

whether you call it 'disruptive behavior' a 'player vs dm attitude' or 'toxic' doesn't matter. its still a very negative way to look at things. 

IF you believe to your core that having strict limits on rests, and needing to complete dungeons in 1 go would harm your fun, then its your responsibility to bring it up to the DM. if you want to play the game regardless you may discuss with them, see what the reason for the rule is, and perhaps propose an alternative that suits both of you. but no...the correct answer is absolutely not to 'walk away from their encounters instead of the table'  if a rule is that much of a problem for you, then address the problem directly. if you can't cooperatively come to a satisfactory conclusion, then walk away from the table. you don't get to dictate that others play the game your way. as a player, if you want to avoid toxic behaviors, you have the power to
1. ask if the DM is willing to compromise on rules you think are unfun.
2. leave the table

that is it. don't get all passive aggressive. 



> So you come to the magical lake...The water looks _really_ tasty.
> Nobody's drinking the water, DM.
> Okay, so four of you drink the water.
> ...What?
> [COLOR="#800080"]Remember I said in Session 0, that if you come across water you have to drink it. You agreed to this. Otherwise you wouldn't be playing.


if a DM were to say that in session 0, you have 3 options. 

1. agree to it. 
2. essentially tell the DM 'im willing to play the game, but i don't agree to that rule' (this may lead to the DM not allowing you to play, or relenting, or perhaps, some type of compromise)
3. refuse to play. 

IF you chose option 1, and the situation played out as you described, then you as the play would be in the wrong. 
if you chose option 2, then the result of that debate would determine if you're in the wrong. 

the problem with your analogy is that you didn't specify how the players reacted to that rule in session 0. as a result its not a terribly useful example.

----------


## Boci

> Why does nobody understand how to actually talk to people anymore?
> 
> The Duke wants you to go to this dungeon to find a McGuffin! The rewards will be so great! You might be heroes!
> No thanks. Can we do something else? We don't feel like we're up to that. Especially if we have to do it in one shot because "the dungeon will reset" if we give up halfway through. So let's just not do that. Are there any trading companies in town looking for Guards? We can do that to the next town, and we'll see what's over yonder before we come back.
> 
> That's all it needs to be. That's all it _should_ be. Is that what people think is disruptive behavior?


  So instead of going to a dungeon with a DM you don't trust to do a dungeon, the players are going to shackle themselves to a slow moving target that is their employer who they will have to defend in a fight? I don't these these hypothetical players of your have thought his through.

----------


## Reach Weapon

> Is this a red flag? It sounds like he's [...]


How much of a red flag this is depends largely on when this all started to bother you. I mean, running off to ask the internet instead of addressing it with the DM is almost always a cause for concern, but if this was more of a slow burn, bothered you after the session 0 ended kind of thing, and you were just looking to talk things through on your way to reopening the dialog, you may be okay.

----------


## JackPhoenix

> Why does nobody understand how to actually talk to people anymore?


They do, but that's not what you're proposing. Instead of discussing the rules when they are presented and either accepting them, achieving a mutually acceptable compromise, or leaving the game... you know, like reasonable adults would... your solution is accept the rules with the explicit intention of subverting the game, antagonizing the GM and wasting everyone's time. Even if you got your wish and the GM allowed you to go on a sidequest... and that's definitely not given in this case... what makes you think the end result won't be simply the GM rebalancing the dungeon with the newly aquired "power" in mind, making the entire excercise completely pointless?

----------


## Cheesegear

> So instead of going to a dungeon with a DM you don't trust to do a dungeon, the players are going to shackle themselves to a slow moving target that is their employer who they will have to defend in a fight? I don't these these hypothetical players of your have thought his through.


That's not even close to the point and I think you know that.

Obviously whether or not the DM tells you that they're going to railroad you is a red flag or not, is subjective. As per previous threads on player agency, some players will freak out, some players wont care. Some players will say "Yes, of course. But the DM shouldn't say it out loud."

It's one of those things where it's impossible to know unless we're actually at the table. We all project what _we_ would see as the problem. We assume that when the players want to Short Rest, the DM wont allow it. We assume that the DM doesn't know what he's doing. Maybe when the players want to Rest is exactly when they want to Rest, and all the concerns about railroading are out the window because all of the stations are spaced correctly. It doesn't matter if you're being railroaded if the railroad is good, right? We just project/assume that it wont be.

But I think there's something valuable in what the DM has said:
The same as telling players that you're gonna be playing an Pirate campaign, means "Probably don't play a Gloomstalker Ranger." The DM has straight up told their players that he will arbitrarily be limiting when and where the players can Rest. This is extremely valuable information. It actually informs the players on some level, what classes and subclasses they should(n't) play. It actually informs players that "natural" healing will be limited, so plan for that.

I am very curious as to whether or not the DM would ban spells like _Healing Spirit_ (yes, even the nerfed version) or the Twilight Cleric. The guide in the DMG (which is what I assume the DM is going off of, if he has "planned and calculated"), is woefully outdated. So a DM making encounters out of the DMG is going to get sad if the players have access to Xanathar's, Tasha's and MPMM. If you know that your DM is playing by the book, well, suffice to say that the DMG's tables from 2012, don't really hold water in a post-_Tasha's_ game.




> They do, but that's not what you're proposing.


A lady runs up to the party and says 'Help me, my son has been kidnapped by Goblins.', and the DM has his prepared Goblin encounter ready to go.
The party says no. Your son is gonna die. That's beneath our pay grade. We only deal with Hobgoblin threats or higher.
The DM makes a note that the party is evil, and throws his notes on the floor as he has to come up with something else. Possibly involving Hobgoblins instead of Goblins.

There's an illusion to be maintained between 'The DM can do what they want' and 'Players (should) have agency.'

Can a DM throw their notes on the floor, and come up with something else? Like...Right now?
Are they _willing_ to throw their notes on the floor? Are they _willing_ to accept that their prepared work actually doesn't mean anything if the players don't engage? Or, is the DM going to force them to engage?

How do you know if someone is a "Good" or "Bad" DM?
Well, you'll know it when you see it.

