D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

Hussar said:

I honestly didn't think I was defining world building in a particularly narrow way. I've still not seen a single example of how encounter building impacts world building. It of course works the other way, but, at what point do the mechanics of the game impact world building?

Click to expand...

Ahem. There have been plenty of examples and of course it works both ways!

Hussar said:

Going back to the Tigers example - the mechanics say that there are tigers in jungles. However, not every jungle has a tiger. So, if you decide that THIS jungle has tigers, that's on you. That's not the mechanics. And, if you decide that this desert encounter has tigers in it, you better come up with some reason why because the players are probably going to have a believability issue.

Click to expand...

Which part of your world building isn't "on you"? That desert... drew itself?

Hussar said:

But, again, even if the PC's ONLY EVER encounter 3 deadly encounters per day, that in no way means that everyone in the world has only ever 3 deadly encounters per day. Why would that even be a consideration?

Click to expand...

TBH for me this is such a strawman. Rests and pacing are not about only ever 3 deadly encounters per day. But for the sake of argument let's say that we impose 3 deadly encounters per day on our PCs? For some NPCs at a higher tier than the PCs, those encounters will be Easy or Medium difficulty. For other NPCs at a lower tier than the PCs, those encounters will be beyond deadly. Further, as the PCs level they would need to travel about to find that perfect trifecta of encounters, because Kobold Copse remains full of Kobolds.

Hussar said:

And, if you decide that this desert encounter has tigers in it, you better come up with some reason why because the players are probably going to have a believability issue.

Click to expand...

So players will have a believability issue with a tiger in a desert, but somehow will be okay with merchants traversing the ever deadlier* (as they level) road between Baldurs Gate and Waterdeep.

* 3 deadly encounters / adventuring day

Hussar said:

I honestly didn't think I was defining world building in a particularly narrow way. I've still not seen a single example of how encounter building impacts world building. It of course works the other way, but, at what point do the mechanics of the game impact world building?

Going back to the Tigers example - the mechanics say that there are tigers in jungles. However, not every jungle has a tiger. So, if you decide that THIS jungle has tigers, that's on you. That's not the mechanics. And, if you decide that this desert encounter has tigers in it, you better come up with some reason why because the players are probably going to have a believability issue.

But, again, even if the PC's ONLY EVER encounter 3 deadly encounters per day, that in no way means that everyone in the world has only ever 3 deadly encounters per day. Why would that even be a consideration?

Click to expand...

For me, coming up with some reason why constitutes world building. It is probably a minor piece of world building in the larger scheme, but that doesn't change it qualitatively. If you don't disagree with this, then it seems this would be an example of encounter building affecting world building. If you do disagree with this, then that would seem to be an example of your defining world building more narrowly than I would.

Tony Vargas said:

It really is 6-8.

Click to expand...

This is admittedly a tangent to the tangent, but no, as far as what is in the DMG, it really isn't.

DMG said:

Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parts can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer.

Click to expand...

Even read by itself, but even more so in the context of tables that clearly suggest equivalencies* between particular numbers of easy, medium, hard, and deadly encounters, I just can't see anything here to suggest that 6-8 medium-hard encounters is preferred or recommended over some other mix.

The section on short rests does suggest, somewhat indirectly, that fewer than 3 encounters might be outside the norm.

As for class balance, you are certainly correct that the number of encounters will affect class balance. However, I see nothing in the DMG** that suggests that intended class balance is achieved at 3, 6, 8, 9, or any other particular number of encounters per day. That classes seem balanced to you at 6-8 encounters per day may be a valuable insight gained from your experience, but it is not, as far as I can tell, in the DMG as a rule, guideline or anything else.

* I am not endorsing these purported equivalencies, just pointing out that they are there.
** In this section anyway; is there something somewhere else?

DEFCON 1 said:

I have to hand it to you, Capn... you're trying your hardest to get other people to do your work for you so you don't have to. Which, if you can pull it off, more props to you.

