Getting to 6 encounters in a day

[5ekyu]

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 have similar notes in my session zero but... That does not mean that in any specific situation they have to make a given choice on how and when.

There is nothing in be an aventurous type, go inyo dsnger, etc that says take every mission or every risk or always plunge headlong even when it serms very smart to pause for a beat.

The option w was presented not from the perspective of abandoning the quest and retiring i believe, but just a slower means to resolve the quest.

 

[ad_hoc]

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.

I entirely disagree with this.

D&D is designed to be D&D. It isn't designed to be every RPG. It is the most popular one but that doesn't mean it should be designed to meet everyone's needs. There are plenty of games out there.

Besides, the game can currently handle differing numbers of encounters. The game still works if there are only 2 or 3 encounters in a day as long as the players expect 6. It also works if there are 10 or more. This is the classic zombie survival scenario. Both extremes work as outliers but are not the typical D&D 5e experience and that is okay. I have trouble comprehending what 0 encounters would be or why anyone would want it.

 

[Lylandra]

I entirely disagree with this.

D&D is designed to be D&D. It isn't designed to be every RPG. It is the most popular one but that doesn't mean it should be designed to meet everyone's needs. There are plenty of games out there.

Besides, the game can currently handle differing numbers of encounters. The game still works if there are only 2 or 3 encounters in a day as long as the players expect 6. It also works if there are 10 or more. This is the classic zombie survival scenario. Both extremes work as outliers but are not the typical D&D 5e experience and that is okay. I have trouble comprehending what 0 encounters would be or why anyone would want it.

It still works, sure. But as long as there are classes with daily ressources and classes who spam at-will abilities, there will be balance problems. Not that everyone minds imbalance. But I am really not a fan of quadratic wizards or nova play. Still I am a fan of D&D.

From our group's perspective, we do a lot of different content. We have the occasional dungeon where the party doesn't rest until they get to the BBEG because narrative demands. We also have multiple days (sometimes even sessions) where no single initiative roll happens. Usually, if there is an ingame day with encounters, we have 1-3, but they tend to be bigger.

From what I saw in this thread alone, I think that there are many groups that don't have 6 encounters and are much closer to 2-3. Others still enjoy the classic dungeon gameplay with lots of encounters per day. If D&D is meant to be a broad "for everyone" system, then I guess there should be at least optional rules for these people.

Regarding zero: I didn't mean a campaign where there are no encounters. But we got several "adventuring days" without a single encounter. And that's fine.

 

[ad_hoc]

It still works, sure. But as long as there are classes with daily ressources and classes who spam at-will abilities, there will be balance problems.

Imbalances are deliberate. Characters are meant to shine in different circumstances.

Not that everyone minds imbalance. But I am really not a fan of quadratic wizards or nova play. Still I am a fan of D&D.

I feel like we are playing a different game. That has not been my experience with 5e at all, or of anyone I know.

From our group's perspective, we do a lot of different content. We have the occasional dungeon where the party doesn't rest until they get to the BBEG because narrative demands. We also have multiple days (sometimes even sessions) where no single initiative roll happens. Usually, if there is an ingame day with encounters, we have 1-3, but they tend to be bigger.

You're using a game for a style of play it isn't designed for. Then you are saying that the game fails at doing what you want. Play a different game.

From what I saw in this thread alone, I think that there are many groups that don't have 6 encounters and are much closer to 2-3. Others still enjoy the classic dungeon gameplay with lots of encounters per day. If D&D is meant to be a broad "for everyone" system, then I guess there should be at least optional rules for these people.

D&D is not 'for everyone'. D&D is D&D. Its goal is to be D&D. D&D is not for everyone.

Thankfully there are lots of different games out there.

Regarding zero: I didn't mean a campaign where there are no encounters. But we got several "adventuring days" without a single encounter. And that's fine.

It's fine but it isn't what the game is designed for. When you subsequently run into problems it isn't the fault of the game.

 

[5ekyu]

Imbalances are deliberate. Characters are meant to shine in different circumstances.



I feel like we are playing a different game. That has not been my experience with 5e at all, or of anyone I know.



You're using a game for a style of play it isn't designed for. Then you are saying that the game fails at doing what you want. Play a different game.



D&D is not 'for everyone'. D&D is D&D. Its goal is to be D&D. D&D is not for everyone.

Thankfully there are lots of different games out there.



It's fine but it isn't what the game is designed for. When you subsequently run into problems it isn't the fault of the game.

I confess to having no idea what "adventurings days without an encounter means" since afaik "adventuring days" does not mean days... But...