----------


## Temperjoke

The DM may not have even realized how controlling it sounded. Like, I get wanting to be upfront about expectations, but if it really went as the OP stated, that's sounds like it's more about removing options for how players can handle things. If a dungeon resets after leaving, that means you can only go through it start to finish, you have no other options. For example, if the rolls go bad against the players, that's discouraging to have to abandon any progress they did make because they had to use up their resources to survive a bad encounter. Why go back if you barely survived a TPK and now have to risk it happening again?

If it is as the OP describe, it sounds like the DM is overcompensating for difficulties they had in the past with one or two players. I'd want more clarification, but as it stands now, I'd walk away because this doesn't sound like fun to me.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> A lady runs up to the party and says 'Help me, my son has been kidnapped by Goblins.', and the DM has his prepared Goblin encounter ready to go.
> The party says no. Your son is gonna die. That's beneath our pay grade. We only deal with Hobgoblin threats or higher.
> The DM makes a note that the party is evil, and throws his notes on the floor as he has to come up with something else. Possibly involving Hobgoblins instead of Goblins.
> 
> There's an illusion to be maintained between 'The DM can do what they want' and 'Players (should) have agency.'
> 
> Can a DM throw their notes on the floor, and come up with something else? Like...Right now?
> *Are they willing to throw their notes on the floor? Are they willing to accept that their prepared work actually doesn't mean anything if the players don't engage? Or, is the DM going to force them to engage?*
> 
> ...


Most of this, but especially the bolded part are the reason I started DMing sandboxes, and I found it, and still find it, a much better experience.

----------


## animorte

I am not going to engage Cheesegear, because that particular individual is probably more well spoken than myself and certainly more persistent than I.  :Small Tongue: 

I would like to note that the OP has yet to respond with anything since posting, unless I missed it. Hopefully they can provide more details

Anyway, I can honestly agree with most of what has been said already _(conditionally)_ because its all relative and we dont have enough context.
Is this a style the DM consistently portrays, or is this new behavior?Is the DM experienced or new, or somewhere in between?Is the DM showing their ability to I communicate honestly, or just being controlling?Is it a DM (new or seasoned) that has never been comfortable improvising?Is the group of players accustomed to more restricted styles of play that varies from one campaign to the next?How much do DM and party care for all pillars of game play?What levels of play are expected (1-4, 3-8, 5-12, or 1-20)?Plenty other things Im not considering at the moment that Im sure others have and will come up with.

I have skimmed through the thread, so Im mostly dropping in my own perspective. Here are a few points I would like to note, strictly from the OP:
1. _when you head down dungeons_- This doesnt tell me the party will be restricted to dungeon-crawling, its just a matter of when. If there are strong incentives to go in and get through it, I dont see a problem.

2. _cannot sneak in extra rests with spells like Tiny Hut_- There are very common instances of banning certain spells/effects strictly because they remove the purpose of the campaign or are just difficult to deal with. No flight is a common restriction. _Create food and water_ is definitely restricted from survival campaigns.

3. _I have calculated how many encounters you are expected to fight each day._- If going by the book average, you kind of have the information you need to build accordingly and can likely expect consistency with how many encounters to expect in said dungeon. This looks to be more combat oriented, but there are different types of encounters that can use resources.

4. _ If you leave and come back another day, all dungeon monsters will reset as well."_- Say you ransacked the cave dwelling of some goblins or kobolds, killing half of their community, then you leave and go home, intending to come back the next day. They may be *defending their home* and I would fully expect them to contact a nearby sister tribe to assist them within that time, at least sometimes.


I thoroughly enjoy running and playing in restricted games sometimes. It actually makes sense to me that not every single adventuring party just has complete freedom to roam the world and follow their heart on a whim. Every once in a while, its pretty cool to experience more precise expectations and themes. Of course, we still cant confirm thats exactly whats happening

I legitimately hope (as I do with any group) that encounters are more than just an HP race.

If we know the OP is intending to play with their current information, we can move forward assisting in what would be the most effective classes while not requiring the necessity of too many resources.

----------


## Boci

> That's not even close to the point and I think you know that.


  I'm sure its not the point you want to make, but that doesn't make it not relevant. If you have an issue with the DM limiting rests, guarding NPCs is probably worse than dungeon delving, because now you can't even reset and try again.

----------


## Unoriginal

> A lady runs up to the party and says 'Help me, my son has been kidnapped by Goblins.', and the DM has his prepared Goblin encounter ready to go.
> The party says no. Your son is gonna die. That's beneath our pay grade. We only deal with Hobgoblin threats or higher.
> The DM makes a note that the party is evil, and throws his notes on the floor as he has to come up with something else. Possibly involving Hobgoblins instead of Goblins.


Or: the DM looks at their adventure, titled "Fighting the Goblins", which they told the players about when they decided to start a table, then reiterated during Session 0. The DM asks why they don't want to play the adventure they had agreed to play. 




> There's an illusion to be maintained between 'The DM can do what they want' and 'Players (should) have agency.'



There is no illusion. 

The DM can do whatever they want, and what the DM should want is give the players agency.

A DM saying "In my game, PCs don't do long rests except in special safe spots indicated by a bonfire you have to active, like in Dark Souls, and if you do most monsters in the area will reset" in Session 0 is giving the players agency by 1) letting them know in advance how things will work, at which point the players can decide if they're playing this campaign or not 2) during the game, this restrictions will mean the PCs will have to make real choices, with all outcomes having impacts and consequences.

A DM saying "There is two roads you can take, the forest one or the coastal one, which one do you take?" while thinking "whichever road they take, they're going to meet the same distressed noble who's being robbed by Hobgoblins anyway, but it's better if they have the illusion of choice" is not only denying agency to the players, they also think the players are stupid people who will eternally be fooled by their "clever" DMing trick of 'your choice doesn't actually matter'.

Personally, if I'm at a table I'm here to play the game, not maintain an illusion. 




> Can a DM throw their notes on the floor, and come up with something else? Like...Right now?
> Are they _willing_ to throw their notes on the floor? Are they _willing_ to accept that their prepared work actually doesn't mean anything if the players don't engage? Or, is the DM going to force them to engage?