You want a solution to your issue, but you just "don't fancy doing all the hard work". But I suspect that because it seems most of the responses you are getting are of the "just add time constraints" variety... it tells me that other people ALSO just aren't interested in doing all that hard work either. Not especially when it's for you and not for themselves.

But hey, if you keep asking for things that don't exist, maybe eventually someone WILL do your work for you and give you a working prototype of what you want. You just might have to... wait a while... for that to occur.

Click to expand...

What I want is to raise awareness and acceptance of a "hidden" issue, overlooked or denied by many.

This only plays right into WotCs hand in that they get to keep pretending the game actually supports what they say the game is about.

When enough gamers realize there's a fundamental disconnect here we can hope WotC is forced to finally eat their own dog food and actually approach solutions.

In other words, I'm not trying to get you lot to anything.

Except one thing: collectively pressure WotC into including official solutions.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

CapnZapp said:

What I want is to raise awareness and acceptance of a "hidden" issue, overlooked or denied by many.

Click to expand...

Because it isn't an issue for the majority. It's only an issue for a small minority who can't/won't use the tools available to counter it. There is no elephant in the game I run, nor have I seen it it the many games I've played in (which isn't to say it doesn't exist for some).

CapnZapp said:

This only plays right into WotCs hand in that they get to keep pretending the game actually supports what they say the game is about.

Click to expand...

The game absolutely supports creating exciting stories abound bold adventurers facing deadly perils where DM's describe a scene, players describe what they do, and the DM narrates the results, sometimes asking for a die roll if the result is uncertain.

CapnZapp said:

When enough gamers realize there's a fundamental disconnect here we can hope WotC is forced to finally eat their own dog food and actually approach solutions.

In other words, I'm not trying to get you lot to anything.

Except one thing: collectively pressure WotC into including official solutions.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Click to expand...

I disagree about the fundamental disconnect, but I'd be happy for WOTC to include an simple and elegant rest variant for those who want resource recovery hardcoded into the challenge system of the game and thus why I've made a good faith effort to offer solutions. It's also helped me to better understand the pacing levers and tools that I have available to me and to think about how those levers and tools subsequently effect world building. It's been a very useful thread in that regard as I come to these boards to become a better DM and player so that game sessions are even more fun for all involved.

OB1 said:

Because it isn't an issue for the majority. It's only an issue for a small minority who can't/won't use the tools available to counter it. There is no elephant in the game I run, nor have I seen it it the many games I've played in (which isn't to say it doesn't exist for some).

Click to expand...

There is an elephant, though, you just correct for it through experience and so don't notice it that much. But encounter pacing vs resource management vs short/long rest recharges is something that the core rules just drops in the DM's lap without much explanation or guidance.

The game absolutely supports creating exciting stories abound bold adventurers facing deadly perils where DM's describe a scene, players describe what they do, and the DM narrates the results, sometimes asking for a die roll if the result is uncertain.



I disagree about the fundamental disconnect, but I'd be happy for WOTC to include an simple and elegant rest variant for those who want resource recovery hardcoded into the challenge system of the game and thus why I've made a good faith effort to offer solutions. It's also helped me to better understand the pacing levers and tools that I have available to me and to think about how those levers and tools subsequently effect world building. It's been a very useful thread in that regard as I come to these boards to become a better DM and player so that game sessions are even more fun for all involved.

Click to expand...

Yup, I come for the same, but if you're learning levers and tools to better get what you're looking for out of pacing (and inventing new mechanics, too), how can you say the elephant doesn't exist?

Ovinomancer said:

There is an elephant, though, you just correct for it through experience and so don't notice it that much. But encounter pacing vs resource management vs short/long rest recharges is something that the core rules just drops in the DM's lap without much explanation or guidance.

Yup, I come for the same, but if you're learning levers and tools to better get what you're looking for out of pacing (and inventing new mechanics, too), how can you say the elephant doesn't exist?

Click to expand...