"It's fine but it isn't what the game is designed for. When you subsequently run into problems it isn't the fault of the game."

I dont see how non-encounters is somehow not what dnd is built for. Downtime activities like crafting, recuperating, researching, etc etc etc - check. Travel overland or oversea and otherwise - check. Just sitying around relaxing - check.

No problem in 5e with these.

We do, i think, agree in the earlier portion...

5e is built so that some classes show their power over long work efforts with moderate time presdure (multiple encounters without long rests) and others show more power in shorter work efforts with little time pressure (long rests for reset) and **balance assumptions** were made expecting the gm would do enough of both to show this in play enough.

If a gms campaign shifts too far to one side or the other, the problem comes from those decisions and if there is a setting or playstyle or group decision reason to not change that, house rules may be called for.

It could be as simple as "a number of short rests equal to con mod take less time than an hour - count resets at long rest" with that less time being set to fit the campaign choices.

 

[SkidAce]

We look at short and long rest literally.

A short rest is around an hour, and a long around eight hours.

So thats how long it takes to get the "energy" or reduce the "sore muscle" or whatever.

We have zero plans of making relativity based..i.e. sometimes a long rest is a week.

There are story based reason you may or may not be able to take a rest, but thats a result of the choices and actions of the group.


We will deal with any repercussions of such a setup, but as stated, see no point in changing them.

 

[mpwylie]

I just don't feel like special carrots to make my players want to push on and not rest is needed, my game already has the best carrot, not dying.

What do I mean by that? Well, the world isn't static. If the PCs are in a dungeon and try to long rest after every fight, I am not going to stop them, but the I don't stop my world for their rests either. The denizens of the dungeon are going to become aware of them, they will reinforce/prepare, making it far more difficult and possibly even impossible. The longer the PCs take, the worse it gets. There are many repercussions that can build up aside from just having the monsters prepare. A friend and I were talking and a great example would be that the party is fighting through a dungeon to kill the evil Lich. They barricade themselves after every fight or teleport out and rest for 8 hours, by the time they get to the Lich's room, it's empty. All the loot and the Lich and his phylactery are gone, he decided to get out before they got there. They gave him more than enough time to pack his stuff afterall. So they head back to their town to find it in ruins. The Lich, on his way out, decided that since they ran him out of his lair, he would stop off in their town and meteor swarm it off the map. They lost their town, NPC friends and connections, any gear/loot they left there, any items they had being made. Now they know there are serious ramifications.

Same goes for wilderness travel. They want to rest and make a 2 day journey into 10? Well then the bad guys they are headed towards hear of this band of adventurers leaving a wake of death in their path in a straight line to them. They prepare/flee/hide their valuables/set traps or call in other nearby monsters for help. The longer they take, the more the odds go against them, the less loot they get. Just as I have no issue letting them cakewalk one of my encounters because they made good decisions or came up with a great plan, I have no issue building an encounter to TPK levels because they wasted time.

It's not even about building in a clock on everything, it's really just about the fact that my world goes on around the party, they are just in a living world. Just because they rest for 8 hours doesn't mean the world stops turning. At the same time, I don't always have 6-8 encounters I expect them to go through, but they won't know that, so they will still conserve resources. Sometimes I set them up to know the day will be short and let them go nova but unless I tell them, the conserve because they have no idea how long their resources will need to stretch.

 

[Lylandra]

Imbalances are deliberate. Characters are meant to shine in different circumstances.



I feel like we are playing a different game. That has not been my experience with 5e at all, or of anyone I know.



You're using a game for a style of play it isn't designed for. Then you are saying that the game fails at doing what you want. Play a different game.



D&D is not 'for everyone'. D&D is D&D. Its goal is to be D&D. D&D is not for everyone.

Thankfully there are lots of different games out there.



It's fine but it isn't what the game is designed for. When you subsequently run into problems it isn't the fault of the game.

you sound like a very bitter and/or determined 5th edition warrior if you try to tell anyone not playing 6 enounters/day that they are playing the wrong game. Very inclusive, indeed.

But I guess I just hopped onto the wrong thread and will leave asap. I don't feel welcome here.

PS: I never said we encountered problems or didn't adjust our game. I just wished there were official options to deal with different playstyles, like "no feats" or the like. It would be fitting for the world's most popular PnP system and also acknowledging the fact that times have changed since "dungeon crawls or GTFO".

 

[5ekyu]

I just don't feel like special carrots to make my players want to push on and not rest is needed, my game already has the best carrot, not dying.

