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

[Tony Vargas]

nothing changes the fact that

1) many players evidently seldom experience 6-8 workdays

Not, in itself, a problem. "Encounters are too easy" and "one character seems too strong/weak" are problems. If the campaign having that problem is running 1 encounter/day...

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

It's a place to start. If you are suffering form the kinds of issues that too few encounters/day or short-rests/long-rest would be expected to cause, then using the prescribed numbers would be a way of getting back on track. If you tried that, and it didn't work, it would point to a completely different issue. But, if you tried it and the problem resolved, then you could find ways to get back to the pacing you want, either by re-defining or ruling more advisedly on what constitutes a rest, or by adjusting things to work with fewer encounters/day (harder encounters while maintaining the short:long rest ratio of 2.5, for instance, or engineering spotlight time for the PCs disfavored by the pacing you settle on).

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

DMing 5e does require more work and/or experience and/or raw talent than prior eds, which is bucking a long-term trend towards DMing becoming a less arcane(npi) task. That's the price of DM Empowerment, though, and it's unavoidable (and, IMHO, worth it).

OTOH, ironically enough, it's probably at its easiest if you just run a standard game with a standard number of encounters/day in a more directive storytelling (so-called "railroad") mode.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

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.

The game has been published, but they publish new content for it all the time. One of the design principles mentioned in interviews was 'modules' to allow them to deploy new content etc. The point of this sort of discussion as I see it is mostly:

A) Identify a problem - Do we actually have an issue here? If most people are playing 6-8 adventuring days it's not really a problem. If most people are not, maybe they will publish some content that addresses the problem

B) Kick around potential house rules. This is a huge part of the discussion: how do I make 3-4 encounter adventuring days work?

It's a discussion forum, people are going to discuss the issues they experience in the game.

But there *always* is DM control. Always.

Joe the DM: So Sarah, what is your character?
Sarah: I've made an elven sorceress, focusing on illusion magic.
Joe: Neat! What about you Bob?
Bob: I'm making a dwarven archer
Joe: Cool... with some kind of crossbow I imagine?
Bob: Oh no, I wanted something different. My dwarf uses an AK-47
Joe: ...Wut?
Bob: An AK-47. It's a type of assault riffle. Decent range, high rate of fire, very reliable
Joe: But this is a fantasy game. There aren't any guns!
Bob: Why are you being so bossy! The concept doesn't work with a crossbow! You are always putting down my character ideas!

Isn't the problem here that Joe, Sarah and Bob didn't talk about what game they wanted to play before starting? When I set out to DM a game, I float the actual game concept, setting and rule set and if people don't buy in to bad.

Indeed, this is heavy handed DM control - if 1/3rd of the participants wants to play a modern game you should probably talk about it.

DMing 5e does require more work and/or experience and/or raw talent than prior eds, which is bucking a long-term trend towards DMing becoming a less arcane(npi) task. That's the price of DM Empowerment, though, and it's unavoidable.

OTOH, ironically enough, it's probably at its easiest if you just run a standard game with a standard number of encounters/day in a more directive storytelling (so-called "railroad") mode.

Ehh I dunno - I think it more reflects a lack of focus. Like, the game COULD mechanically incentivise taking more encounters per rest if it said you got a point of inspiration every encounter you complete before you short rest (or every encounter after the first or whatever), and if you have at-least 6 encounters before long resting you can keep them.

Or you can do what torchbearer does with conditions and trying to establish a risk/reward mechanic - but that all assumes that the game is actually supposed to be about clever resource management as you forge onwards - a nod to basic box D&D.

But is it? I bet if you asked that question you'd get a ton of 'nope, it's supposed to be this instead'

 

[Mouseferatu]

Isn't the problem here that Joe, Sarah and Bob didn't talk about what game they wanted to play before starting? When I set out to DM a game, I float the actual game concept, setting and rule set and if people don't buy in to bad.

Indeed, this is heavy handed DM control - if 1/3rd of the participants wants to play a modern game you should probably talk about it.

Absolutely they should discuss it in advance. OTOH, the worst possible thing for a campaign--worse by far than simply not playing--is running with a DM who doesn't want to be running. IOW, yes, if the players don't buy into what I want to run as DM, I don't run it--but then it's up to someone else to run, or we don't play. It is not incumbent on the DM to run whatever the group wants even at the expense of his/her own preferences.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

Absolutely they should discuss it in advance. OTOH, the worst possible thing for a campaign--worse by far than simply not playing--is running with a DM who doesn't want to be running. IOW, yes, if the players don't buy into what I want to run as DM, I don't run it--but then it's up to someone else to run, or we don't play. It is not incumbent on the DM to run whatever the group wants even at the expense of his/her own preferences.

