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

Ovinomancer · Aug 14, 2017

hawkeyefan said:
Well it depends. It's going to vary by group. Verisimilitude matters more to some groups than others. For some, it doesn't really matter at all....so there is no stretching, and certainly no breaking. And please....I used Waterdeep as an example not an endorsement. But even still, my Realms may be exactly as "sensical" as any world you build....it's all up to interpretation and application. I use Faerun in my games, but I don't rely on any mechanics to establish my world, and the lore I use is pretty selective.

I honestly don't worry overmuch about the number of encounters per day, or meeting some arbitrary XP budget or anything like that. Sure, I recognize that individual encounters need to be designed a certain way in order to be challenging when compared to a series of encounters. I personally don't use random encounters very much at all.....even when I do decide to have an encounter come up out of the blue, I usually just decide what to have happen rather than consulting any tables. My world doesn't really have Random Encounter tables to speak of, to be honest, except if you consider the published material that I incorporate into my game and the tables that come with them. But I have not yet rolled on any such table while playing 5E.

So, for me, if the PCs are in a place that's safe....or even just safe enough that they won't have the kind of encounter or number of encounters to present an actual challenge....then I don't bother with having encounters at all. I narrate the trip. So there is no adjustment to achieve an "adventuring day" which then impacts world-building.

Another way I avoid this is by not having detailed encounter lists for areas. I think that such lists are as likely to hinder as to help. So I don't have them....so then without that, how do I determine if a few hard encounters are impacting my world-building? Not having a specific pre-determined list means that whatever I add, I'm not contradicting anything. I tend to rely on in world information to establish such information, and then use that as a guide for what can/will happen in an area. I don't commit that strongly to any such information ahead of my players knowing it that will make adding a specific threat a problem. Not unless the area in question is well known to be safe or dangerous or whatever.

So when I may decide how many encounters to have in an area....or if I decide to increase the difficulty of encounters...it's due to world-building decisions that I've made. Allowing the opposite to happen....choosing encounters that change my world-building....it just seems illogical to me.

You may be surprised to hear we do things in a very similar way, but then I also do hold to a static 3 deadly encounters a day, either. If I did, I couldn't place encounters while maintaining the authenticity of my game world -- it would break unless I built the world to accommodate it. And that was the totality of my point: dogmatic encounter pacing choices reflect back into the world just as much as the world reflects into encounter choices.

To say a different way, I don't see the world as static and unchanging and my encounter choices having to match it in frequency, power, and kind. Instead, I see encounter building as a function of worldbuilding -- it helps expand and populate the world idea I'm presenting. Saying that you can keep a static world while constantly adding things to it in the form of encounters sounds utterly alien to me, which is why the idea of a decision of 3 deadlies a day as a pacing mechanism (or any other dogmatic pacing choice) is obviously going to reflect back as the world I'm presenting suddenly becomes much, much more dangerous (because all encounters are more dangerous and because they run in packs of 3). How you can change the presented danger level and frequency of encounters without saying something new about your world is something I just can't grasp, either.

hawkeyefan · Aug 15, 2017

Ovinomancer said:
You may be surprised to hear we do things in a very similar way, but then I also do hold to a static 3 deadly encounters a day, either. If I did, I couldn't place encounters while maintaining the authenticity of my game world -- it would break unless I built the world to accommodate it. And that was the totality of my point: dogmatic encounter pacing choices reflect back into the world just as much as the world reflects into encounter choices.

To say a different way, I don't see the world as static and unchanging and my encounter choices having to match it in frequency, power, and kind. Instead, I see encounter building as a function of worldbuilding -- it helps expand and populate the world idea I'm presenting. Saying that you can keep a static world while constantly adding things to it in the form of encounters sounds utterly alien to me, which is why the idea of a decision of 3 deadlies a day as a pacing mechanism (or any other dogmatic pacing choice) is obviously going to reflect back as the world I'm presenting suddenly becomes much, much more dangerous (because all encounters are more dangerous and because they run in packs of 3). How you can change the presented danger level and frequency of encounters without saying something new about your world is something I just can't grasp, either.

I don't think I was advocating a static world, nor was [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], from what I can tell. I think your description of encpunter design being a function of world building is the way I was viewing it. You select encounters that make sense for the world you've built (or are still building, most likely).

So, whatever you decide for a given area...extremely dangerous, totally safe, or somewhere in between, the DM should be able to come up with a variety of encounter types and strengths to fit that area. In that sense, swapping out 6 moderate to hard encounters for 3 deadly shouldn't be that radical a difference because encounter danger is based on the party level.

So if we're talkkng about 1st level characters, then is the difference in scale from hard to deadly so drastic as to break immersion?

If we're talking about 18th level characters, isn't something that's only a hard encounter to such a party already incredibly dangerous to most of the rest of the world?

