D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[Ovinomancer]

The point was we came up with different explanations for the same XP amounts... and it wouldn't be difficult to do even more. This is what I mean when I said you seem to be missing the point. If we can both take the same encounters and come up with fiction that is for all intents and purposes the opposite of each other and it fits... well IMO that speaks to it not being that hard to adjust what the encounter is to your particular world.

EDIT: changed multiple to different as there were multiple encounters which we came up with different fiction for.

But you completely changed the entire nature of orcs to do so -- you changed how orcs interact with the world in your different examples. You changed the world to fit your encounters, which is the exact opposite of what you've been claiming -- that the encounters can and must change to fit the world. And you not only changed the physical might and ability of the orcs, you changed their culture and organization. Those are both changes to how orcs exist in the world, not just amping up a few orcs to represent a tougher group of the normal orcs.

Or have you been lumping what orcs are into the encounter building and not worldbuilding? That would explain a lot, although it would open up a new avenue of argument.

Just so you know I too use and even advocated earlier in the thread for various methods... I just disagree with the idea that encounter design must affect world building as opposed to vice versa, even if the encounters are a set amount and set deadliness. I think many people are inventive and creative enough that using the 3 deadlies has little to no ramifications on their worldbuilding... not everyone but at the very least some and thus I don't believe it's a given.

So, then, you haven't actually used a fixed encounter system? No wonder you were so hesitant to offer examples from your home game -- there are none.

But, then, you alter your encounter pacing to fit with what your world demands and cannot see that fixing your encounter pacing would no longer work with the same world you've been presenting? At least, without altering what you've established orcs (as an example) to be in your world. If you make the argument that you can willy-nilly redefine monsters as tougher or weaker in general to meet encounter needs and this has no impact on the world, I guess we're at an impasse.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I violently disagree with this last. The game is asymmetrical across the DM/player boundary. The DM preparing the adventure is very much 'playing the game'.

But very differently from a player playing the game, as you point out. So why does it matter that they're both technically 'playing?'

And, really, like a player leveling up a PC, isn't the DM prepping the adventure, well, prepping for play, rather than playing? Is the distinction that important?

But it is simplistic to view the game world (or its associated mechanics) as ending at the limit of what the PCs can see

It's not simplistic, at all. It's nuanced, even. It's simpler to implement than continuing to actively model an un-used corner of the game world, though.

Perhaps. But immersion comes from believability which comes from realism where such is possible; and from consistency.

'Immersion' is a very subjective, personal experience, and a horse-to-water kind of phenomenon. You can twist your game into knots trying not to shatter someone's fragile immersion and and it still goes poof; you can not concern yourself with it and some players retain it without issue. IMHO, immersion is entirely the responsibility of the player seeking it, the medium of TTRPGing can do nothing to facilitate it - it's simply too abstract. LARPs and hypothetical holodeck-like VR games can maybe facilitate immersion.

The game mechanics in effect become part of the game-world realism and thus must be consistent...

That's fine if you don't mind a Pratchette-esque world.

That's just it - the illusion is only ever as strong as the DM and players make it, thus if the game system is forcing the DM to weaken it that's not helping.

There's nothing about the system that mandates a frequency of encounters, though... it's merely guidelines that suggest them, as a way of reducing class imbalance and making encounter difficulty somewhat more predictable.

The problem is "risky" areas (the road to Waterdeep being a fine example), where adventurers face threat and commoners by extension thus face certain death; meaning the encounter guidelines as written almost force a points-of-light type setting and thus absolutely affect worldbuilding in that they are dictating what type of world you can (wth any expectation of realism) build.

There can be both 'risky' times and 'risky' areas, of course. The road was more dangerous for the hobbit carrying the ring with the Nazgul out looking for it than it would have been for anyone else a few years before.

Now if there was a great deal less difference in abilities between commoners and mid-level adventurers this wouldn't be an issue at all.

BA has already minimized that difference quite enough, I should think.

 

[Imaro]

But you completely changed the entire nature of orcs to do so -- you changed how orcs interact with the world in your different examples. You changed the world to fit your encounters, which is the exact opposite of what you've been claiming -- that the encounters can and must change to fit the world. And you not only changed the physical might and ability of the orcs, you changed their culture and organization. Those are both changes to how orcs exist in the world, not just amping up a few orcs to represent a tougher group of the normal orcs.

