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

[Flamestrike]

As always, I'm amazed at the diversity of playstyles within the hobby. I can't imagine planning 15 encounters ahead of time.

Thats a two level dungeon, or a coversion of an AD+D module to 5E.

I just reskinned Lost Island of Castanamir to 5e.

Synopsis: PCs get trapped inside dungeon and have three days to find the exit and escape before getting shipwrecked on island.

After going through the module and converting stuff, I counted up about 15 encounters (with a teleporter that sucks in more monsters each time the PCs enter that room, so it could include up to 20 or so). This is why I used 3 days as the benchmark for the time limiter (the PC's really pushed themselves on day 1 and got through nearly 10 encounters before long resting, split over 2 sessions).

Took me all of an hour or two of prep work to do.

 

[TwoSix]

Thats a two level dungeon, or a coversion of an AD+D module to 5E.

I just reskinned Lost Island of Castanamir to 5e.

Huh. Someday I'll have to look at these "modules" that people keep talking about.

 

[Flamestrike]

Huh. Someday I'll have to look at these "modules" that people keep talking about.

I often think back to my AD&D days of Against the Giants, Temple of Elemental evil etc. The golden years.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

It's occured to me another pacing related reason why lots of people don't play long rests like that. We play once a fornight for 4-5 hours. It takes about an hour to do a combat, and we typically have two in a session, shoot the breeze, do some RPing and some story stuff that takes about two hours as well and that's really the session. In all the games I play or GM regardless of edition (lots of shared players though, but this is literally a retroclone game, two 4E games and two 5E games, though these are all not currently active) we like to level up every 3 sessions as it gives it some momentum.

Given a real life pacing of leveling up every 6 weeks in the 6-8 encounter model you'd never actually long rest except at level ups. Looking at the Encounters to level table posted here:

http://oldguygaming.com/5e-encounters-per-level

The game is expecting us level up much more slowly:

Level - Weeks of play -  Long Rests

1         6                  -  0-1
2         6 (a bit less)      -   0
3         10                -   1-2
4         14                -   2        
5         16                -   2-3 (much closer to 2)
6         16                -   2         
7         15                -   2
8         14                -   2
9         13                -   2
10       14                -   2
11       8                  -  1

12-20 are all the same as 11.

Ignoring the weird logic, it's interesting that this is the reverse of the AD&D XP experience where you'd power through the mid levels then stall at high levels. 5E expects us to gloss over levels 1-2, then spend a long time in the middle before doubling the game pace in the high levels.

Anyway, with the suggested pace, you may as well play 'short rests only' and just have the players completely refresh their abilities when they level up as though they'd had a long rest. Alternatively for levels 3/4-10 you could give players a token that allows them to take a long rest and they only can cash it in once when taking a rest.

That might actually even be a good house rule/suggestion to run the pacing.

 

[Flamestrike]

It's occured to me another pacing related reason why lots of people don't play long rests like that. We play once a fornight for 4-5 hours. It takes about an hour to do a combat, and we typically have two in a session, shoot the breeze, do some RPing and some story stuff that takes about two hours as well and that's really the session.

Sounds like you might want to consider milestone power recharging?

2 encounters per session = a short rest at the conclusion of every session.

In all the games I play or GM regardless of edition (lots of shared players though, but this is literally a retroclone game, two 4E games and two 5E games, though these are all not currently active) we like to level up every 3 sessions as it gives it some momentum.

Every third session, the PCs advance in level and gain the benefits of a long rest.

Anyway, with the suggested pace, you may as well play 'short rests only' and just have the players completely refresh their abilities when they level up as though they'd had a long rest. Alternatively for levels 3/4-10 you could give players a token that allows them to take a long rest and they only can cash it in once when taking a rest.

That might actually even be a good house rule/suggestion to run the pacing.

Looks like we're reading off the same sheet of paper.

 

[CapnZapp]

Does your "solution" that the rules are too inflexible mean you would just play a different ruleset? It actually sounds like you're playing D&D though, and having fun, in which case I would suggest that it isn't all that broken, or that the rules are amenable enough that you can adjust them to make the game work for the way you like to play. Hopefully people can get enough information from a thread like this that they can try some new things that others have suggested if they're having trouble, or having "not fun."

Well, it's not "boy those rules don't allow me to do what I want, better go play another game"...

It's quite easy (for an experienced DM) to do any number of the following: award levels based on milestones rather than xp, hand out magic items that maintain rather than destroy the balance between long-rest and short-rest PCs, set up clear rules when and where the party can expect to rest, and so on.

But that it can be done by a good DM isn't the point. It should have been in the DMG. Just as the DMG contains tips on encounter design or what have you. The DMG is simply presenting a too-rosy picture of the players willingness to "take one more encounter" just to make the game click. The DMG is blissfully ignoring veteran jaded scheming minmaxing players that aren't above gaming the rest mechanism to their advantage.

// Just as an example: Witness the "meta contest" behind what the characters are saying in the recent "design a 6-8 encounter adventure" thread. The NPC quest giver tries to shame the players into accepting quite rigid time constraints. The players immediately recognizing this as a way to prevent long rests and try their darndest to worm out of those conditions.

