Getting to 6 encounters in a day

[Oofta]

Just wanted to add something. I also think players are motivated by different things. Some are motivated by the mechanical side of things, getting that awesome nth level spell or ability, by building a power-house of a character.

Some players are motivated by the story that they contribute to. Yes, it's nice to see growth in their character but mostly they want to play Zoro.

I think many, if not most, people fall somewhere in between. The solution mentioned in the OP seems to only play to the former motivation and not at all to the latter. I think there are better solutions to the perceived problem.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

In a "6-8 encounters before a long rest" model, many encounters only exist to put pressure on character resources. From my own experience, you can do that without resorting to combat, through traps and natural hazards. When I plan for 6 encounters before a long rest, I'm inclined to use 2-3 combats (maybe one more if external aid is possible), 1-2 traps/natural hazards and think of something else to grind resources on the way. A small dungeon example would run like:

1: Characters arrive and face the guards at the dungeon entrance.
2: More guards arrive in the middle of the fight (you get a second encounter with no chance of resting).
3: Characters enter the dungeon and go through a trap. I'd use something that they can save against for half damage.
4: One of the corridors of the dungeon actually takes them to an area infested with brown mold.
5: Third fight, probably a dangerous beast guarding the entrance to something important.
6: Characters arrive at a door that takes them to a boss fight. It's magically sealed. You must spend a spell slot to open.
7: Boss fight.

My own group would easily go through this small sample in 3 hours of play.

Now, if you're playing in an open world, I believe using the 6-8 encounters model is not really possible. If this is the case, my advice is to talk to your players before your campaign starts and ask all of them to pick classes on the same resource rotation. Rogues and barbarians are always fine, considering that they work almost the same through the whole adventure day. Rangers and Paladins work better with bards, clerics, land druids, wizards, and sorcerers, while fighters and monks would make fine companions for a warlock and a moon druid.

 

[iserith]

I think your confusing how I view XP. I put the horse first, the cart second so to speak. The horse is encounters, the cart is XP. Yes, sometimes PC's motivation is to become the greatest swordsman in all the world and the only way to do that is to fight a lot. Some PCs are adreniline junkies that always want to push themselves to the extreme to prove that they can to it.

Others? Others are just doing what's necessary. The fact that they slowly get better at it is icing on the cake, not the motivation. My AL character recently leveled up, his motivation to fight wasn't to gain that level. His motivation was to stop those gosh darn cultists (isn't is always cultists?) from destroying the world. Other characters have been motivated to collect bright shiny things, like gold and gems. Some have been motivated by increasing their skill enough to finally confront the man who killed his mother and kidnapped his sister.

Different characters have different motivations.

Experience points are also a motivation for players to do the things that net the characters XP, provided they care to some degree about character advancement. This works in tandem with whatever reasons a player might conceive for the character to also want to do those things.

Even so, you would appear to be fine with players establishing that their characters are all for getting through more combat challenges per day, given such a rule. They could take down those cultists and be motivated to do even more after that in the same adventuring day. Personality Trait: "I get more done in a day of adventuring than most people get done all week."

As an aside, this wouldn't work for my personal campaign because I don't use XP based advancement. As part of my session 0 we discuss how quickly people want to level and then I do it when it makes sense for the story (kind-of-sort-of milestone leveling). But it still wouldn't be my preference in an XP based game because the conversation "If we do one more encounter we get more XP" would inevitably arise.

I figured you didn't use standard XP.

As for the conversation, the PCs could be having that same chat except in terms more reasonable for the setting. "If we press on despite the risk, Ragnar, surely we will be blessed by Sif Golden-Hair and grow in strength."

 

[Myrhdraak]

My take on the problem is the inflexibility of the long rest definition. I think it would be better if the resource recovery was tied to how "restful" the long rest
Maybe full recovery only can be gained at a safe tavern in town. Being on the road, having guards in place will reduce recovery. Having the rest interrupted by battle means no or only a small recovery. This way even a few encounters in overland travel will have a resource impact. Trying to rest IN the dungeon might be out of the question. This way the adventure designer recovery rate based on number of safe haven placed out there.
/Myrhdraak

 

[Bawylie]

You can tweak the number of encounters per day in a few ways without too much hassle.

1.) Increase the difficulty/challenge while decreasing the frequency. Have 3-4 deadly encounters instead of 6-8 moderate. For example.
2.) Limit the opportunities to rest by requiring restful space - in town, in a bed or at a sacred or holy place.
3.) Limit the effectiveness of rest itself. A Long Rest can only occur once every 24 hours no matter what, and no matter how many additional hours you sit around doing nothing. There is only so much benefit you can gain from rest at any one time, after all.
4.) adjust the length of Adventuring Day and/or Rest up or down. What if a Long Rest were a weekend of leisure instead of 8 hrs of sleep while the adventuring day was a 5 day work week. You’d still need to sleep, but Monday/Tuesday morning would be rough (sound familiar?). A short rest might be a night of sleep.
5.) set stakes by a clock. We talk about this a lot, but just set a win/fail condition on a timer that’s too short to permit a Long Rest. Or make night time SO dangerous at low-to-mid level that being out at night is unthinkably bad. You can’t take your long Rest mid day if you’re facing down gangs of demons or vampires as soon as the sun goes down. (Pitch Black up in here).

