D&D 5E 6-8 encounters/day - how common is this?

[CapnZapp]

Several posters reply (to me) assuming my complaint is that of a player trying to weasel out of a well-crafted scenario with a compelling creative time hook.

But that's not my complaint at all. If you get to participate in such an adventure, be thankful!

My complaint is instead that to make the DMG encounter guidelines work; to make the "helpful" poster's advice "do 6-8 encounters and the game will be balanced": you need such a scenario, complete with the dedicated hard-working DM that made it possible.

My complaint is that I do not want to have to craft a compelling creative time constraint just to make it work. I want the game to take care of what's needed for its balance itself.

That is, instead of "if you just spend hours and hours on your scenarios everything will be okay" I want explicit rules support to empower me to say things like
- "for this trek adventure, you can only rest at an oasis, and they're scarce"
- "for this intense adventure, a short rest is 1 minute and a long rest is 1 hour"
- "for this challenge, you get two short rests but no long rests"
...all scenarios in one and the same campaign, involving the same player characters

as well as things like
- "since the upcoming adventure contains few or no opportunities for a long rest, you can each claim that your rest is a long rest once" (to compensate long-resters for an adventure that favors short-resters)
- "since the upcoming adventure will take place over several days, with few encounters each day, each character gets three bonus short rests they can individually take as an action" (to compensate short-resters for an adventure that favors longer-resters)

as well as
- official published scenarios that actually follow this "helpful" advice and offers ways to make the party have 6-8 encounters without me the DM having to do the work myself. That is:

1) adds text to set up these fabled time constraints, not just on the global scale (finish this adventure in a week!) but more importantly at the local scale (finish this particular dungeon before dawn! search this castle in 2 hours! etc)
2) suggests penalties and consequences for taking rests anyway. Published adventures are notorious for glossing over the party's free will, not to mention their Rope Tricks and Magnificient Mansions etc.​

Zapp

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the call for no GM constraints is a little misguided though; without them you are playing a GM-less game. It's the intervention of the GM that is making adventure happen.

That would be a little weird (though there are games meant to be played that way, and even some that assume GMs, but could be workable with the role spread out among the players in some way - but 5e isn't one of 'em), and I doubt that's quite what anyone is getting at. Some are of the opinion that the DM shouldn't 'need' to police day length or class balance - that the game should just take care of it, perhaps - I don't think it's gotten any closer to what you imply than that. Others would say there shoudn't be 'GM constraints, in that the game shouldn't place constraints on the DM, but empower him - as 5e does very nicely.

That is, instead of "if you just spend hours and hours on your scenarios everything will be okay" I want explicit rules support to empower me to say things like
- "for this trek adventure, you can only rest at an oasis, and they're scarce"
- "for this intense adventure, a short rest is 1 minute and a long rest is 1 hour"
- "for this challenge, you get two short rests but no long rests"
...all scenarios in one and the same campaign, involving the same player characters

There's an unlimited number of things like that you might do, so a rule for each isn't really an option (and might not be what fits what you envision, anyway).

I'd say that 5e already lets you rule that way any time you like. Players want take a 'rest' while trekking across the desert, you rule there's no benefit unless they reach an oasis. Just a ruling, DM's already free to make them.

as well as
- official published scenarios that actually follow this "helpful" advice and offers ways to make the party have 6-8 encounters without me the DM having to do the work myself.

The first chapter of the first 5e module adventure (path), HotDQ, did exactly that, with less than wonderful results.

 

[Flamestrike]

Sorry but that's my way or the high way, and that's obviously a no go.

I would much rather have rules that does not draw this behavior out of DM's like you.

If the DM of your group sits down and spends hours designing fun adventures for his friends to play in, and the players ignore the hooks for nothing other than metagame reasons, or just to be jerks, then they're more than welcome to leave the table.

Thats not 'bad behaviour' from the DM, thats the players ignoring the social contract of DnD.

The DM has a job to create challenging encounters, and fun adventures for his PCs. It is the DMs job to budget his encounters, police the adventuring day, and run the entire game world around the players. If the players constantly refuse to buy in to this (and I mean players, not characters) then they can find another table to play in.

 

[CapnZapp]

text

You talk a lot, but nothing changes the fact that

1) many players evidently seldom experience 6-8 workdays
2) yet, the rules "expect" and "assume", and more annoyingly, so does a number of forumists when they serve up the 6-8 encounter day as a miracle cure for anyone's problems

Nothing wrong with your post per se, but it doesn't really adress the real issue.

 

[CapnZapp]

If the DM of your group sits down and spends hours designing fun adventures for his friends to play in, and the players ignore the hooks for nothing other than metagame reasons, or just to be jerks, then they're more than welcome to leave the table.

Thats not 'bad behaviour' from the DM, thats the players ignoring the social contract of DnD.

The DM has a job to create challenging encounters, and fun adventures for his PCs. It is the DMs job to budget his encounters, police the adventuring day, and run the entire game world around the players. If the players constantly refuse to buy in to this (and I mean players, not characters) then they can find another table to play in.

Yeah, you still don't get that my stance isn't the ungrateful player.

I'm the DM that does not want to do as much work as you. I want the game to be written in a way so you and I don't have to.

That's my issue, and your reply is completely beside it. Again.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm the DM that does not want to do as much work as you. I want the game to be written in a way so you and I don't have to.

We have a saying in the Army; prior preparation and planning prevents piss poor performance.

Put in the time mate, your campaign will be better off for it.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

We have a saying in the Army; prior preparation and planning prevents piss poor performance.

