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

[Tony Vargas]

Fair enough I suppose. However, in play, it does not usually work that way. The vast majority of actions call for a check.

That's necessarily going to depend on the DM's judgement.
...and the players' skill at nudging said judgment in their favor.

And, the times you do not call for a check are because the mechanics are such that success and failure are not in question.

Or you just rule that the outcome is not in doubt based on your judgement, the needs of the story, or whatever... the mechanics might suggest it or they just might not obviously contradict it...

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?

I suppose, at that point, you're playing the 'interactive storytelling' portion of the game.

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.

What difference does the distinction make in this context, though?

 

[Ovinomancer]

What difference does the distinction make in this context, though?

Well, I only responded to that explicit statement and didn't try to make it especially relevant to this context, so, I guess the same it has to most other contexts -- its challenging a statement about the game I find to be unpalatable. Why, does it need to be immediately germane to the current discussion, or can we have multiple ideas that show up occasionally?

 

[Maxperson]

So you want a world that never changes?

Do you live in Bizarro world or something? Because that's literally the opposite of what I wrote.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] in what way do purely narrated events in your game world mirror mechanics? They are 100% arbitrary decisions made in order to make an adventure more interesting for the players.

I make no arbitrary decisions. I decide encounters based on the types of monsters in the area, and the chances of the encounter happening. Sometimes I will roll that percentage, sometimes I will decide that it happens for various reasons, but the mechanics inform me about the encounters I pick.

It isn't about creating believable worlds at all. It's about establishing adventure baselines and dropping hooks for the players to latch onto. Why did 83 knights perish? Because it establishes the adventure. If all 100 came back then thee would not be any reason for the pcs to go there.

They perished because there was an encounter on that road, no different than if the PCs encountered it. As for adventure baselines, hooks, etc., I don't really care if the PCs go there. I put things into the world because they make sense, not necessarily for the PCs. If the world isn't believable, then there's no real point in my playing the game. I have to be able to immerse myself in the world to enjoy it, and I can't do that in an unbelievable world. Events happening that have nothing to do with the PCs is part of creating a believable world.

All this time and none of you folks have shown the slightest evidence of how encounter mechanics change world building.

Lots of evidence has been given. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.

Since the mechanics aren't ever actually used unless PCs are around, how can they.

Of course the mechanics are around without the PCs. I create traps via mechanics without PCs around all the time. I do the same with encounters, NPCs, treasures, weather, and all kinds of things. Many times the PCs never go near those things that I created via mechanics.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Fiction writing is part of playing the game if you are the DM.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Then quit making ridiculous statements that seem to imply you don't know any of those things. And no it's not about points it's addressing the statements you keep making.

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.

Let me be clear... I'm getting your point and it's being made on flawed understanding of the examples I've presented... as I've said numerous times before now. Instead of actually looking at what I responded to and why I responded the way I did... you're in such a rush to show me I'm wrong you're missing the entire context so let me try and break it down in a simple manner...

Sadras says...

18 x easy encounters means orc patrols are small, weak with little-to-no combat expertise.
3 x deadly encounters means orc patrols are large, well-equiped and tactically savvy.

Me: I think wow that's really cool in his world he has defined the 18x easy as weak with no combat expertise (worse individual warriors)... and the 3x deadly as well equipped and tactically savvy (better individual warriors... but he seems to think it has to be that way let me show him how we could adapt these to a world where it's the opposite

So I post...

Interesting I would say 18 easy encounter orc patrols are because they are coveting too much land... or maybe it's because powerful and combat savvy Orcs travel as loners or in pairs because their nature causes conflict between individually powerful Orcs to arise when in large groups. (increase the CR of the Orcs but lower their number)

while 3 deadly encounters of orc patrols point to weak orcs who travel in ginormous packs that are more dangerous because of their numbers and savagery than any tactical acumen on their part. (Lower the CR of the orcs and increase their number)

Hey look now the 18 X easy are the more powerful warriors and the 3 x deadly are actually the weaker orce in the fiction. Funny how I reskinned and changed the encounter to suit worlds where the orcs are basically the opposite of the first example Sadras posted... that in my mind shows the flexibility of this method...

You: Ha you're wrong you changed the orcs in the world to fit your encounters

Me: Huh??

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.

And you've missed it again... No one is adapting anything... in a world where Orcs are weak pack cowards I could use Sadras justification in a world where Orcs are proud tactically inclined warriors I could use the one I stated but the point is that the encounter pacing stays the same with either justification. In other words the same encounter type is being created with the already created world as the driver in both cases, and the worlds are different... as I've said numerous times before this post.

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.

NO... stop just stop and actually read what I've posted because I literally don't know how to make this any clearer at this point. Encounters aren't being fixed to some arbitrary standard they are being fixed to the already existing standards of the world...

 

[Imaro]

Do you live in Bizarro world or something? Because that's literally the opposite of what I wrote.

Was it??

Yes, there are some arguing that, which is why those on my side of this discussion are engaged in this debate. We feel that it will affect world building as you describe above, instead of being non-dynamic.

Honestly I couldn't parse it...

 

[Maxperson]

Was it??

Yes.

Honestly I couldn't parse it...

The first sentence answered your question. The second said we think it affects world building and won't be non-dynamic. It wasn't that hard to understand.

 

[Imaro]

Yes.

The first sentence answered your question. The second said we think it affects world building and won't be non-dynamic. It wasn't that hard to understand.

Thanks.

 

[Maxperson]

Thanks.

Yep.