That is what I meant by 'to bad' - everyone needs to buy in to the concept. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

 

[Tallifer]

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)

Not sure why you need a rule to allow you as a Dungeon Master to do that. Just invoke "rule zero".

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Thanks, but allow me to stop your electric car analogy right there.

A more apt (but admittedly crude) comparison would be "Oh, so your car quit working. Just build a new one then."

Like that isn't a lot of work.

Meaning that my problem with the "use a 6-8 encounter day" advice is that it sounds like an easy and trivial thing to do, but in reality means a lot of work and probably requires that your players buy the paradigm that many quests come with some kind of weird time constraint attached.

My problem is also that it represents work that simply isn't done by WotC in their official modules. A true elephant in the room - IIRC nobody here has adressed it.

My problem isn't that I can't get it to work. My problem is that whenever someone tells me to "just follow the guidelines" that's much more easy to say than to do. It sounds so reasonable; simple even - but in reality is anything but.

WotC didn't need to design their game this way. They could have tried to provide a solution, preferably in the DMG but at the very least in their adventure modules. Instead of just dumping the issue in my lap and yours. That's my complaint.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Like that isn't a lot of work.

I think we've already hit the point where the amount of "work" that you have done expressing your position on the matter exceeds the amount of "work" that is actually required to follow the 6-8 encounters per long rest guideline or find an alternative that is suitable to you.

Because it really doesn't take that much work.

I know it is only an anecdote, but: In the span of time spent watching a single episode of a TV show on Hulu, I did all of the prep-work necessary for me to run a long-term and likely quite enjoyable campaign for characters beginning at 13th level (it's a continuation of an old campaign that concluded at that level) and carrying on to 20th level (and possibly even after that). It's all of a 5 point outline or overview that will be filled in further only by where the players take things and what they have their characters do once play has begun. It'll likely have, when all is said and done, an average of 6-8 encounters in a day too... not because of me making any special effort to cause that to be the case, but because that is what has simply felt natural for my group and I while playing 5th edition thus far. The impetus being nothing more than the players' collective desires to "do stuff", not any special effort on my part or any time constraint (weird or otherwise) attached to the goals of the characters.

Of course, that doesn't address the possibility that the issue is not how much work needs done, but that you don't want to have to be the one doing the work.

 

[discosoc]

The 6-8 encounters per long rest and short/long rest power recharge dynamics are -- taken together -- probably the worst overall game design I've seen in 5e. It works remarkably well in a dungeon crawl scenario, where you're just room clearing like a SWAT Team, but balance goes out the window beyond that. I'd honestly love to know the reasoning behind the assumption that 6-8 encounters per day is expected. Did WotC do a poll or something? Did they just have dungeon crawlers playtesting Next? Was it a late addition to the rules?

 

[JonnyP71]

We play 5E, multiple campaigns, multiple DMs

Do any of us follow the recommended encounter ratio? NO
Does it mean some PCs get to use their class powers a little more than others? MAYBE, but we are too invested in the story and RP to notice
Would any of us care if some PCs get to use their class powers a little more than others? NO
Have we enjoyed playing the full range of classes at our tables? YES
Do our DMs strive to always provide perfectly balanced encounters? HELL NO
Do we want our DMs to do that? NO, Running away is always an option!

Does ignoring the recommendations make them poor DMs - NO IT MOST DEFINITELY DOES NOT.

Provide a meaty story, engage your players in the plot, and nobody will really care if X gets to blast a bit harder than Y.

 

[FrogReaver]

I would never be happy running a fighter in your game

We play 5E, multiple campaigns, multiple DMs

Do any of us follow the recommended encounter ratio? NO
Does it mean some PCs get to use their class powers a little more than others? MAYBE, but we are too invested in the story and RP to notice
Would any of us care if some PCs get to use their class powers a little more than others? NO
Have we enjoyed playing the full range of classes at our tables? YES
Do our DMs strive to always provide perfectly balanced encounters? HELL NO
Do we want our DMs to do that? NO, Running away is always an option!

Does ignoring the recommendations make them poor DMs - NO IT MOST DEFINITELY DOES NOT.

Provide a meaty story, engage your players in the plot, and nobody will really care if X gets to blast a bit harder than Y.