Getting to 6 encounters in a day

[Oofta]

Let me try to summarize how this is apparently going to go from now on.

Oofta: I don't like this rule and I don't think it's necessary.
Iserith: I like it so therefore you're wrong and your opinion is not valid. I have therefore proven my point.

Repeat ad-nauseum, with minor wording changes here and there.

 

[iserith]

There's no contradiction. I don't like the rule, and I don't think it's necessary. But thanks for dismissing my opinion and calling me a liar.

I just showed that there's a contradiction quite clearly.

I know you don't like the rule.

I haven't dismissed your opinion, only your justifications and objections which lead to what I would say are obvious contradictions in your thinking.

I haven't called you a liar either.

You can say "I don't like the rule and I don't have any particularly good reason for that..." and I'd have nothing to argue against, but that's not what you did.

 

[Oofta]

I just showed that there's a contradiction quite clearly.

I know you don't like the rule.

I haven't dismissed your opinion, only your justifications and objections which lead to what I would say are obvious contradictions in your thinking.

I haven't called you a liar either.

You can say "I don't like the rule and I don't have any particularly good reason for that..." and I'd have nothing to argue against, but that's not what you did.

I don't like the rule and no amount of explanation of why seems to matter. There's no reason to repeat my answers.

You've dismissed my opinion as a "gut level" reaction which implies it has no value and then told me that my justification comes after the fact which is accusing me of lying.

In other words....

Let me try to summarize how this is apparently going to go from now on.

Oofta: I don't like this rule and I don't think it's necessary.
Iserith: I like it so therefore you're wrong and your opinion is not valid. I have therefore proven my point.

Repeat ad-nauseum, with minor wording changes here and there.

I don't see the point of continuing the loop.

 

[iserith]

I don't like the rule and no amount of explanation of why seems to matter. There's no reason to repeat my answers.

You've dismissed my opinion as a "gut level" reaction which implies it has no value and then told me that my justification comes after the fact which is accusing me of lying.

In other words....

I would say your explanation as to why has so far been contradictory or nonsensical, especially considering what you've admitted about how you run your game. I don't dismiss your opinion that you don't like the mechanic - which is fine, seriously. I don't even use the proposed house rule in most of my games.

I do dismiss your objections and justifications as to why you hold that opinion for the reasons stated. I will add that recent findings on neuroscience show that we often make decisions based on emotion and then seek out logic to justify it. Your response has the look of that to me, but since that's a perfectly normal thing to do, I am neither dismissing your opinion nor calling you a liar. Again, my arguments are against your specific objections, not you personally or your dislike of the mechanic.

I don't see the point of continuing the loop.

That loop is fictional because you are, in fact, putting words in my mouth which is pretty uncool. But if you don't want to continue the conversation, that's fair enough. You can stop at any time with my thanks for engaging at all.

 

[Oofta]

I would say your explanation as to why has so far been contradictory or nonsensical, especially considering what you've admitted about how you run your game. I don't dismiss your opinion that you don't like the mechanic - which is fine, seriously. I don't even use the proposed house rule in most of my games.

I do dismiss your objections and justifications as to why you hold that opinion for the reasons stated. I will add that recent findings on neuroscience show that we often make decisions based on emotion and then seek out logic to justify it. Your response has the look of that to me, but since that's a perfectly normal thing to do, I am neither dismissing your opinion nor calling you a liar. Again, my arguments are against your specific objections, not you personally or your dislike of the mechanic.



That loop is fictional because you are, in fact, putting words in my mouth which is pretty uncool. But if you don't want to continue the conversation, that's fair enough. You can stop at any time with my thanks for engaging at all.

Sorry, I'll correct the loop.

You're wrong.
No, you are.

Repeat.

 

[Lylandra]

Ideally, the game would be designed and balanced to allow any kind of encounter number from zero to 10 (or more) on an adventuring day. Which most likely means "encounter-based, quickly repleneshing resources" other than maybe HP.

Because when I read the thread's title, I immediately thought "Maybe I don't *want* to get to 6 encounters per day" because encounters take too much time for my taste. And we usually have 0-4, depending on the situation of the characters.

 

[Oofta]

One last try.

The PCs have been through some tough fights and are low on resources. They want to take a long rest before taking on the goblins in the cave nearby.

Option 1: motivate them via story
- The goblins may get reinforcements or attack the group in the middle of the night.
- Right now the party has the element of surprise
- The goblins have been raiding nearby villages and may raid again tonight

All of those are valid, in-story motivations. If the PCs decide to attack, great. If they don't then certain events may or may not occur.