Put in the time mate, your campaign will be better off for it.

Or, the alternative which I personally prefer: Learn how to sit down and run the game with no more advance planning than thinking up a plot overview and the players having their characters built.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yeah, you still don't get that my stance isn't the ungrateful player.

I'm the DM that does not want to do as much work as you. I want the game to be written in a way so you and I don't have to.

That's my issue, and your reply is completely beside it. Again.

The game has been published. As written it does make provisions for you to make the rulings that you want. At this point, constantly bemoaning the fact that the game wasn't published exactly as you would have wanted it really won't accomplish much. There are things that I wish had been written differently as well. My plan is simple; learn from the campaigns I have running now and use what I know to make changes to the next campaign.

You know what changes in your game if you don't put any effort into it?

Nothing.

 

[Ebony Dragon]

Hello

So as I explore the (new to me) 5e rules and read about it here, I see several reference to the "6-8 encounters per adventuring day". Because of the short vs long rest powers economy, the number of encounters per day becomes quite important, as they allow the "short-rest powered" classes to shine.

But how many people do this actually? I've gamed (both as a PC and a GM) in a number of groups and a number of systems in my 25 year gaming "career" and in almost every group that high number of encounters was the exception, not the rule. Most of us found it more fun to have less fights, but have the fights matter more - big exciting battles, not a series of ho-hum scraps with goblins and brigands. (It is possible to have exciting battles with goblins or brigands mind you).

So is it just me, or are other people also tossing this guidance to the side?

The only group I am playing with tends to be more story focused, and is also a large group (7 PCs). We tend to go 0-3 combats between long rests. I would say ~2 combats would be the most common number. Occasionally we get into big dungeon slogs that need more, but that is honestly the rare exception.

Partly I think this may be because combat can slow down with so many players. Taking the time to run 8 combats in an evening would eat up all our time that session. No chance for any story progression or roleplaying to make it in.

Also, slogging through multiple easy fights every game session gets old pretty fast. Fewer fights but against meaningful and potentially dangerous opponents is a lot more fun for everyone involved than wasting 2 hours of our time every game just beating up scrub to whittle away some resources from the party so that the later fights feel dangerous. Doing that occasionally as a change of pace can be exciting, but it really wouldn't work for us to play that way every game session.

 

[meshon]

Several posters reply (to me) assuming my complaint is that of a player trying to weasel out of a well-crafted scenario with a compelling creative time hook.

But that's not my complaint at all. If you get to participate in such an adventure, be thankful!

Thanks for clarifying that, I think your "highway" comment confused the issue for some of us. I think all the resting options you've outlined sound great, and I fully agree that you should be able to change way rests work mechanically to suit the current narrative of your game, rather than choosing one system and always using it no matter what.

I can understand your frustration with the problem/answer dynamic that starts with "D&D combats are too easy" and is answered with "use a 6-8 encounter day," but I think the reason this happens is because sometimes the folks posting the complaint either don't know or won't try the rules-suggested number of encounters. So it doesn't stop there, but it's a valid response to start the conversation with. If you say, "my car quit working," then someone might reasonably ask if you had put gas in it. You might then say, "Oh! That's cool, I'll try that," or you might respond with "nope, I'm driving a Tesla, any other suggestions?"

Would you be happy with an Unearthed Arcana article or two on modifying the rest mechanics and encounter balance? It's one thing to say "try things out in your home game and see what works," but WotC has a larger ability to playtest rules and designs and I would certainly welcome such an article.

That would be a little weird (though there are games meant to be played that way, and even some that assume GMs, but could be workable with the role spread out among the players in some way - but 5e isn't one of 'em), and I doubt that's quite what anyone is getting at. Some are of the opinion that the DM shouldn't 'need' to police day length or class balance - that the game should just take care of it, perhaps - I don't think it's gotten any closer to what you imply than that. Others would say there shoudn't be 'GM constraints, in that the game shouldn't place constraints on the DM, but empower him - as 5e does very nicely.

Right. My point was definitely overstated, and thank you for stating that more clearly. I was trying to get at the idea that it's hard to isolate just one aspect of DM intervention in a game that is predicated on DM interventions to drive the game but I haven't entirely convinced myself. Some parts of the game seem to demand less DM attention.

My guess is that a game that is finely tuned in terms of a particular form of balance is less likely to be able to tolerate the wild chaos that comes from protagonist-oriented storytelling.

Also, slogging through multiple easy fights every game session gets old pretty fast. Fewer fights but against meaningful and potentially dangerous opponents is a lot more fun for everyone involved than wasting 2 hours of our time every game just beating up scrub to whittle away some resources from the party so that the later fights feel dangerous. Doing that occasionally as a change of pace can be exciting, but it really wouldn't work for us to play that way every game session.

Yes, if fights are a slog for your group, definitely don't play that way. However, don't assume that this perspective is inherently true. If, as you suggest, the more frequent fights are only there to consume resources then there is no point to them, but fewer fights at a higher difficulty does not automatically make those fights more meaningful, and having more fights doesn't automatically make them less meaningful. Because I'm curious, I've been really pushing the 6-8 day in my current game. The players are pushing onwards because they want their characters to explore the caves and have used the word "compelling" more than once. There's no real time limit (other than their ten days of food and the fact that they just used up their last 50' coil of rope) but they drive ahead. It's very gratifying.

That said they have just alerted a nest of hobgoblins and giants, so I may soon have more information about fewer, tougher fights!

And now for something completely different; big wall-of-text posts with multiquote, or multiple smaller posts responding to one quote each? Which do you like better? Advice appreciated!