Lanefan · Aug 15, 2017

Imaro said:
You're the one not following at this point. I stated you could have a single deadly encounter in a safe zone and it would still be relatively safe for the majority of people travelling through it (depending on the encounter of course and since you want it to be safe you would pick something that matched the fiction of the world)... You respond with "Three. Three deadly encounters in a safe area. The entire focus of this discussion is that if you have 1 encounter, you have to have 2 more, and all of them are deadly. "... which of course begs the question why would I (and why do I have to...) put 3 encounters in a safe zone? Why not have one there and 2 in another area?

You could, if the party are moving from one area to another.

Otherwise, the three deadlies (or whatever number of less-deadlies it takes to add up to the same thing) have to happen there or else the Elephant isn't being fed properly. And that's the whole reason for this elephantine thread in the first place: how does a DM feed it properly? A single encounter does not an adventuring day make.

In other words... Why am I creating an adventure day scenario in a safe zone?

Valid question, which could I suppose have any number of reasonable in-game answers.

Lanefan

Lanefan · Aug 15, 2017

Ovinomancer said:
You may be surprised to hear we do things in a very similar way, but then I also do hold to a static 3 deadly encounters a day, either ...

I think you wanted to say "...I also don't hold to..." here, otherwise this doesn't parse.

Maxperson · Aug 15, 2017

Hussar said:
Sorry, but, no. Correlation does not equal causation and all that. Just because PC's have dangerous encounters everywhere they go does not mean, in any way that dangerous encounters are everywhere.

Riiiiiight, they just happen to only happen where adventurers are and nowhere else.

After all, everywhere a fireman goes there's a fire. That doesn't mean that there are fires everywhere. Same with police officers. Funnily enough, police officers find crimes pretty much everywhere they go. However, that doesn't mean that crimes are committed everywhere.

Those are absolutely horrible examples. Reality is quite literally the opposite of what you just posted for both police and firefighters. Fires do happen everywhere, that's why you need fire fighters all over every city so that they can respond to where the fires break out. Fire fighters don't just go to a place and then a have fire(encounter) or 6-8 of them break out. Those fires would also happen without fire fighters being in the world at all. The same with cops. Cops rarely are someplace and have a crime happen where they are at. Instead, those crimes happen everywhere and the cops go to where those crimes(encounters) are happening to the NPCs.

Back a few pages ago, @Lanefan mentioned a group of 100 soldiers wandering down a road and meeting something that disagreed with them and only 17 survived to return. Yet, at no point, were any mechanics actually used. I'm going to bet dollars to donuts that he never rolled a single random encounter, never rolled any combat mechanics, never actually engaged the game in any way, shape or form.

Yet, I'll double down and bet even more dollars to donuts, that if the PC's walk down that EXACT same road, random encounters will be rolled and every encounter, random or otherwise, will be played out using the mechanics.

All a "random" encounter is, is an encounter that is not part of the planned story. They don't have to be truly random. Not since the early editions, anyway. The DM coming up with an encounter for those 100 soldiers is still a "random" encounter, or a planned one. Either way it mirrors the mechanics, even if not rolled randomly. The same with the results of said encounter.

Mechanics DO NOT APPLY to the world. End of story.

Well, gee howdy! We should have just asked you first. I guess your declaration settled the issue.

Or not.

Sadras · Aug 15, 2017

Imaro said:
But exactly how does using deadly encounters affect your worldbuilding... if you use the worldbuilding to inform what encounters are taking place?

So you're a group of elven scouts/militia protecting the Canolbarth forest of Alfheim.
I ramp up the encounter to deadly level.

Deadly monstrous evils are transported into the forest through the Bad Magic Points.

Are you saying this won't affect my world-building?
I'm at the very least imagining this: Increased elven patrols, increased monitoring of the Bad Magic Points, diplomatic repercussions after spillage of these deadly monsters into the nearby nation, elven curfew imposed, source point of the monsters now sought out

Now it is all well and good if the above is the focus of the adventure/campaign, where the PCs are the investigators and the heroes of the story - but what if the primary adventure has nothing to do with these deadly monsters and I'm just using the 3 deadly encounters a day as a part of an attrition quota. Players at my table would be asking me questions if they faced a 'series of deadly encounters' but those encounters had nothing to do with the main storyline.

Imaro · Aug 15, 2017

Sadras said:
So you're a group of elven scouts/militia protecting the Canolbarth forest of Alfheim.
I ramp up the encounter to deadly level.

Deadly monstrous evils are transported into the forest through the Bad Magic Points.

Are you saying this won't affect my world-building?
I'm at the very least imagining this: Increased elven patrols, increased monitoring of the Bad Magic Points, diploimatic repercussions after spillage of these deadly monsters into the nearby nation, elven curfew imposed, source point of the monsters now sought out

Now it is all well and good if the above is the focus of the adventure/campaign, where the PCs are the investigators and the heroes of the story - but what if the primary adventure has nothing to do with these deadly monsters and I'm just using the 3 deadly encounters a day as a part of an attrition quota. Players at my table would be asking me questions if they faced a 'series of deadly encounters' but those encounters had nothing to do with the main storyline.