Again, there is a world of difference between "the PCs did something unexpected while engaging in the adventure" (ex: negotiating with hostile foes in a way the DM didn't of but that would work based on the personalities the foes have, infiltrating a place by putting on a disguise and being loud rather than sneaking in the shadows, not immediately going to the dungeon because they want to ask that old hermit they met three sessions ago if the hermit knows anything about the McGuffin, etc) and "the PCs refuse to engage in the adventure" (ex: "nah, transporting the One Ring to Rivendell is too dangerous, I'm going to see if any traveling merchant needs guards for their cargo", "nah, killer robots are too weak for my paygrade, I'm not protecting that Connor kid. If he dies he dies.", "If those bad guys want to search for this archeological artifact to gain untold power, that's their problem, my character is going to go do archeology in Greece instead.").

The first is among the best things that can happen at a RPG table. The second is a sign to reconsider playing with the person(s) doing it.

----------


## Cheesegear

> If you have an issue with the DM limiting rests, guarding NPCs is probably worse than dungeon delving, because now you can't even reset and try again.


Well, there are two issues:

1. How do you prevent players from Resting?
This is been a thorn in the side of a lot of DMs. And brings up the 5-minute adventuring day problem. The party has one fight, burns a few resources, then decides to wait exactly where they are for 16 hours at 55 minutes, until they can Long Rest again. That's the extreme example...But it's not even hyperbolic. That does happen. Much more common - but equally as intrusive - are characters that rely heavily on resources that refresh on a Short Rest (e.g; Warlock spells and Action Surge). Some characters will _literally_ want to Short Rest after every single fight - not even as a meme. They legitimately will want to Short Rest after 30 seconds of combat.

There are many things that a DM can do - with or without the players' knowledge - that can prevent a party from resting. The exactly wrong way to prevent Resting is to say 'No. You can only Rest when I say so.' It reeks of bad DMing, or more specifically, railroading. Secondly, the banning of spells is also...Bad (how does the DM feel about _Catnap_?). But there you go. There's nothing particularly wrong with what the OP's DM _said_, it's more a case of the way he said it, and the fact that he said it out loud. It indicates a lack of creativity and/or improvisation in the DM, which could be seen as a massive red flag at many tables, where the role of the DM is to *be* creative and improvise things; One of the more obvious things being, how does the world react to a party doing "nothing" for an hour? Eight hours? _Sixteen_ hours?

However, the problem is that if the world reacts to the players doing nothing, that many impact the DM's prepared story - perhaps even negatively. If a DM can't and/or wont adapt their story because of the players' actions - including doing nothing - that's also another red flag at many tables. But again, I'm not at the OP's table. I don't actually know how it's gonna go down. Maybe it doesn't even come up?

2. The Reset.
This would make me furious. But again, depends on the DM. I don't use a DM screen. I don't fudge dice rolls. I _can't_ fudge dice rolls _because_ there's no DM screen. What happens is relatively easy to do - not common, but certainly possible. My players are going through a dungeon and come up against a particularly scary monster - with Multiattack. Boom, boom, boom. Character gets crit'd twice and hit normally, once. Well, that's not supposed to happen. But all my players are looking at the double-20s and the 16. I can't fake that, there's no DM screen. Everyone sees it. The dice say that your character dies - maybe you should've Short Rested in the last room?

With a player dead, my party would very likely bail - as they should. Depending on the time, we may even end the session there. During the week the new character to replace the dead one gets introduced and the party gets ready to head back into the lair.

A full reset means last session was pointless. The player died for nothing. Everything is reset so it's almost like last session didn't even happen. The ****? Why would I waste - both mine and my players' - _time_ like that? That feels so...Insulting? Pointless? It just seems bad. It feels like a _game_ at that point, but instead of losing 4-6 hours of progress 'cause you forgot to Quicksave, everyone loses 4-6 hours of progress, and everyone loses time. If I knew I was gonna be wasting my time, I wouldn't have done it in the first place, maybe? Kind of feels like Rogue-liking D&D, where progress is set to 0 if you make a mistake. Feels bad, man.

As I said; I'm totally fine with a DM having prepared and planned encounters. I'm not fine with a DM simply undoing players' actions. I mean, rendering a players' actions meaningless is one thing - sometimes it can even be funny. But to make the story "Reset" seems like incredibly bad form, unless there's an in-narrative reason for it.

The other thing I would do, is if the DM doesn't like us "Leaving and coming back." the simpler solution is to not go back, abandon quest and pick up something new. I can never quite figure out this forum; DMs should always react to their players, but also players can't make choices that require the DM to improvise and throw out their notes?

Maybe that's why some people think DMs should be paid? ...And also why no-one wants to DM. I dunno.

As I said in the other thread; I feel like 5e has very strongly moved away from the 'Go to Dungeon, do the dungeon, continue to next dungeon' style of play, and _towards_ "Players tell the DM what they want to do (usually by providing a Backstory), and the DM kind of just makes it happen." That's why I always try and prepare - at least in the first session - two, three or four things for my players to do. Whichever one my players pick, well, I know they had a _choice_, and they _chose_ what they wanted to do, and once I have a handle on what my players want in the first one or two sessions, I can roll from there (I've never really had a Session 0 in the last decade) I don't say 'This is the one thing I have prepared, if you don't engage with it then I'll assume you don't want to play _at all_.'
(Again, it's really weird that kicking people from tables and/or walking away from DMs you simply disagree with is a common occurrence on this forum.)




> Or: the DM looks at their adventure, titled "Fighting the Goblins", which they told the players about when they decided to start a table


That's actually maybe what I consider might be the root of the problem; You can only sit at the table providing that you're willing to fight Goblins. You can only sit at the table providing you're willing to follow the railroad. I dunno. I feel like D&D has moved beyond that. Unless the goal is that players make characters that tailor to being really good at murdering Goblins. Does that make the adventure better, or easier?

You can only Rest when I say you can Rest. If things go bad - because dice are gonna dice - and you need to leave, then you reset.
I wouldn't leave the table.
I'd make it known that that's pretty dumb, kind of insulting. Then I'd make a character that doesn't rely on resting, and I'd try and convince the rest of the party to focus on making characters that are reasonably self-sufficient, with healing. Because I'd know that once we start something, we have to finish it.

That...Ruling...Doesn't make me not want to play. It makes me not want to play _certain characters_. If that's the DM's intent, golden.