Because for me, the fact that the game isn't perfectly balanced isn't a bug, it's a feature. That does require more work from the DM, but it isn't due to something being designed wrong, it comes from it being designed right! I start from the guidance provided in the DMG and work from there, reacting to my players to ensure challenge and fun.

I use uncertainty as my primary tool to keep the players on their toes and prevent them from going nova, which IMO is a far better way than a rigidly designed system that the players can discover and play against.

OB1 said:

It's my contention that the party should feel challenged after each encounter of the day, because each encounter is a test to see if they can keep their resources at or below the expected level for the difficulty of the encounter.

Click to expand...

I doubt that's a metric, let alone a sense of challenge that'd resonate with many players...

guideline is there to inform DMs of where the line is, so that when designing a dungeon, they don't make it impossible to get to the end

Click to expand...

So, one of the many non-promises Mearls non-committed to in the course of the playtest was 'Crystal Clear Guidance' as to the point, in encounters/day at which 5e was going to balance it's innately-imbalanced collection of classic-feel classes. The 6-8 encounter guideline delivered on it.

At least, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

You just need to create days that the PCs have a reasonable belief could have that much XP in them prior to having a chance to rest to get them to use resources appropriately, and thus make individual encounters challenging.

Click to expand...

I acknowledge the potential of the living world style, yes, and have made use of it myself.

Harzel said:

As for class balance, you are certainly correct that the number of encounters will affect class balance. However, I see nothing in the DMG** that suggests that intended class balance is achieved at ... any particular number of encounters per day. That classes seem balanced to you at 6-8 encounters per day may be a valuable insight gained from your experience,

Click to expand...

My experience with AD&D and 3.x was that classes were not mechanically balanceable by pacing, alone, though it could be a significant part of the pressure put on Tier 1 classes in the living world style.

I'm not about to depend on pacing, alone, in 5e, either, but I'm glad to see the guideline.

OB1 said:

Because for me, the fact that the game isn't perfectly balanced isn't a bug, it's a feature.

Click to expand...

Then it's a feature shared with all games, since perfect balance us impossible.

That does require more work from the DM, but it isn't due to something being designed wrong...

Click to expand...

Whether profound imbalance is intentionally designed into a game, as it was with 3es rewards for system mastery, or actively minimized by the design, or as in 5e some sort of compromise allowing the DM to choose dynamic imbalance for it's own sake, or impose a modicum of mechanical balance by adhering to a guidline, it's remotely possible to argue success or failure relative to the intent, but 'right' or 'wrong' is going to be pointlessly subjective.

IMHO, 5e succeeds admirably at delivering the kind of dynamic imbalance that contributed to the distinct feel of the classic game - with some of the more extreme issues and rough edges filed down. But, I have to judge it less successful at the alternative of pacing-imposed mechanical balance, for the same 'elephant' reason this thread has gone over so exhaustively.
It's a near miss, though, and seizing a little flexibility around the rules for resting is a fair solution for an Empowered DM.

OB1 said:

Because for me, the fact that the game isn't perfectly balanced isn't a bug, it's a feature. That does require more work from the DM, but it isn't due to something being designed wrong, it comes from it being designed right! I start from the guidance provided in the DMG and work from there, reacting to my players to ensure challenge and fun.

I use uncertainty as my primary tool to keep the players on their toes and prevent them from going nova, which IMO is a far better way than a rigidly designed system that the players can discover and play against.

Click to expand...

Stating there's an elephant doesn't have a value judgement attached, though. And there is an elephant. My biggest problem isn't really that it exists, it's that it's not acknowledged in the material. Failing to account for the elephant leads to issues, but they're not obvious issues for the most part and many DMs figure ways to paper them over or ignore them (or are lucky enough to have party compositions that reduce it's impact). I don't want an official way to deal with it either, as I agree players will game that system, but I wouldn't mind some clearer discussion of the issues and a few tips and pointers (like we've talked about in this thread) to mitigate the feature/bug.