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

[Tony Vargas]

Sure, I agree about the limitation. I'm not advocating going with any set number of encounters, regardless of difficulty level. I just don't think that such a change REQUIRES an impact on world-building...
...So unless you consider PCs leveling to be a part of world-building, I would say this is not building the world to suit. The world is unchanged....the PCs have changed.
No it does not REQUIRE world-building. Because the number of creatures that attack can simply be coincidence. When the PCs first went to the forest at a low level, they encountered a few creatures. When they travelled later, they encountered many. ...

Whether we defined 'worldbuilding' narrowly enough (as Hussar does, for instance) that sticking dogmatically to one encounter-pacing scheme "doesn't impact it" or not, it still doesn't make sticking dogmatically to one encounter-pacing scheme at all flexible.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Whether we defined 'worldbuilding' narrowly enough (as Hussar does, for instance) that sticking dogmatically to one encounter-pacing scheme "doesn't impact it" or not, it still doesn't make sticking dogmatically to one encounter-pacing scheme at all flexible.

I agree. I prefer flexibility, for sure. I don't use XP, CR budgets, encounters per day guidelines or rules, or any of that. I think all of that is, at best, a guide.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Dude all you've doens is steadily add limitations to create a narrow band where you can try and prove that encounters affect worldbuilding. Maybe you should reverse the question above and ask yourself that about the steadily narrowing examples you've had to put forth to try and prove your point.

The other way around, actually, I keep chasing your counterexamples.

So answer this... if adventuring day =/= calendar day... and the adventurers are in the world every calendar day... how can the pacing of an adventuring day be the pacing of the world? Simple answer... it can't be.

I can't even follow that, and I think it's because you're trying to argue with me about a point I didn't make.

An adventuring day is a calendar day by the default pacing rules. This, in no way, implies every calendar day is an adventuring day.

EDIT: And for bonus points what is an "adventuring day" as it applies to worldbuiding? If you're letting the encounters impact worldbuilding and those encounters, as well as their pacing, are based on the adventuring day... well aren't you basically claiming the world is built around the adventuring day... which, unless you believe every day is an adventuring day, doesn't seem to be the intent...

It doesn't follow that since the world must include adventuring days that every day is an adventuring day. I've certainly never said so. If, however, you have an adventuring day, and you've selected a dogmatic pacing paradigm, then the world must be able to accommodate that adventuring day, each and every time it occurs, which may or may not be every day as the game requires.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Who says they avoid the PCs? There are so many elements we don't know of that may factor into this. Are the PCs being sent to deal with the kobolds once and for all? Then you can narrate that the PCs slaughter every last one in the forest. Yes, this may impact your world-building....but it's a choice. You can just as easily narrate that the kobolds flee and hide, or that they attack but lose, or that they drop to their knees and worship the PCs or whatever.

More likely, the PCs are just traveling through the forest and are harried by kobolds, but repel all attacks. They don't chase the fleeing kobolds because they have more important 10th level stuff to deal with than chasing kobolds. So after their time in the forest, narrated quickly by the DM, the PCs go about their business and then the kobolds come out of their hiding place, and go back to attacking farmers rather than powerful PCs. World-building unaffected.

Yes, you can narrate it, but, at that point, you're not having an adventuring day and the point is moot. If you choose to have an adventuring day in Kobold Copse, though, you're stuck with not narrating the encounters.

As for areas becoming outleveled...I don't really see how it's relevant. This is going to happen at some point. It's not the mechanics impacting your world-building so much as it's simply a by-product of the PCs leveling up. This has nothing to do with a shift in encounters.

It doesn't have to happen, but let's put that aside. My point isn't that it only happens when selecting dogmatic pacing paradigms, but that when it happens does change. And if when areas become unadventurable changes because of the pacing paradigm chosen, then it's hard to claim that paradigm didn't have an affect on the worldbuiilding.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I agree. I prefer flexibility, for sure. I don't use XP, CR budgets, encounters per day guidelines or rules, or any of that.

Yep, and you do have plenty of flexibility in that regard. You can place more or fewer monsters, there's not rule that trolls only appear in groups of 1d12 or that kobolds are never found above ground or anything like that. Most of the rules bend easily when the DM stretches his Empowerment (when they don't outright demand a ruling from the DM in the first place). How long a rest takes and what it's benefits are kinda stand out in that they're presented without much such flexibility, and the alternative is to swap in an equally inflexible 'module.'

That's what I really find to be the Elephant. Not that the game assumes 6-8 encounters/2-3 short rests per day for class balance & encounter difficulty, nor that it undermines that with a few spells that facilitate resting more often, nor that the published adventures don't dogmatically stick to that pacing.

It's just that underlying rest-recover rule that is pivotal to setting a pace (whether you want to follow that guideline, or mod the game to work with another), is less flexible than most other 5e rules.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, you can narrate it, but, at that point, you're not having an adventuring day and the point is moot. If you choose to have an adventuring day in Kobold Copse, though, you're stuck with not narrating the encounters.

I bolded the bit above. This is my whole point. You can choose. Choose means there are options, which mean neither option is a MUST.

It doesn't have to happen, but let's put that aside. My point isn't that it only happens when selecting dogmatic pacing paradigms, but that when it happens does change. And if when areas become unadventurable changes because of the pacing paradigm chosen, then it's hard to claim that paradigm didn't have an affect on the worldbuiilding.

So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you!

Honestly, I don't really know how to follow that....and I think we're at the point where we have to simply acknowledge we see things differently, and that's cool.