Wait... what? Orcs aren't real, their nature is whatever I define it to be in my campaign world. You're still not getting it, these are examples of flexibility. Orcs could also be the weak but large number ones of the other example... or I could use a different monster. Why is this so hard for you to grasp??

Or have you been lumping what orcs are into the encounter building and not worldbuilding? That would explain a lot, although it would open up a new avenue of argument.

The orcs are defined ahead of time (and yes there could be stronger and weaker orcs, tribes with differences and so on... I don't think every orc is the same is anywhere near realistic)... what I've been trying to show you is the flexibility of the fiction and mechanics around the deadly encounter by adjusting it to use it with different versions of the same creature since none of us are playing in the exact same campaign world. You keep assuming because I am creating those versions here... that in a real campaign they would be spontaneously created as well... no that''s not how it would happen.

So, then, you haven't actually used a fixed encounter system? No wonder you were so hesitant to offer examples from your home game -- there are none.

Wrong again the game has been out for awhile and when my group first started playing it I stuck to the encounter guidelines pretty slavishly and because I wanted less combat overall went with the 2-3 deadly a day paradigm. I realized early on 6-8 was an example and I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll see me expressing this idea of less or more encounters to equal those in other threads. I declined to bring examples from those older games because it would be pointless with you... plain and simple. Do I still adhere to it... no, but I know the game now, am comfortable with it and basically do what I want with it. But I also saw just how flexible the fiction as well as adjusting CR and number encountered were while using it.

But, then, you alter your encounter pacing to fit with what your world demands and cannot see that fixing your encounter pacing would no longer work with the same world you've been presenting? At least, without altering what you've established orcs (as an example) to be in your world. If you make the argument that you can willy-nilly redefine monsters as tougher or weaker in general to meet encounter needs and this has no impact on the world, I guess we're at an impasse.

Yes it would... Again what I've been trying to show you is that the same mechanic can fit various worldbuilding variations by giving you examples of the differences. No one is re-defining orcs we are taking the fiction and adjusting CR and/or number encountered so that it matches the orcs defined in our worldbuilding.

 

[Hussar]

So, for the 18 easy encounters orcs are tough, but their greed and individuality means they're spread thin in an attempt to be the orcs that personally expand the tribes territory. In the second, orcs are poor individual warriors that have to travel in large numbers so that they can be a threat.

Yep, no difference in worldbuilding there.

Because every orc is identical and whatever justification you use must apply 100% of the time?

Not buying it.

 

[Hussar]

I violently disagree with this last. The game is asymmetrical across the DM/player boundary. The DM preparing the adventure is very much 'playing the game'. You can tell because if the DM doesn't do it, there's no game (and this works even if you switch to ad-hoc gamemastering -- if the DM isn't inventing/framing the world to be played in, there's no game).

In what way are you playing the game when you bypass every game mechanic to simply narrate an event? That's not playing. That's fiction writing.

A DM who did this with players at the table would quickly not have players anymore.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In what way are you playing the game when you bypass every game mechanic to simply narrate an event? That's not playing. That's fiction writing.

That's nominally two-thirds of 5e resolutions: narrate success, narrate failure, or call for a check...

 

[Hussar]

That's nominally two-thirds of 5e resolutions: narrate success, narrate failure, or call for a check...

Fair enough I suppose. However, in play, it does not usually work that way. The vast majority of actions call for a check. And, the times you do not call for a check are because the mechanics are such that success and failure are not in question. 100 knights traveling through an area, in play, would call for numerous checks. How does the DM know that they meet anyone at all? And how does he know that the knights get so badly mauled? Outside of play, the DM ignores all the mechanics and simply writes fiction. Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. We all certainly do it. But, at that point in time, are we actually playing a game? What is being played? What game is there when all I am doing is writing fiction?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Wait... what? Orcs aren't real, their nature is whatever I define it to be in my campaign world. You're still not getting it, these are examples of flexibility. Orcs could also be the weak but large number ones of the other example... or I could use a different monster. Why is this so hard for you to grasp??



The orcs are defined ahead of time (and yes there could be stronger and weaker orcs, tribes with differences and so on... I don't think every orc is the same is anywhere near realistic)... what I've been trying to show you is the flexibility of the fiction and mechanics around the deadly encounter by adjusting it to use it with different versions of the same creature since none of us are playing in the exact same campaign world. You keep assuming because I am creating those versions here... that in a real campaign they would be spontaneously created as well... no that''s not how it would happen.