----------


## Mastikator

> Why does nobody understand how to actually talk to people anymore?
> 
> The Duke wants you to go to this dungeon to find a McGuffin! The rewards will be so great! You might be heroes!
> No thanks. Can we do something else? We don't feel like we're up to that. Especially if we have to do it in one shot because "the dungeon will reset" if we give up halfway through. So let's just not do that. Are there any trading companies in town looking for Guards? We can do that to the next town, and we'll see what's over yonder before we come back.
> 
> That's all it needs to be. That's all it _should_ be. Is that what people think is disruptive behavior?
> 
> A planned session is nice to have - I have loads, I do Quantum Ogres, after all - but if you set up a plot hook for the session or the encounter, and the _players don't bite_; That's game.
> 
> ...


Simple: set up the new plot hook at the end of the session or in between sessions and ask the players if they're game. If they're not, ask them what their next plan is. Communication is key.

*in my experience you may have to gently interrogate the players by pushing their heads under water to get answers, but torturing the players was always in the DM's job description anyway

----------


## Keltest

> That's actually maybe what I consider might be the root of the problem; You can only sit at the table providing that you're willing to fight Goblins. You can only sit at the table providing you're willing to follow the railroad. I dunno. I feel like D&D has moved beyond that. Unless the goal is that players make characters that tailor to being really good at murdering Goblins. Does that make the adventure better, or easier?
> 
> You can only Rest when I say you can Rest. If things go bad - because dice are gonna dice - and you need to leave, then you reset.
> I wouldn't leave the table.
> I'd make it known that that's pretty dumb, kind of insulting. Then I'd make a character that doesn't rely on resting, and I'd try and convince the rest of the party to focus on making characters that are reasonably self-sufficient, with healing. Because I'd know that once we start something, we have to finish it.
> 
> That...Ruling...Doesn't make me not want to play. It makes me not want to play _certain characters_. If that's the DM's intent, golden.


If the DM tells you up front that he's running a game about fighting goblins, and if you dont want to fight goblins, why are you still playing? Worse, youre advocating for sabotaging everybody else's fun by specifically trying to not fight the goblins. In what way is this an appropriate response?

----------


## Boci

> There are many things that a DM can do - with or without the players' knowledge - that can prevent a party from resting. The exactly wrong way to prevent Resting is to say 'No. You can only Rest when I say so.' It reeks of bad DMing, or more specifically, railroading.


  You may not like it, but several people other posters on this threat have said this is a good way of doing it, since its being open and upfront with the PCs. What you're actually saying is you don't like this method, in which case, isn't it great the DM told you this in advanced so you could make an informed decision?

  And yeah, I'm still puzzled how you think guarding caravans instead of dungeon delving under this hypothetical DM will magically make the rest issue not apply.

  Then we have your weird points about a DM tearing up their notes and the direction of 5e. The direction of 5e as a whole is not too relevant to a single game, in fact it can often reason for that game's existence. I periodically play low magic games, which D&D has never been, and players will often cite that as a strength, a change of pace from the usual. As for a DM tearing up their notes, sure, its great if a DM can handle that, but not all can. And if you're DM can't a whole session on the fly, why would you force them into that position?

  What happens when a monsters gets two lucky crits is a valid question, and session 0 would be a good time to ask that. I also mentioned previously in the comment about coming up with a clever way to bypass encounters, would that be allowed? Based on those answers I would decide whether or not wanted to play this game, but I wouldn't agree to play and then try to avoid dungeons purposefully, that just sounds like a waste of time.

----------


## JackPhoenix

> (Again, it's really weird that kicking people from tables and/or walking away from DMs you simply disagree with is a common occurrence on this forum.)


Most people[citation needed] are playing the game to have fun in their free time. They are not playing to indulge a single donkeyhole who wants to have fun at everyone else's expense. If you know you won't enjoy the game, why would you join? If there's one donkeyhole being disruptive, ruining everyone else's fun (because why would they be in the game, if they didn't have fun?), why would you keep him around? You'll either accept the game everyone else did, discuss things in an attempt to reach a compromise acceptable to everyone, or GTFO. You (well, normal adults, in any case) do not join the game with the express intention to be the donkeyhole in question.

----------


## da newt

To reply to the OP:

For me this is a 'definite maybe.'  Yup, I totally agree this _might_ be a red flag of a DM who needs to control and could be antagonistic, but I can also see the other side of things as well - this _might_ be a DM who has a certain vision for the type of encounters he wants to design and has been very up front and open with the players.

With the limited information given it's neigh impossible to know which is true (or if it's a little of both).  As for advice for you, I'd recommend continuing the conversation with the DM and other players before jumping into the game.  Ask for clarification and justification, explain your concerns, and do all that you can to be part of a solution / compromise / co-conspirator to create a great game for everyone involved, or politely bow out if it's not the game for you.

----------


## kazaryu

> Well, there are two issues:
> 
> 1. How do you prevent players from Resting?
> This is been a thorn in the side of a lot of DMs. And brings up the 5-minute adventuring day problem. The party has one fight, burns a few resources, then decides to wait exactly where they are for 16 hours at 55 minutes, until they can Long Rest again. That's the extreme example...But it's not even hyperbolic. That does happen. Much more common - but equally as intrusive - are characters that rely heavily on resources that refresh on a Short Rest (e.g; Warlock spells and Action Surge). Some characters will _literally_ want to Short Rest after every single fight - not even as a meme. They legitimately will want to Short Rest after 30 seconds of combat.


i mean... IRL if a group just got out of potentially lethal combat i'd be more surprised if they immediately just went back to what they were doing...a 1 hour break doesn't seem all that crazy, no matter how long the fight was.

----------


## Boci

> i mean... IRL if a group just got out of potentially lethal combat i'd be more surprised if they immediately just went back to what they were doing...a 1 hour break doesn't seem all that crazy, no matter how long the fight was.


  Sure, but the reasons for that aren't really represented in D&D rules. There's no fatigue (yes exhaustion exists, but you its a special condition, you won't get from fighting for 1 minute, even if you suffer damage), no bleeding, its unlikely anyone's injuries have reduced their combat performance, and most parties will have healing options that don't require an hours rest.