Yep, and you do have plenty of flexibility in that regard. You can place more or fewer monsters, there's not rule that trolls only appear in groups of 1d12 or that kobolds are never found above ground or anything like that. Most of the rules bend easily when the DM stretches his Empowerment (when they don't outright demand a ruling from the DM in the first place). How long a rest takes and what it's benefits are kinda stand out in that they're presented without much such flexibility, and the alternative is to swap in an equally inflexible 'module.'

That's what I really find to be the Elephant. Not that the game assumes 6-8 encounters/2-3 short rests per day for class balance & encounter difficulty, nor that it undermines that with a few spells that facilitate resting more often, nor that the published adventures don't dogmatically stick to that pacing.

It's just that underlying rest-recover rule that is pivotal to setting a pace (whether you want to follow that guideline, or mod the game to work with another), is less flexible than most other 5e rules.

Perhaps. I don't find rests in general to be that big a deal. I think this is the easiest edition of D&D in regards to recovery, but I don't know if the way it's set up must be so restrictive or that it has to favor one class over another based on how they are designed.

I find that most such complaints tend to be exaggerated, or that they can be resolved or at least minimized to some extent but for some reason such solutions are dismissed by those making the complaints.

 

[Imaro]

I bolded the bit above. This is my whole point. You can choose. Choose means there are options, which mean neither option is a MUST.

This has pretty much been my point all along... it's a matter of choice not a given.

 

[OB1]

Been reading but not commenting the past few days, but once again got sucked in.

It seems to me that the 3-18 encounter guidelines actually allow for more flexibility in world building than single encounter days would. In a single encounter day pacing design, a threat can only be one size to challenge the current level and makeup of the party and all the world building implications that has. With the 3-18 encounter guideline, you have a range of encounters to choose from based on the environment the PCs are in, and because the PCs don't know how many more encounters are coming in the day, they should be saving resources for when they are truly needed, thus making each individual encounter interesting regardless of how many actually happen that day. Is the 5th level wizard really going to waste a fireball on 3 orcs in the first encounter of the day not knowing what else may come? Any system with limited resources will have pacing and world building affected by that decision regardless of it being based on single encounter, 3 deadly, or a mix of 3-18.

The elephant only get's hungry when PCs both don't hit the daily adventuring XP and have a way of knowing that they won't be hitting it. The only spell that really allows for a 5mwd is Mordienkainen's Magnifcient Mansion, which requires a Tier III Wizard to cast. So if you have a 14th level Wizard in your party and if they used one of their two spells known to get the spell and if the prepare it then they could game the system and ensure a 5mwd and starve the elephant and at that point a DM has to decide if they are going to use time pressure or a mechanical solution like Encounter Based Resting to ensure challenge. Otherwise, uncertainty should be making individual combats interesting regardless of the specific daily total.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't find rests in general to be that big a deal.

You're an active participant in an excessively long thread about the issue. ;P

I think this is the easiest edition of D&D in regards to recovery, but I don't know if the way it's set up must be so restrictive or that it has to favor one class over another based on how they are designed.

The class designs are such that some will necessarily be favored by shorter days, yes. That's an inevitable consequence of designing them with different mixes of resources. Some classes have few resources, some many, some that recharge mainly on short rests, others long, others both - some classes resources are inflexible, others extremely versatile. That's a lot of complexity to balance, and the tight-rope the designers chose to walk is secured by the 6-8 encounter/2-3 short rest guideline.

As DMs, we deal with the consequences. Some of us are content to walk that tightrope, others put up a net, or just never get on it in the first place.

I find that most such complaints tend to be exaggerated, or that they can be resolved or at least minimized to some extent but for some reason such solutions are dismissed by those making the complaints.

Complaints & how they're perceived are, of course, subjective. There's a segment of the fan-base that couldn't care less about balance among classes or estimating encounter difficulty, so, of course, see no problem when deviating from a guideline that's meant to help with both. (There's another segment that cares, in the sense that they loathe class balance, of course - the guideline is thus a sort of compromise.)

Resolving and minimizing those issues is possible, but the point of this thread is that, while the guideline for doing it in a fairly straightforward manner is provided, it's not so well-supported by the mechanics (my point, above), system artifacts (spells like Rope Trick et al), or APs (Zapp's main point, IIRC).

It seems to me that the 3-18 encounter guidelines

It really is 6-8. I know you put a lot of stock in the fact that you could design a 3-encounter day with the same exp budget, but it won't have the same "balancing" impact on a class with some 3/day ability as a 6+ encounter day would. In theory, you just need to /average/ 6-8, which'd mean, sure, have the occasional 3-encounter day (or even 1-encounter day), but 'balance' them with equally-frequent 9 and 15 encounter days. Of course, if you're finding it problematic to pad a day out to 6 encounters, 9 or 15 or 18 is probably out of the question.

actually allow for more flexibility in world building than single encounter days would.

Neither sound terribly flexible.

Flexible would be 1-n encounter/day.

 

[OB1]

In theory, you just need to /average/ 6-8, which'd mean, sure, have the occasional 3-encounter day (or even 1-encounter day), but 'balance' them with equally-frequent 9 and 15 encounter days.

I don't think you need to average that number, the players just need to believe there is a reasonable chance that there will be the average number of encounters to keep them from overusing resources in any given encounter, and I agree that mixing that up the number is key to that.

Furthermore, the guideline is in place to advise the DM on how much the players CAN handle before needing rest, not as a guide to how every day should be. A single medium encounter in a day should still carry weight, because the PCs have no way of knowing if that is 1 of 8 encounters or 1 of 1. If they decide to use some powerful limited resource, they are making that calculation against what the rest of the day will bring.