6-8 Encounters a long rest is, actually, a pretty problematic idea.

[Sacrosanct]

With the caveat that I've obviously never played every RPG out there, I will say I have never played a TTRPG as the GM/DM that didn't require work. Plently of prep work. Not only by knowing the rules, but preparing the adventure itself. Even if I never changed anything in it, but just picked up an existing adventure to run. A DM needs to read it thoroughly, be aware of how his or her players like to play, and be thinking of how those players might do things in the various parts of the adventure that aren't spelled out. Even in AL when you don't know the players, the DM needs to plan for things that may pop up. The DM also needs to keep things organized and incorporate players into the game. I.e., make an effort to include parts of the game that appeals to all of the players at the table.

The DM does way more work than the players do, but that's why the DM has freedom to make rulings. If someone doesn't want to put work in to be a DM, then perhaps a boardgame is better suited, where many of those decision points don't happen.

 

[Oofta]

I do have a real problem with people who make these arguments:

"I'm ignoring huge swaths of the rules, but I say the game is broken, and if you don't agree, then you're just an apologist who thinks the game is perfect."
"I love the game, even though I've never said a good thing about it, but instead I'm always saying how I hate how the classes, races, combat, monsters, treasure, spells, feats, etc are designed."

Being a DM requires work. If you don't like to do any work, don't be a DM.

I agree, and if I'm not making it clear then let me rephrase.

IMHO D&D is too complex to have one set of rules that will fit everyone and every situation. I realize that may not work for everyone. I don't see how you could have the flexibility and freedom we're given by this edition and not require a lot of DM tweaking and adjustments to fit individual groups and styles. The fact that there's a lot of variation from table to table is a design feature, not a flaw.

I've run for multiple groups now and even though we used the same character build guidlines and approximately same number of magic items, I had to adjust the games for each group. Party composition, tactics, builds, all make a difference.
Throw in the extra complexity from:

• number of players
• whether or not you allow feats
• multi-classing
• use standard point buy or roll 3d6 place in order
• no magic items or load 'em up until they look like Christmas trees
• party and character optimization
• playstyle preference of meat grinder vs just having fun rolling dice and kicking ass
• etc...

How would it be possible to come up with encounter XP budget and guidelines to fit everyone?

Guidelines are just that, guidelines. Whether it's the encounter XP budget that needs to be adjusted for different groups, the number of encounters per day that make sense for your group and your style, stealth, modules or any number of other things. This devs made the wise decision to emphasize rulings and DM agency over rules.

However I apologize if I ever imply that someone is running their game wrong as long as they and their group are having fun. I just get tired of hearing that the game is broken because it doesn't do the impossible.

 

[Sacrosanct]

However I apologize if I ever imply that someone is running their game wrong as long as they and their group are having fun. I just get tired of hearing that the game is broken because it doesn't do the impossible.

I didn't get the impression you were doing that at all. I agree with you. There's a difference between accusing someone of badwrong fun, and telling something that if they are deviating from how the game is designed, the onus is on them to make those adjustments.

 

[ccs]

All of that is entirely reasonable.

As long as it's all detailed in the module, and I don't need to invent it on the fly.

If the module doesn't spend a single line on how to react to invasions, and is meant to be completed with no long rests, I far prefer rules that...

...doesnt actively allow/encourage the complete ruination of the challenge level of said module.

In short. Don't allow the players to turn an exciting balanced line of encounters unto two utterly trivial lines, if the game offloads the entire work of restoring any semblance of excitement to those two half-lines onto the poor DM.

This is pretty damned funny. If I hit the laugh button are you going to freak out that I'm mocking you?

 

[Tony Vargas]

IMHO D&D is too complex to have one set of rules that will fit everyone and every situation.

There is a lot of complexity implied in presenting many optional rules, of course.

How would it be possible to come up with encounter XP budget and guidelines to fit everyone?