  For example a group of marines IRL who ambushed and mowed down some enemies troops would likely take a few minute to reload, re-assess their approach and make sure no one was seriously injured.

----------


## Tanarii

> I would like to note that the OP has yet to respond with anything since posting, unless I missed it. Hopefully they can provide more details


When it's the only comment ever posted, I just assume high likelihood of a post and run (not necessarily maliciously) and engage the topic for the fun of debating other regular forumites.  :Small Amused: 

Circling back and changing my position slightly: the resting thing is, as I've said before, a green flag. But there may be other things that are red flags.  (Remaining quotes still from *animorte* only because they nicely chopped up for me to launch off of, not because it's a direct response.)

Green flag: It's a clearly articulated rule that many players might find deviating from the norm in session 0.  That's a hugely positive 'flag' or sign of good DMing, because it's in exactly the right place for a player to consider if they take issue with it, well in advance of table time.

Possible Red Flags, or _signs_ of potential issues



> 2. _cannot sneak in extra rests with spells like Tiny Hut_


"sneak in"
This sign implies the DM considered using LTH an attempt to abuse the Long Rest rules under normal player controlled use.  If so, it indicates they either don't understand the spell, don't understand player controlled long rests, or don't understand that their dislike of the system isn't player abuse, it's just either personal dislike or a personal opinion that player controlled LR + LTH is a broken mechanic.

Counterpoint: It might just be emphasizing that it would be attempted abuse of their rule.




> 3._I have calculated how many encounters you are expected to fight each day._


Is sign implies the DM may have a very linear or even full railroad adventure prepared.  They maybe prepared to use Quantum Ogres even, the ultimate tool of not just an agency robbing DM, but one that thinks they can pull the wool over the eyes of players while doing it. 

Counterpoint: it may just mean "as long as you meet this adventuring day threshold (based on DMG guidelines?), rule #4 doesn't kick in."




> 4. _ If you leave and come back another day, all dungeon monsters will reset as well."_


This sign implies a video game logic, instead of verisimilitude.

Counterpoint: Maybe they're using clumsy wording for procedural generation restocking, or even in-world justifications for restocking.  Seems unlikely though.

Counterpoint2: Video game logic is fine if the table is okay with that. It wouldn't be a red flag if somewhere else in session 0 it was called out that the game is going to run on video game logic.

----------


## JNAProductions

There's nothing wrong with a linear game, provided the DM is clear about it.

It's not my preferred style of game, but that doesn't make it bad. I wouldn't consider a DM running a linear game to be a red flag-just a sign that our preferences might not align.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Possible Red Flags, or _signs_ of potential issues
> "sneak in"
> This sign implies the DM considered using LTH an attempt to abuse the Long Rest rules under normal player controlled use.  If so, it indicates they either don't understand the spell, don't understand player controlled long rests, or don't understand that their dislike of the system isn't player abuse, it's just either personal dislike or a personal opinion that player controlled LR + LTH is a broken mechanic.


I immediately thought that, too.





> This sign implies a video game logic, instead of verisimilitude.
> 
> Counterpoint: Maybe they're using clumsy wording for procedural generation restocking, or even in-world justifications for restocking.  Seems unlikely though.
> 
> Counterpoint2: Video game logic is fine if the table is okay with that. It wouldn't be a red flag if somewhere else in session 0 it was called out that the game is going to run on video game logic.


Quite true.




> Quantum Ogres even, the ultimate tool of not just an agency robbing DM, but one that thinks they can pull the wool over the eyes of players while doing it.


The most succinct way to put this fact I've seen, and one of the best.

----------


## animorte

> When it's the only comment ever posted, I just assume high likelihood of a post and run (not necessarily maliciously) and engage the topic for the fun of debating other regular forumites.


Ha, yes I see the singular post. I do believe it is still pleasantly engaging for our rumination (mostly).




> (Remaining quotes still from *animorte* only because they nicely chopped up for me to launch off of, not because it's a direct response.)


Aww, thanks.  :Small Smile: 




> Counterpoint: 
> Counterpoint: 
> Counterpoint: 
> Counterpoint2:


I believe this structure is always extremely valuable in casual discussion.* I attempt (dont always succeed) to consistently view multiple sides of the topic at hand while forming factual statements from a neutral position (depends on how passionate I am about said topic).  :Small Big Grin:  Respect.

*_ However, in argumentative debate this is clearly counter-productive._

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> That is how you design *dungeons.
> *anything can be a dungeon, outdoors can be a dungeon, mansions, castles, cave systems, anything can be a dungeon.


 It is one style, yes.  :Small Smile: 

--



> Tiny hut long rest in a populated hostile dungeon should be incredibly stupid. Even if you are well hidden the denizens will realize that they are under assault and will scout for the intruders. If they are truly unable then they should not just assume the intruders are gone, and if the intruders don't have the means of fighting then they ought to leave with all of the treasure.


 Depends on the denizens, but your general point does make sense. +1  



> Indeed. When players change their plans at the start of the session they sabotage the prep and force the DM to improvise. It's unfair to expect the DM to deliver high quality D&D if they have no time to prep, and downright rude and obnoxious if the DM did prep, all that time spent prepping down the drain.


 Yep.  There's a need for some give and take. 



> Sounds like he just doesn't have the system experience to deal with unplanned resource recovery. ---snip---
> Is it a red flag? No they are being upfront and clear for the what and why.  Not the best phrasing but it's intent is understandable.


 Concur.  



> That he thinks you can "sneak in extra rests" is puzzling, as is the "I have calculated how many encounters you are expected to fight each day", and to me those things indicate the DM does not master the system yet.


 My players (one in particular) keeps trying to cheese extra rests.  He does have Tiny Hut. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't... 



> I strongly and vehemently disagree. A dungeon is an environment where many encounters exist, there is no reason for an "adventuring day number of encounters" or times for short rests to be set in stones.


 I tend to agree, but it is a 'style' choice. 



> A dungeon should have as many encounters as the PCs trigger by entering it and doing their thing.


 Yes!   :Small Smile: 




> Ex: if Drow and Duergars are fighting for who will own Dragonmaw Fortress, it's likely there are places where a group of a few individuals can camp with neither sides being willing to send patrols to check. 
> 
> But yes I agree that if they notice there is an hostile presence inside their walls, the denizens will do whatever they can to counter such hostile presence, be it by fleeing or by reinforcing their position.