If they attack the goblins the next day and there are the same number of goblins as the night before, they get the same XP. They might get more XP if the goblins fortified and set up traps that weren't there before, they may get less if the goblins fled in the night. It's based on encounter difficulty, nothing more nothing less.

Option 2: I have no story motivations. They know the goblins ar over there, but don't think the goblins know about the party and have no reason to believe they will be discovered. They decide to take a long rest. I say "if you attack the goblins now I'll give you extra XP".

Suddenly the players have to make up a reason to justify getting extra XP. That's what I don't like. There's no reason from the perspective of the PCs to take that action.

You could throw in a mix of motivations, which is not hinted at or mentioned in the OP. But it doesn't really matter much, it's still motivating the players, not the PCs. If they were going to do it anyway it's Option 1. If they weren't it's Option 2.

 

[Oofta]

Or the short version of my previous post.

I think decisions made by the PCs should be made from the perspective of the PCs. I don't want to implement anything that discourages that or encourages different behavior.

 

[Bawylie]

One last try.

The PCs have been through some tough fights and are low on resources. They want to take a long rest before taking on the goblins in the cave nearby.

Option 1: motivate them via story
- The goblins may get reinforcements or attack the group in the middle of the night.
- Right now the party has the element of surprise
- The goblins have been raiding nearby villages and may raid again tonight

All of those are valid, in-story motivations. If the PCs decide to attack, great. If they don't then certain events may or may not occur.

If they attack the goblins the next day and there are the same number of goblins as the night before, they get the same XP. They might get more XP if the goblins fortified and set up traps that weren't there before, they may get less if the goblins fled in the night. It's based on encounter difficulty, nothing more nothing less.

Option 2: I have no story motivations. They know the goblins ar over there, but don't think the goblins know about the party and have no reason to believe they will be discovered. They decide to take a long rest. I say "if you attack the goblins now I'll give you extra XP".

Suddenly the players have to make up a reason to justify getting extra XP. That's what I don't like. There's no reason from the perspective of the PCs to take that action.

You could throw in a mix of motivations, which is not hinted at or mentioned in the OP. But it doesn't really matter much, it's still motivating the players, not the PCs. If they were going to do it anyway it's Option 1. If they weren't it's Option 2.

Regarding option 2.

I have a house rule in place “No defective characters.” Briefly, it means the character you create must be one that chooses to go on adventures with the other characters; no lone wolves, no “convince me what I get out of this.” In other words, you sit down to play with everyone else and you’d better do so.

This is essentially option 2: front loaded. There are no story motivations or character motivations at all - whatever you decide to play, you’re agreeing to play and push on and take risks even when a thinking-person would retire with riches, rest up before the big battle, or tell a quest-giver to go pound sand.

Now, I’ll definitely give out additional xp as a carrot. Because, while we are playing make-believe, WE are playing. The characters don’t have motivations, we merely pretend they do. So additional motivation for the players can definitely be warranted, particularly when it leads to further engagement with the game.

As a thought experiment, imagine running a game that the characters were supposed to care about, but the players really didn’t care about at all. No matter how juicy it might be for those characters, if the players aren’t motivated, that’s a dull game.

Insofar as option 2 addresses player motivation, it is wholly good. Motivated players play motivated characters. Gosh, it even helps them play in-character!

(Gotta get back to work)

 

[Oofta]

Regarding option 2.

I have a house rule in place “No defective characters.” Briefly, it means the character you create must be one that chooses to go on adventures with the other characters; no lone wolves, no “convince me what I get out of this.” In other words, you sit down to play with everyone else and you’d better do so.

This is essentially option 2: front loaded. There are no story motivations or character motivations at all - whatever you decide to play, you’re agreeing to play and push on and take risks even when a thinking-person would retire with riches, rest up before the big battle, or tell a quest-giver to go pound sand.

Now, I’ll definitely give out additional xp as a carrot. Because, while we are playing make-believe, WE are playing. The characters don’t have motivations, we merely pretend they do. So additional motivation for the players can definitely be warranted, particularly when it leads to further engagement with the game.

As a thought experiment, imagine running a game that the characters were supposed to care about, but the players really didn’t care about at all. No matter how juicy it might be for those characters, if the players aren’t motivated, that’s a dull game.

Insofar as option 2 addresses player motivation, it is wholly good. Motivated players play motivated characters. Gosh, it even helps them play in-character!

(Gotta get back to work)

I do have the "play a character that makes sense" discussion during my session 0, along with a few other things like "no evil" and "don't play a jerk". But once a character is created I want to run games where decisions made by the PC are made from the perspective of the PC.

Other styles are just as valid, just not my preference.