Obviously, the better-balanced the game, the more such complexities it could handle, but some of those are more problematic than others. Using alternate stat generation methods that give much more generous or miserly results, or introducing or holding back or giving out too many magic items or the like could swing things heavily in most ed. OTOH, number of players, MCing, expected magic items, party/character optimization, and playstyle preferences might have relatively little, or at least predictable/consistent/manageable impact on encounter balance (encounter budged/guidelines). It really depends on the design.

5e is designed to be shaped and molded into radically different forms, evoking various past editions (and the many variations folks used back in the day, for that matter), and that does practically preclude encounter guidelines that will be dependable for everyone. IDK if it precludes the guidelines being dependable for /anyone/, ever - it seems like, for any given issue someone might have with 5e, someone else opines that they have no problem with it, at all.

However I apologize if I ever imply that someone is running their game wrong as long as they and their group are having fun. I just get tired of hearing that the game is broken because it doesn't do the impossible.

Obviously, if you're running your game a certain way, and find the game broken when run that way resulting in less/no fun for your group, you (and/or they) are doing something wrong.

 

[BookBarbarian]

My regular players perform the same grapple, prone, kick-until-dead routine almost every combat without becoming bored or frustrated.

Because that's extremely fun!

I think every character concept I come up with I think, "It's cool, but can it grapple?".

Which is to say I have nothing to contribute to this thread. Carry on.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There is a lot of complexity implied in presenting many optional rules, of course.

Obviously, the better-balanced the game, the more such complexities it could handle, but some of those are more problematic than others. Using alternate stat generation methods that give much more generous or miserly results, or introducing or holding back or giving out too many magic items or the like could swing things heavily in most ed. OTOH, number of players, MCing, expected magic items, party/character optimization, and playstyle preferences might have relatively little, or at least predictable/consistent/manageable impact on encounter balance (encounter budged/guidelines). It really depends on the design.

Then you get into the territory that makes most MMOs so lifeless. To prevent players creating stronger or weaker characters you restrict freedom to create the characters they want. To prevent players making good or bad tactical decisions you make tactics irrelevant.

But the thing is, in P&P there is no need for it. A human DM can adjust the difficulty on the fly, and create adventures where the player who created a clumsy thief with Expertise in History and Brewing Materials turns out to be the MVP.

 

[dco]

Not sure what is the problem, the players should not know if they are going to fight or how many fights they will have that day. If they have a problem they can try other RPGs where they can always use all their powers or boardgames.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I find it helps to mix up encounter types and of course, having failure as an option.

If a table cannot handle failure then... well, that's really their problem and not the game system's.

[sblock]Example of varied adventuring day:

Party of five characters, each level 8 attempting to extract a person of interest from a Gnolls as soon as possible as part of an ongoing adventure.

ENCOUNTER 1
Group makes camp in unfamiliar and dangerous terrain. Depending on how the party secures the area, they either mitigate or avoid a number of possible random events and one scripted/predetermined encounter (the local scavengers).

Resource tax: Minimal+ depending on paranoia and desire to remain undetected.
Failure: Party loses some or all of their rations and possible items of gear. Party might be forced to return home base.

ENCOUNTER 2
Party meets a small mob (15-20) of desperate survivors attempting to make their way home. Pushed to their limits, they may try something reckless, from stealing to attacking the party. Calm words and a patience will placate the survivors. Party has the choice to expend healing and any other resources in order to help survivors. If they choose to help a future boon is granted to them, via the one of the survivors rewarding them should the party live to return home. A social encounter, anything might happen - with our table, there's a 50-50 chance someone puts their foot in their mouth and all hell breaks loose. YMMV.

Resource tax: Minimal+ depending on how committed the party is to helping the survivors. Combat is an option tho the party should win with little effort.
Failure: Social encounter, things can get preetty crazy!