 Great example.  :Small Smile: 





> So, to answer OP's question:


 I will say* "stop complaining and go play" * 

Just play.   see how it goes. Don't get all wrapped around the axel about the DMs style.  Chances are you are now aware "need to be smart about resource management" and you can as a Party work together to make that work out.   



> Well within their remit to do so and letting you know upfront is good. Take it or leave it with that info.


 Yes .



> Rests restore resources. Dungeon crawl consumes resources progressively.
> 
> If the players increase their resource pool. that means the DM needs to create challenges to consume more resources.


 Yes, DM seems to be presenting the players with "dungeon crawl" as the style.  

All advice on "work the the DM" is good advice.   




> This is more or less the way we play.  You get 1 long rest and 2 short ones with roughly 6-8 encounters in between.


 It works out, usually.  



> No, it's not a red flag.  They've told you how they're going to handle resting in session 0, which is a good thing because there are a bunch of ways to handle it in 5e.  It's a somewhat normal way for DMs to handle it, taking it entirely out of the players hands. 
> 
> If you don't like it, then that game is not for you.  That doesn't make it a red flag though. If anything, the session 0 explanation is a green flag.


 Concur. 




> The advice I was seeing was "don't be an antagonistic player and try to sabotage/derail the DMs game because you don't like the session 0 rules."  Joining a game after the session 0 rules have been laid out, with full intent to sabotage or otherwise do an end run around them, and/or actively derail the planned sessions, is extremely antagonistic and disruptive behavior.


Plus eleventy.   For the OP: Go Play!  The play's the thing.   :Small Cool:

----------


## Unoriginal

> However, in argumentative debate this is clearly counter-productive.


In the words of Q: "Au contraire, mon capitain!".


It may seems counter-productive, but there are in fact several reasons why acknowledging the counterpoints to your arguments can be benefitial in an argumentative debate:

1) It helps structure your own argument by bouncing off the other side's points.

2) Understanding the counterpoints make it easier for you to refute them and deepen your knowledge of the subject.

3) Showing that you are understanding the opposing viewpoint is a way of presenting yourself that can be helpful to convince others (as you come off as reasonable & willing to see the other side's points rather than antagonisticly telling the points are wrong and it is wrong to entertain the possibility of the contrary).

4) By addressing the counterpoints directly, you get to present said points yourself and in consequence put your own spin on them, rather than letting the other side decide how said point will be framed unilateraly.

All this to say, it is an useful rhetorical tool which can have a lot of impact depending on the strategy employed.

----------


## Tanarii

> There's nothing wrong with a linear game, provided the DM is clear about it.
> 
> It's not my preferred style of game, but that doesn't make it bad. I wouldn't consider a DM running a linear game to be a red flag-just a sign that our preferences might not align.


Agreed agreed.  Struck out.

----------


## DomesticHausCat

He's being upfront with you. I'd give it a shot and if you don't like how he runs games then dip.

Sounds like a Dark Souls kind of game. Not in terms of difficulty but in terms of respawning enemies. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing depending on the player's preferences.

----------


## animorte

> In the words of Q: "Au contraire, mon capitain!".
> 
> All this to say, it is an useful rhetorical tool which can have a lot of impact depending on the strategy employed.


Yes, I agree with your points. Understanding counterpoints and using them effectively (generally in research and preparation) is very important and indisputably valuable. Just be careful not to fuel them during the debate itself.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Person_Man

In old school D&D, the game world is generally just the game world, often created one block at a time just before each game session, and the players are free to explore it however they choose.  This frequently leads death, because if you wander too far from your home base you will run into monsters who are much more powerful than you.  And in many ways this was the point of the game, why gp = xp, why the game world keeps moving in between game sessions, why character creation was random, why random wandering monsters still show up in dungeons youve cleared, etc.  Its much more about exploration and narrative co-creation.  

Whereas modern D&D is much more about character building and balanced tactical combat.  

So if your DM prefers more of the latter, it makes perfect sense that your game would have a specific budget/limit on the number of rests per day.   

If you prefer less balanced, more random, more difficult combat, thats cool.  I certainly do.  But it sounds like you should just talk to the DM about their assumptions.  Letting players control their rests isnt cheating, any more than having random wandering monsters is cheating.  Its really just about the flavor of D&D you all prefer to play.

----------


## Pex

> Well, there are two issues:
> 
> 1. How do you prevent players from Resting?
> This is been a thorn in the side of a lot of DMs. And brings up the 5-minute adventuring day problem. The party has one fight, burns a few resources, then decides to wait exactly where they are for 16 hours at 55 minutes, until they can Long Rest again. That's the extreme example...But it's not even hyperbolic. That does happen. Much more common - but equally as intrusive - are characters that rely heavily on resources that refresh on a Short Rest (e.g; Warlock spells and Action Surge). Some characters will _literally_ want to Short Rest after every single fight - not even as a meme. They legitimately will want to Short Rest after 30 seconds of combat.
> 
> There are many things that a DM can do - with or without the players' knowledge - that can prevent a party from resting. The exactly wrong way to prevent Resting is to say 'No. You can only Rest when I say so.' It reeks of bad DMing, or more specifically, railroading. Secondly, the banning of spells is also...Bad (how does the DM feel about _Catnap_?). But there you go. There's nothing particularly wrong with what the OP's DM _said_, it's more a case of the way he said it, and the fact that he said it out loud. It indicates a lack of creativity and/or improvisation in the DM, which could be seen as a massive red flag at many tables, where the role of the DM is to *be* creative and improvise things; One of the more obvious things being, how does the world react to a party doing "nothing" for an hour? Eight hours? _Sixteen_ hours?
> 
> However, the problem is that if the world reacts to the players doing nothing, that many impact the DM's prepared story - perhaps even negatively. If a DM can't and/or wont adapt their story because of the players' actions - including doing nothing - that's also another red flag at many tables. But again, I'm not at the OP's table. I don't actually know how it's gonna go down. Maybe it doesn't even come up?
> 
> ...