I guess my first question would be...What's the main adventure and why is it not in and of itself influencing the environment in a consistent campaign (this is why this is a hard thing to theorycraft on there's always missing info).... For example if there is a dungeon that is the focus of the main adventure... why aren't monsters spilling into the forest to hunt, gather resources, etc.? If a dragon is coming to raze the city why aren't it's followers as well as fleeing beasts and humanoids making the environment ahead of it more dangerous as they try to escape it's wrath? Looking at the tiers and expected threats adventurers should be dealing with in a default game at those tiers... that's what I would expect to be affecting the world and providing the encounters moreso than Bad Magic Points did it (unless they really are the threat??). In a game that pushes those default play assumptions aside... well yes things get a little wonky because now we're doing something outside of the assumptions that the game runs on. Which is fine but then you by necessity will have to adjust things.

I almost feel like some are arguing for a consistent world but are in fact creating a non-dynamic world that is frozen in place and doesn't change with the threats, actions of NPC's and actions of PC's. Now in that type of game it does become harder to explain anything (not just encounters) that changes the status quo... but then you aren't creating a consistent world IMO, because a consistent world would change and respond to threats.

Sadras · Aug 15, 2017

Imaro said:
I guess my first question would be...What's the main adventure and why is it not in and of itself influencing the environment in a consistent campaign (this is why this is a hard thing to theorycraft on there's always missing info).... (snip)

I almost feel like some are arguing for a consistent world but are in fact creating a non-dynamic world that is frozen in place and doesn't change with the threats, actions of NPC's and actions of PC's. Now in that type of game it does become harder to explain anything (not just encounters) that changes the status quo... but then you aren't creating a consistent world IMO, because a consistent world would change and respond to threats.

The first adventure could be the tracking of an elven heirloom that was stolen from the home of a clan elder and during the chase/travel/tracking = "deadly encounters" for attrition purposes.
It can be connected, it might be a story element later on, but it doesn't have to be.

@Ovinomancer mentioned something similar between the travel between the FR cities. ToD have a list of travel encounters between Baldur's Gate and Waterdeep - they don't all need to tie in the Cult, but making them all deadly implies this road is super dangerous.

It was established that introducing Elminster as a possible social encounter would more than likely lead to players questioning his lack of involvement in the ToD, PotA, SKT and OotA storylines (Realm Shaking Events) - since officially I think he has none (stand to be corrected on this, I dont own all the APs). If PCs are likely going to raise the question(s) then you are going to have to provide logical reason/s (world build).

Why would it not be the same for deadly combat encounters? Surely eyebrows might be raised.

Maxperson · Aug 15, 2017

Imaro said:
I almost feel like some are arguing for a consistent world but are in fact creating a non-dynamic world that is frozen in place and doesn't change with the threats, actions of NPC's and actions of PC's. Now in that type of game it does become harder to explain anything (not just encounters) that changes the status quo... but then you aren't creating a consistent world IMO, because a consistent world would change and respond to threats.

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.

Imaro · Aug 15, 2017

Sadras said:
The first adventure could be the tracking of an elven heirloom that was stolen from the home of a clan elder and during the chase/travel/tracking = "deadly encounters" for attrition purposes.
It can be connected, it might be a story element later on, but it doesn't have to be.

No it doesn't have to be... and I don't think anyone is saying it does. But when you are arguing the 3 deadly encounters have an impact on worldbuilding vs. the opposite or even that they have one on adventure design... well then it's on you to prove it can't work even if they are used in a specific way. And saying... well you're just avoiding the problem by making your encounters fit the world... is exactly what we've been arguing is possible. Encounters being modified as opposed to the world I created

Sadras said:
@Ovinomancer mentioned something similar between the travel between the FR cities. ToD have a list of travel encounters between Baldur's Gate and Waterdeep - they don't all need to tie in the Cult, but making them all deadly implies this road is super dangerous.

No it doesn't. Wanting to balance your adventurers against the adventuring day XP does. Using 3 deadlies isn't what is causing the world to appear deadly (18 easy encounters would have the same effect) it's the need to balance your games against the adventuring day xp. As long as that is a concern the world in general will appear to be a deadly place since anywhere they go there will be a number of encounters that are mechanically roughly equal in terms of danger. which is why I said the default for D&D is a pretty dangerous world (for the PC's??)... Which of course seems perfectly in line with the inspirations for D&D...

Sadras said:
It was established that introducing Elminster as a possible social encounter would more than likely lead to players questioning his lack of involvement in the ToD, PotA, SKT and OotA storylines (Realm Shaking Events) - since officially I think he has none (stand to be corrected on this, I dont own all the APs). If PCs are likely going to raise the question(s) then you are going to have to provide logical reason/s (world build).

Why would it not be the same for deadly combat encounters? Surely eyebrows might be raised.

Again though... we are saying it should be incorporated into your game in a way that fits your worldbuilding. Why would I introduce the Elminster encounter in a way that he has time and resources to take care of these things? Better that I modify the encounter to fit the world... right?