Wrong again the game has been out for awhile and when my group first started playing it I stuck to the encounter guidelines pretty slavishly and because I wanted less combat overall went with the 2-3 deadly a day paradigm. I realized early on 6-8 was an example and I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll see me expressing this idea of less or more encounters to equal those in other threads. I declined to bring examples from those older games because it would be pointless with you... plain and simple. Do I still adhere to it... no, but I know the game now, am comfortable with it and basically do what I want with it. But I also saw just how flexible the fiction as well as adjusting CR and number encountered were while using it.



Yes it would... Again what I've been trying to show you is that the same mechanic can fit various worldbuilding variations by giving you examples of the differences. No one is re-defining orcs we are taking the fiction and adjusting CR and/or number encountered so that it matches the orcs defined in our worldbuilding.

One, please stop with the ridiculous strawmen. Of course I know orcs aren't real. Of course I know you can define orcs any way you want. Of course I know the game has flexibility. Nothing I've said in any post has argued those points, and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that and are going for the ridiculous for the points.

That said, you're still missing the fundamental thrust of my argument -- it isn't that you cannot define orcs however you want, this is given, its that in order to present 18 easy orc encounters and then 3 deadly orc encounters you defined the orcs differently. And I'm not talking about CR considerations, I'm talking about what makes the orcs orcs. In the former, they're tough, arrogant, proud warriors that seek individual glory for their tribe so that you can provide 18 encounters with singles or doubles. In the latter they're individually weak and maraude in large groups because of that. Setting aside the mechanical bits of toughness and weakness, easily covered in monster adjustments on the mechanical side, you've set different standards for what it means to be an orc. The orcs from the easy encounter are different story-wise from the orcs in the deadly encounters. That change in story is part and parcel of worldbuilding -- worldbuilding doesn't answer the mechanics issues but instead addresses those story issues. And it doesn't matter if these orcs are from different tribes that the party will meet at different times or even if they're in different campaigns because you've changed the what it means to be an orc because you needed to meet the encounter restrictions.

And it stays the same if you drop the mechanical difference altogether and just use the MM orcs. If you're saying that tribe Easy has too much territory and that's why they're so spread out and come in small, easy encounter packets much more often, then that will differ from why tribe Deadly comes in more numerous groups -- the facts surrounding the tribes, the pressures on the tribes, the area they control. the customs, the tactics (large group vs small) all change just because you're setting a fixed encounter pacing. You are adapting parts of your world to make the encounters make sense, and regardless of whether you bake this in at the beginning so it's always this way or you have things dynamically change to fit the PCs story arcs, you are doing worldbuilding to create reasons for the encounters to exist.

That's what I mean by encounter building not being extricable from world building -- by presenting encounters you are presenting the world, and if you fix encounters to some arbitrary standard you end up having to create a world where those encounters make sense, just as you did reflexively by explaining why the orcs come in small lots or big lots.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because every orc is identical and whatever justification you use must apply 100% of the time?

Not buying it.

No such claim made.

In what way are you playing the game when you bypass every game mechanic to simply narrate an event? That's not playing. That's fiction writing.

A DM who did this with players at the table would quickly not have players anymore.

No such claim made. But, yeah, most resolutions are by narration and not engaging the mechanics of the game. Only when uncertainty exists do you engage the mechanics. However, the choice is informed by the mechanics at all times (whether or not something is uncertain is decided, in part, on ability defined by mechanics), just as worldbuilding is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But very differently from a player playing the game, as you point out. So why does it matter that they're both technically 'playing?'

And, really, like a player leveling up a PC, isn't the DM prepping the adventure, well, prepping for play, rather than playing? Is the distinction that important?

In order:

Yes, I believe it does. Planning adventures is a unique activity to DMs, and denying they're playing D&D when they do it means that it's not part of D&D. Sure, it may be a solo activity (it doesn't have to be), but that doesn't remove it from the aegis of playing the game.

Yes and no. Yes, it's prepping, but no, it's also still playing the game. Lots of facets to playing a D&D game. Remove one and the game falters or fails.

Yes, the distinction matters. Otherwise you can tell someone that is planning a new campaign they they aren't playing D&D. I find that not doing that is something worthwhile.