It's rare, but it happens. If I'm reading you right this is one issue we're in agreement. We do have different preference of game style. I'm reading you prefer sandbox but willing to play a linear campaign. I prefer a linear campaign but willing to play sandbox. As I pointed out, what the DM in the first post told me was not to play short rest reliant characters. I'll never know when I get my stuff back. It's all DM whim. However, if I play a long rest based character I know how to conserve resources, and by the time I need a long rest it will more often than not coincide to when the DM agrees a long rest is warranted.

If what the DM said is all there is, there's no handbook of house rules in my bias, I am willing to give the DM the benefit of the doubt that whatever dungeon we do it can be done in one game day. By the time we need a long rest it should be finished. If the DM allows us a short rest in there, good. That's fine. He's playing fair. If he refuses a short rest then he's being a donkey cavity and proven monks, warlocks, and fighters need not apply. If the dungeon was relatively easy enough to be finished without a short rest but we can short rest after finishing it to go into another one the same game day that's fine. Monks, warlocks, and fighters are good. Clear out a level, short rest, clear out second level is also ok.

If the DM is not stingy with rests, then he just had poor wording of what he meant.

----------


## Jerrykhor

I think its a red flag, and he's gone about it the wrong way, which gives off a very 'I am the DM and I can do what I want' vibe. Sure he's the DM and he's never wrong, but this is about as video-gamey as it gets. At least he lets you know in advance how bad he is. If he can swing his **** on this, he would do it again on other matters.

The better fix would be banning Leomunds Tiny Hut.

----------


## MrStabby

> It's rare, but it happens. If I'm reading you right this is one issue we're in agreement. We do have different preference of game style. I'm reading you prefer sandbox but willing to play a linear campaign. I prefer a linear campaign but willing to play sandbox. As I pointed out, what the DM in the first post told me was not to play short rest reliant characters. I'll never know when I get my stuff back. It's all DM whim. However, if I play a long rest based character I know how to conserve resources, and by the time I need a long rest it will more often than not coincide to when the DM agrees a long rest is warranted.
> 
> If what the DM said is all there is, there's no handbook of house rules in my bias, I am willing to give the DM the benefit of the doubt that whatever dungeon we do it can be done in one game day. By the time we need a long rest it should be finished. If the DM allows us a short rest in there, good. That's fine. He's playing fair. If he refuses a short rest then he's being a donkey cavity and proven monks, warlocks, and fighters need not apply. If the dungeon was relatively easy enough to be finished without a short rest but we can short rest after finishing it to go into another one the same game day that's fine. Monks, warlocks, and fighters are good. Clear out a level, short rest, clear out second level is also ok.
> 
> If the DM is not stingy with rests, then he just had poor wording of what he meant.


I think our experiences, or at least our attributions on this are different.  In my experience, playing a short rest based character has been screwed up by other players in conjunction with a permissive DM rather than being screwed by a strict DM.

It's the group that, when faced with a short rest, always says 'well let's extend it to a long rest so the druid and wizard can also get their spells back' that screws the short rest characters. Then the party is too strong and the DM compensated with harder fights.  Playing a Warlock with two spell slots per day isn't much fun, or playing a monk where you get to use fewer Ki points than others have spell slots can feel restrictive.

Here, I think that it is the DM being too permissive around long rests that is the issue.  The ability to wait out the clock till you can rest again ("it's what my character would do - they don't like unnecessary risks"), well that and players abusing it.





> I think its a red flag, and he's gone about it the wrong way, which gives off a very 'I am the DM and I can do what I want' vibe. Sure he's the DM and he's never wrong, but this is about as video-gamey as it gets. At least he lets you know in advance how bad he is. If he can swing his **** on this, he would do it again on other matters.
> 
> The better fix would be banning Leomunds Tiny Hut.


The thing that bothers me is I don't really see this as higher risk of a tyrant DM than not.  A DM who thinks they have a duty to clearly communicate and to do so before players commit to either joining the game or to a particular character is looking for consent to that style.  They don't want peoe in their game they they have to bend to their will, they want players that are haply with that game type.

Waiting till a player is committed and invested before springing this would be much more of a tyrant move in my eyes.

Different players having different expectations is fine.  Forcing them on others isn't - be it for DM forcing house rules on a player or an entitled player looking to force their particular preferences on the DM (which to be clear is a general comment and may not be happening here).  Being the person setting things up so those with different preferences can avoid each other seems to put this DM in a good light, whether on not their particular style matches ones own).

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> The thing that bothers me is I don't really see this as higher risk of a tyrant DM than not.  _A DM who thinks they have a duty to clearly communicate and to do so before players commit to either joining the game or to a particular character is looking for consent to that style._  --snip-- Waiting till a player is committed and invested before springing this would be much more of a tyrant move in my eyes.


 Yes. I had a DM drop "no, cleric's turn undead doesn't work on zombies in this campaign" long after we had begun.  While generally a good DM, that was IMO a bad move. 

I had another D&D DM pull 'slice of life' sessions, three in a row, at which point I left the game, explicitly telling him (he's a friend, we say in touch) that I found his pacing unsuitable to the use of my free time. If I were not in a few other campaigns, and if he had not expressed pride in being a "no prep DM" I might have stuck with him.  Slice of life sessions are great when they are interleaved with exploration, social encounters that have stakes, and the occasional dangerous session with combat.  By themselves, though, they lack what the three main pillars are there for.

----------


## Pex

> I think our experiences, or at least our attributions on this are different.  In my experience, playing a short rest based character has been screwed up by other players in conjunction with a permissive DM rather than being screwed by a strict DM.
> 
> It's the group that, when faced with a short rest, always says 'well let's extend it to a long rest so the druid and wizard can also get their spells back' that screws the short rest characters. Then the party is too strong and the DM compensated with harder fights.  Playing a Warlock with two spell slots per day isn't much fun, or playing a monk where you get to use fewer Ki points than others have spell slots can feel restrictive.
> 
> Here, I think that it is the DM being too permissive around long rests that is the issue.  The ability to wait out the clock till you can rest again ("it's what my character would do - they don't like unnecessary risks"), well that and players abusing it.


That's a different scenario. That is a problem with other players, not the DM. Players not letting their warlocks, monks, and fighters short rest are only hurting themselves. Players also need to learn not to nova when not needed. Nova on the BBEG, not the bandits on the road. A DM is certainly right to prevent players abusing rests. I allow for the possibility the DM in question just had wrong verbiage for his intention.