What do I mean by that? Well, the world isn't static. If the PCs are in a dungeon and try to long rest after every fight, I am not going to stop them, but the I don't stop my world for their rests either. The denizens of the dungeon are going to become aware of them, they will reinforce/prepare, making it far more difficult and possibly even impossible. The longer the PCs take, the worse it gets. There are many repercussions that can build up aside from just having the monsters prepare. A friend and I were talking and a great example would be that the party is fighting through a dungeon to kill the evil Lich. They barricade themselves after every fight or teleport out and rest for 8 hours, by the time they get to the Lich's room, it's empty. All the loot and the Lich and his phylactery are gone, he decided to get out before they got there. They gave him more than enough time to pack his stuff afterall. So they head back to their town to find it in ruins. The Lich, on his way out, decided that since they ran him out of his lair, he would stop off in their town and meteor swarm it off the map. They lost their town, NPC friends and connections, any gear/loot they left there, any items they had being made. Now they know there are serious ramifications.

Same goes for wilderness travel. They want to rest and make a 2 day journey into 10? Well then the bad guys they are headed towards hear of this band of adventurers leaving a wake of death in their path in a straight line to them. They prepare/flee/hide their valuables/set traps or call in other nearby monsters for help. The longer they take, the more the odds go against them, the less loot they get. Just as I have no issue letting them cakewalk one of my encounters because they made good decisions or came up with a great plan, I have no issue building an encounter to TPK levels because they wasted time.

It's not even about building in a clock on everything, it's really just about the fact that my world goes on around the party, they are just in a living world. Just because they rest for 8 hours doesn't mean the world stops turning. At the same time, I don't always have 6-8 encounters I expect them to go through, but they won't know that, so they will still conserve resources. Sometimes I set them up to know the day will be short and let them go nova but unless I tell them, the conserve because they have no idea how long their resources will need to stretch.

have run more than a few scenarios where the leader and his "share" of the loot took off... leaving second in charge to deal with the raids on his group. or where at the very least he sent the things he knew were needed elsewhere out to his boss and "safety."

Story trade offs should inform and play off with the player-character's choices.

i tend to describe it in a more abstract way - what characters (and players) are actually usually deep down playing for - acting for, seeking etc - is control. making events turn out how they want in one aspect or another.

Long periods of "we just sit here" taken too frequently surrender control - in and out of game. other characters change things to what they want.

Anecdote: i once ran a supers game where there were plots and sub-plots aplenty but a core major plot early on led the PCs to roll back an evil-org (tm) layer by layer plot by plot and at the near climax, evil-org on the ropes and many NPCs following their leads... even had evil-org trying to negotiate surrender with them - at that point, eve of victory, one of the PCs conned the group into taking a step back, letting some of the other NPCs take it up so that they could focus on this other sub-plot. he did a masterful job of muddying the waters enough that they decided "Ok lets take the sure thing."

Why? The next leg on their evil-org plot hunt would expose some of his own behind the scenes shenanigans. he wanted to let NPCs take that leg because the NPCs did not have info to tie him to it like the PCs would.

So, they bought it and NPCs with different objectives took up the slack and surrenders and deals were cut... and the PCs were cut out of that, of the "full story, of the gain in influence and resources they would have gained etc...

this continued to play out thru the campaign - even to the end.

The guy did keep his behind the scenes ties secret tho.

 

[ad_hoc]

you sound like a very bitter and/or determined 5th edition warrior if you try to tell anyone not playing 6 enounters/day that they are playing the wrong game. Very inclusive, indeed.

But I guess I just hopped onto the wrong thread and will leave asap. I don't feel welcome here.

A game can't be everything for everyone.

I think 5e is very inclusive of different types of peoples. Saying it isn't inclusive because it isn't every game is rather ridiculous.

PS: I never said we encountered problems or didn't adjust our game. I just wished there were official options to deal with different playstyles, like "no feats" or the like.

If you don't have a problem with the game why do you have a problem with the game?

It would be fitting for the world's most popular PnP system

Maybe it is popular because it is a focused game and people want that game.

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it needs to cater to even more people. If anything, the opposite is true.

Why do you feel like you must play 5e? Because it is popular?

and also acknowledging the fact that times have changed since "dungeon crawls or GTFO".

It's wonderful that there are other games out there.

Dungeons and Dragons has Dungeons and Dragons in it. That's what it is about. And a lot of people love it for that. It's entirely okay if you don't, but it isn't the designers' fault that they didn't make a game that caters to you.