At this stage I feel it's important to say noone is right and wrong here. I can certainly empathise with both DM and players. It is the game's fault that everybody lost in that thread! Not C. Not F.

In the end: the hard harsh question becomes - will you play by the DMs rules, or by the players rules. Contrast this with how easily the conflict could have been avoided entirely by stating up front "Today you'll be playing a two short-rest no long-rest scenario. You all now sit in a deserted tavern, spending the last of your copper coins on cheap ale. Suddenly a jolt of electricity shudders through the tavern and in a flash and a pop of magical energy, a figure appears as if from nowhere..."

Note how this turns the tables around entirely. Now the DM takes responsibility for his adventure, and its ability to challenge and delight, but not wilfully destroy the characters. (Assuming the basic trust is there between player C and dungeomnaster F in this case, which is a fair assumption in general even if possibly not in this particular case )The players can ease up on their otherwise strong motivation for making a good deal rest-wise (since getting rests is possibly the single most valuable commodity in 5th Edition), and simply go with the flow, demanding more traditional rewards, the kind that the DM can hand out gladly knowing that they do not work against the game's ability to challenge: gold, halved kingdoms, the hands of princesses, you know the lot. //

Some of it should even have been in the PHB. Partly to help out newbie DMs but mostly to heed of "by the book" players and wotc apologist forumists that reflexively just go "do six to eight and your issues will go away"...

I don't want to feel I'm playing the game "off center" when I can't be arsed to continously serve up ever-more tenuous reasons why the PCs should press on instead of taking the logical and prudent rest.

Adding a house rule is one thing. Taking away a rule that heavily favors the PCs that is written in stone right in the PHB is another thing entirely. So the rules shouldn't have been written in stone in the first place.

Just think of the number of discussions we could have skipped if only the PHB didn't just say "Adventurers can take short rests in the midst of an adventuring day and a long rest to end the day"... Le sigh

I want the standard RAW to go easy on the DM, and not just put the entire responsibility for keeping the game aspect of the rpg session squarely in her lap. It's lazy and it is offending, the way the DMG "assumes" this 6-8 encounter day without stepping up and making sure that is actually what a vanilla session leads to!

 

[ad_hoc]

So it's pretty much a disaster all around. The vast majority of groups average way fewer than 7 encounters/day, for reasons that are blindingly obvious. I really have no idea why the game is balanced around 7 encounters/day with 2 short rests, rather than (perhaps) 3-4 encounters/day with 1 short rest. That would be far more in line with how the game is played in the wild, and how players tend to progress organically.

It appears to be working well for the majority of groups who are using the published adventures as well as all the groups who use homebrew who requested the game to be like this.

Instead of declaring the game to be broken, you should examine how you play. Then either change how you play or change the game that you play. It doesn't sound like 5e is for you, but that doesn't mean that 5e is a bad game.

 

[CapnZapp]

It appears to be working well for the majority of groups who are using the published adventures as well as all the groups who use homebrew who requested the game to be like this.

Instead of declaring the game to be broken, you should examine how you play. Then either change how you play or change the game that you play. It doesn't sound like 5e is for you, but that doesn't mean that 5e is a bad game.

That is a response.

All those groups that you speak for might enjoy the game exactly as much AND Transformer might enjoy it more TOO if only the rules were more flexible on this point. I completely disavow your lazy conclusion that the game is perfect and anybody complaining is wrong.

By the way, name one published 5E adventure that makes sure of an 6-8 encounter day without off-loading that responsibility on the DM or the players.

(And before you start gloating: for each one you can find, I promise you I can find you ten examples of the opposite. The point is: published adventures couldn't care less about the 6-8 "assumption" and quite happily do what the rules do: dump all of the responsibility to make it happen squarely in the lap of the DM!)

 

[Ancalagon]

I mentioned this earlier, and a few others mentioned it later, but it bares repeating.

As long as the players don't know how many encounters they will face in an adventuring day, they will play as if they may encounter 6 or more.

Many games I've played in and DMd, I've had spellcasters hold back and save spells because they would rather be safe than sorry. Sometimes it pays off because they do get to use them in later encounters. Other times they basically keep them unspent and they get to recharge for the next day.

If the DM can keep this behavior consistent, then there will be less problems with warlocks, etc. being shamed when there are only 2 encounters in a day.

Remember, DMs....your players do not know what's going to happen after each encounter they have. Use variety and the fear of the unknown to keep the balance in force even when you have only 2 or 3 encounters in a day.

I started this thread, and to me this is the take home message. If the PCs keep reserves, it diminishes the "nova" tendency.

 

[Flamestrike]

// Just as an example: Witness the "meta contest" behind what the characters are saying in the recent "design a 6-8 encounter adventure" thread. The NPC quest giver tries to shame the players into accepting quite rigid time constraints. The players immediately recognizing this as a way to prevent long rests and try their darndest to worm out of those conditions.

The DM immediately recognises that he has players who are blatantly using metagame reasons to try and avoid going on a quest (the whole damn point of the game). Theyve wasted his time, and are acting like giant douches.

He sits down with them and explains to them as players why this is not on.

Players that accept this as true, and quit acting like tools kick on, stop treating the game as some kind of contest, quit metagaming and have fun.

The rest are politely asked to never come back to the table again.