----------


## Goobahfish

Just sounds like the DM is using D&D to play a board game version of a dungeon crawler. Could be fun :)

----------


## animorte

> I allow for the possibility the DM in question just had wrong verbiage for his intention.


I believe without further information, this is the general consensus for most present.

----------


## MrStabby

> Yes. I had a DM drop "no, cleric's turn undead doesn't work on zombies in this campaign" long after we had begun.  While generally a good DM, that was IMO a bad move. 
> 
> I had another D&D DM pull 'slice of life' sessions, three in a row, at which point I left the game, explicitly telling him (he's a friend, we say in touch) that I found his pacing unsuitable to the use of my free time. If I were not in a few other campaigns, and if he had not expressed pride in being a "no prep DM" I might have stuck with him.  Slice of life sessions are great when they are interleaved with exploration, social encounters that have stakes, and the occasional dangerous session with combat.  By themselves, though, they lack what the three main pillars are there for.


Ouch... I mean turn undead is a bit of a niche ability, but you like to think that if it came up you would get to use it.  And zombies would seem to be a really fun thing to use it on.

What is a "slice of life session" - I haven't heard the phrase before?

----------


## Witty Username

At least in literature, slice of life would be a story with minimal conflict that is more about the day-to-day of a group of characters within a setting.
So like a high school anime about a group of students in a secret monster hunter organization, not slice of life, an episode where they are mostly taking classes, trying to pass exams, hanging out with friends, slice of life.
In the context for an RPG, I would expect downtime with heavy roleplay, that is intended to be a representation of your party's 'normal'.

----------


## Tanarii

> What is a "slice of life session" - I haven't heard the phrase before?


Recommend jumping over to this thread in the general forum:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...nterested-Play

----------


## DarknessEternal

Late to the pile, but 10/10 DMing.  Would play in this person's game.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> The same as telling players that you're gonna be playing an Pirate campaign, means "Probably don't play a Gloomstalker Ranger."


 It's dark in the hold of a ship ...  :Small Big Grin: 




> A lady runs up to the party and says 'Help me, my son has been kidnapped by Goblins.', and the DM has his prepared Goblin encounter ready to go.
> The party says no. Your son is gonna die. That's beneath our pay grade. We only deal with Hobgoblin threats or higher.
> The DM makes a note that the party is evil, and throws his notes on the floor as he has to come up with something else. Possibly involving Hobgoblins instead of Goblins.


 This DM would note a change in reputation for the party, locally.  And in future die rolls, there may be a bit of their reputation spreading via idle conversation in the local tavern as merchant caravans pass through, such that a year later in the campaign their callous attitudes are a "known" thing about them and it comes up in a different negotiation in a different locale ... or, if the dice don't point that way, it remains a local sore point.  

All I have to do with the above scenario is roll up a few random monsters...not hard for me.  Ankhegs can be a fun low level encounter ... 



> Simple: set up the new plot hook at the end of the session or in between sessions and ask the players if they're game. If they're not, ask them what their next plan is. Communication is key.


 That last sentence.  So true. 



> IRL if a group just got out of potentially lethal combat i'd be more surprised if they immediately just went back to what they were doing. A 1 hour break doesn't seem all that crazy, no matter how long the fight was.


 Depends on if the water is rising, there is a horde of gnolls coming over the horizon, the lava is flowing down the mountain toward them, or the sound of the Mummy Lord's heavy foot steps keep getting closer and closer.  



> There's nothing wrong with a linear game, provided the DM is clear about it.


 +eleven. 



> Late to the pile, but 10/10 DMing.  Would play in this person's game.


 Only if the other players were agreeable to the baseline rules that the DM established. That takes a discussion among the players.  The Dm has clearly signalled that resource management is a key player skill needed for this campaign. Some players utterly suck at that.

----------


## Keltest

> Only if the other players were agreeable to the baseline rules that the DM established. That takes a discussion among the players.  The Dm has clearly signalled that resource management is a key player skill needed for this campaign. Some players utterly suck at that.


Eh. DM's arent wizards. We can't, as a rule, just magically learn to run the game in a totally different fashion overnight. When a DM says "this is the game I'm running" its equivalent to saying "I brought Monopoly and Munchkin, we can play those two games or somebody else can bring something." Whether the players are interested in playing Monopoly doesn't really affect the group's ability to play it, or anything else.

----------


## MrStabby

> At least in literature, slice of life would be a story with minimal conflict that is more about the day-to-day of a group of characters within a setting.
> So like a high school anime about a group of students in a secret monster hunter organization, not slice of life, an episode where they are mostly taking classes, trying to pass exams, hanging out with friends, slice of life.
> In the context for an RPG, I would expect downtime with heavy roleplay, that is intended to be a representation of your party's 'normal'.


So in two minds about this.  On the one hand, it sounds like a good session zero/session 0.5 baseline to really illustrate charactet backgrounds by 'living' them.

On the other hand, day to day life is what I play fantasy games to get away from.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

I've had some very successful, very gripping "slice of life" sessions. But a steady diet of them would be less so. On the other hand, constant high-intensity, high-pressure sessions are also exhausting. Campaigns, like novels, have a rhythm, an ebb and a flow.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Eh. DM's arent wizards. We can't, as a rule, just magically learn to run the game in a totally different fashion overnight. When a DM says "this is the game I'm running" its equivalent to saying "I brought Monopoly and Munchkin, we can play those two games or somebody else can bring something." Whether the players are interested in playing Monopoly doesn't really affect the group's ability to play it, or anything else.


 I don't find the board game analogy to work.  
I may need to clarify what I was getting at with my post.  
As _a player_, if the DM signals that "in this campaign / game resource management is important" (the example case as presented in the OP) and the other players are not into that, I _as a player_ know that I will be quite frustrated with _the other players, not the DM,_ if they are in the "we suck at resource management, go nova in round 1" school of D&D.  If during the proposed discussion - with the other players - I find that I am unable to get them on the same page of "resource ,management matters, let's play with that in mind" it may mean that (1) I'll live with being frustrated (I am in a group like that now, although the game is dormant) or (2) that I'll not play.

----------