ENCOUNTER 3
Trolls attack. Because trolls. Attempting to strike with surprise, trolls have set up an ambush in the tree tops. Their plan is simple - create a distraction in an attempt to occupy the party's scouts. Then, drop down from above and attack. If the party doesn't split up or send a scout, they become impatient and attack regardless.

Resource tax: Medium to high depending on party composition and if they fall for distraction.
Failure: Possible limb loss and or death.

ENCOUNTER 4
Canyon crossing. The terrain gives way to steep cliffs of rock, forming a gorge, complete with a river running far below. Harpies populate the area, flocking in groups of 6-10. The party attempts to cross the gorge while ensuring they don't fall foul to multiple Luring Songs.

Resource tax: Medium-High, depending on spells available and party composition. Death of a party member is a possibility due to multiple Luring Songs and the danger of falling.
Failure: Death of a party member is a possibility due to multiple Luring Songs and the danger of falling.[/I]

ENCOUNTER 5
Strange item. The party encounter the desiccated remains of a Gnoll scout. Upon approach, a ghostly Gnoll visage appears above the remains and charges the party. It takes no damage, nor does it causes any and vanishes after one round with a howl. Searching the Gnoll's remains reveals a small black metal box. The box features intricate markings but seems to be locked shut. The box radiates necromantic spell energy.

Resource tax: Minimal+, depending on how trigger happy the party is and their curiosity.
Failure: DM's choice. What's in the box? WHAT'S IN THE BOX?!?!

ENCOUNTER 6
Not-so-nice survivors. The party encounter a group (6-10) of naughty survivors (Bandits) led by their crafty leader, an Assassin. Their leader will then spin a sob story about them being driven to starvation and beg the party to give them supplies and shelter. If the party lowers their guard, she and her gang will attack. If the party does not lower their guard, she and her gang will attempt to flee, regroup and then proceed to stalk the party, attacking during their next rest.

Resouce tax: Minimal to High (short term/long term).
Failure: Murder. Death. Kill

ENCOUNTER 7
Gnoll camp. 20-35 Gnolls occupy a small village, set in against the sheer cliffs of a smouldering volcano. The party attempts to locate and extract the person of interest, ideally without alerting the entire camp. If more than day has passed, the person of interest is battered but alive, capable of limping and limited action. If more than two days has passed the person of interest has been beaten to near death and lies in a coma.

Resource Tax: High, factoring both party assets and time. Like any good jailbreak, it all depends on how the enemies are grouped and the security system/s in place.
Failure: Party is captured. Party member/s killed. Person of Interest killed/is not rescued resulting in the party having to explore another avenue of information gathering.[/sblock]

 

[5ekyu]

5e is designed to be shaped and molded into radically different forms, evoking various past editions (and the many variations folks used back in the day, for that matter), and that does practically preclude encounter guidelines that will be dependable for everyone. IDK if it precludes the guidelines being dependable for /anyone/, ever - it seems like, for any given issue someone might have with 5e, someone else opines that they have no problem with it, at all.

This gets into one of my common wishes not fulfilled - less focus on "balance" more focus on "balancing" within the rule structure and the GM guidelines.

It would be far more beneficial to my way of thinking to have a section on some benchmarks and metrics to look at for your groups to give you a sense of your "power level" vs a handful of known commodities and useful capabilities - including DPR but not just DPR. It would be much better for moderate Gm to see section on challenge vs party not in general terms of CR vs level but in more actual terms of "do they have this kind of thing yet?"

Power/threat/risk is born out of the intersection of challenge/need vs capability/options and a Gm who needs help figuring out balance is not going to get there by CR-level *8unless** they have a very vanilla group facing a very vanilla challenge in a very vanilla-friendly setting.

"real power" shifts in terms of capability and need will swing massively if your 5-10 level arc is "against the giant" or "against the vamps" or "against the fey"... and that tends to not get captured or even addressed in many of the "balance approaches."

less pages in a DMG on how to disarm and a bunch of other small mechanical set-pieces and more on "how to balance" to me serves newer to moderate GMs better.