Anyway. Just a few thoughts.

 

[SkidAce]

It's easy if the following are true:
A: the fights are small.
B: the party does not have control over when they can rest.

The 6-8 fights works well for a dungeon where the enemies are actively seeking to expel the party, or the party is forced to move forward.

It doesn't work well for an open-world explory type game.

But yes, hanging a carrot out in front of them works too.

Not having read intervening posts yet...I quoted the above for cosmic truth.

Also;

If the players run into a band of angry serpents that are an easy encounter, and they can somewhat tell this (the fighter kills the first one with a single blow etc etc.) then they will hold back the big guns.

If they players have to pull out everything to survive...of course they will want to rest, we all would. But can they? Not all the time....

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]. I don't know how to make it any clearer. I think rewarding XP to influence PC behavior for this is a bad idea. This rule dictates what character motivation and characteristics should be. It's not much different than if I started paying players five dollars for every encounter between long rests. I don't think that would be good for my game either.

You can put lipstick on the pig all you want, but you're pushing for a motivation that does not exist from the perspective of the PC, or at least not for all PCs.

You disagree and like the idea. So be it.

 

[iserith]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]. I don't know how to make it any clearer. I think rewarding XP to influence PC behavior for this is a bad idea. This rule dictates what character motivation and characteristics should be. It's not much different than if I started paying players five dollars for every encounter between long rests. I don't think that would be good for my game either.

You can put lipstick on the pig all you want, but you're pushing for a motivation that does not exist from the perspective of the PC, or at least not for all PCs.

You disagree and like the idea. So be it.

I don't really have a strong opinion on the mechanic I suggested. As I said, I generally use other means to achieve the same end. I'm only addressing what I perceive as objections that are easily handled.

I would say, like standard XP, the proposed house rule influences player behavior and thus character behavior, but that it needn't be the character's sole motivation or even the most important motivation. A character can, to use your example, want to kill those cultists because cultists killed his or her parents and want to improve his or her skill in adventuring (so as to kill more powerful cultists). These things doesn't have to be at odds, though it seems like your objections are largely based on them being so. Such a rule would simply be a consideration when designing one's character. Remember, you're CHOOSING to say that the motivation doesn't exist for the PC. You could choose otherwise.

Again, I'm not saying the mechanic I proposed is awesome or even necessary, only that it helps with the issue of the 5-minute work day, and that your specific objections to it look unfounded to me given certain considerations. It looks to me a great deal like a gut-level reaction to it and some post-hoc justifications for that reaction. Which itself is somewhat funny given your stated objection to post-hoc justifications for character behavior.

 

[Oofta]

Again, I'm not saying the mechanic I proposed is awesome or even necessary, only that it helps with the issue of the 5-minute work day, and that your specific objections to it look unfounded to me given certain considerations. It looks to me a great deal like a gut-level reaction to it and some post-hoc justifications for that reaction. Which itself is somewhat funny given your stated objection to post-hoc justifications for character behavior.

Or it could just be that I've always cringed when other people at the table say 'We should do X because we'll get more XP." When I play, I don't make decisions based on how much XP I'm going to get. Ever*. But what do I know.

I agree it is a solution. Just like my solution of paying people to have more encounters between long rests. That doesn't mean I think it's a good solution or that I'm going to put up with people that dismiss my opinion because they think it's just some "gut level reaction".

*of course I'll have to add a disclaimer. I've been playing since D&D was released there's probably been some point when my PC did something just for XP and I just don't remember every decision from four decades of play. I'm talking about my current style of play.

 

[iserith]

Or it could just be that I've always cringed when other people at the table say 'We should do X because we'll get more XP." When I play, I don't make decisions based on how much XP I'm going to get. Ever*. But what do I know.

Sure, what I'm suggesting though is making decisions that both satisfy however someone may think of his or her character and the drive for more XP. It's possible. Easy even.

I agree it is a solution. Just like my solution of paying people to have more encounters between long rests. That doesn't mean I think it's a good solution or that I'm going to put up with people that dismiss my opinion because they think it's just some "gut level reaction".

*of course I'll have to add a disclaimer. I've been playing since D&D was released there's probably been some point when my PC did something just for XP and I just don't remember every decision from four decades of play. I'm talking about my current style of play.

To be clear, I don't dismiss your opinion. I address the objections you're posting to try to justify your opinion. "I just don't like it" is something I can't argue. "I just don't like it because X, Y, and Z..." when X, Y and Z are, to me, objections that are easily resolved is something I can argue.