D&D 5E 5e Pacing Guide

[abirdcall]

Pacing is very important in stories and RPGs, and getting it right has never been more important in D&D.

The short and long rest mechanics are great tools to manage pacing in the game. However, because they are integral to the game they also cannot be ignored.

The following is my attempt at creating a pacing guide. Tips and resources for managing pacing in 5e. Please add additional topics/problems in the comments. And of course, criticisms and additions to the topics already listed.

What is a short rest and long rest in narrative terms?

I think of standard D&D as having pacing like in an action movie. Taking a long rest resets the tension. Many movies have the part where the protagonists hide out for a while (Terminator 2) but some don't (Die Hard). Those sorts of movies wouldn't work if they took 10 long rests over the course of them.

One day isn't a long time narratively, and the gritty mechanic seems too long and rigid.

It doesn't have to be rigid. A long rest resets the tension, and it should be reflected in the story.

Here are example ways to handle longer or more difficult to achieve rests:

For overland travel a short rest is building a fire, eating something, and taking a nap. So that takes 4-6 hours. It's cold, miserable, and there are wolves after you.

A long rest is roughly 24 hours. You spend the entire day getting some quality rest, repairing equipment, etc. It generally requires a defensible position which is also sheltered and such.

A long rest at an inn only takes 8 hours though. Resting in luxury will do that for you.


What about needing 6-8 encounters to keep classes balanced? That is a lot of combat, and the story doesn't always work out that way.

Keep in mind that they are encounters, not necessarily combats.

Not all times between long rests need to be like that either. It could just happen some of the time to be effective. The most important part is that it could happen each time.

If you might end up having many encounters then the characters with long rest powers will likely save some in reserve. If they don't, and there are more encounters then they risk a TPK, or at least failing the mission.
The amount of encounters between long rests will naturally vary with the story. Random encounters are a way to have a truly variable outcome, where even the DM is not sure just how many more encounters are in store.

Pacing Models:

One of the best pieces of DM advice I have read was in the Ravenloft 3e DMG about pacing techniques. The most important thing not to mess up in a horror game is keeping the tension rising throughout the session. I did my best to time rests to happen at the end of each session, so the next one could have continually rising tension. It is still important in action/adventure stories and can be accomplished a number of ways.

Here are some examples of pacing models:

"The Pendulum" - Encounter difficulty ramps up slowly and then down again.

This is the typical pacing model of most D&D games.

"The Pit" - Difficulty starts out quite low then suddenly peaks. After that difficulty lowers again but not quite as low at the start. The later low difficulty encounters are quite hard because of the very hard one.

The classic pit scenario is where the PCs are captured and their gear taken from them. They must then escape and get their gear back.

"The Vise" - Difficulty starts low and slowly but steadily ramps up. Eventually the players will realize that they need to do something to stop it as they can't hold out forever.

Zombies are the classic vise scenario.


Rest Variant for 5e patterned on 13th Age by Blue

• Every 3 encounters the characters gain the advantage of a short rest. The counter resets after every long rest, so it takes 3 more to have another short rest.
• Every 8 encounters the character gain the advantage of a long rest.

The DM should count particularly tough encounters as 2 or more. A rule of thumb is that a Hard encounter or one with other disadvantages for the party should be 2, and Deadly encounters or a Hard encounter with overwhelming disadvantage should count as 3, but this will vary by table.

 

[Reynard]

The problem with this approach IMO is that it assumes play is a narrative. I reject this premise from the start. A narrative emerges from play, certainly, but it is not coherent until after play has ended. At least, that is how I prefer my gaming (especially D&D). It is possible to treat a game session like a narrative, and this happens a lot at conventions and anyplace else that there is a one shot, but I think RPGs are a poor medium to convey story. The strength of the RPG lies in other things.

I'll use a couple of my favorite video games to illustrate what I mean.

Skyrim is an open world, first pesron cRPG. There are lots of stories in Skyrim, some small and some expansive, but the actual narrative of Skyrim is determined by the player. The player can just as easily wander off and see how many elk he can kill before being eaten by a dragon as engage in the main quest line. In this example, Skyrim is the table top RPG emergent narrative I cited above.

Uncharted is a third person action game. It has great set pieces and is very well acted and directed. It is a game and you play it, but it does not branch or provide multiple solutions to its problems. It is undoubetdly fun, but the kind of fun that it provides is more akin to watching a good movie. There are times in Uncharted when you want to pick something up, or take a different route or tell the plot NPC to take a hike, or whatever, and you can't. In this example, Uncharted is the narrative driven game.

Each of these examples is more fun if you engage them for what they are. Limiting yourself to the predetermined quest line of Skyrim is to rob yourself of the potential in the game, and to try and do something different in Uncharted is an exercise in frustration. I think that trying to enforce pacing in D&D requires iot be more like Uncharted -- linear and predetermined and no longer an RPG so much as an action adventure game. It can still be fun, of course, as a string of set pieces and scenes, but it can also be frustrating for someone who thinks they are playing Skyrim.

All that said, I think the DM being able to read the table and ensure there is decent momentary pacing is important. That is to say, the DM has to be able to tell when any given scene at the table is bogging the game down and try and move through that scene or invigorate it, as the case may be. If the end of a fight is just a grind with an inevitable conclusion, you can have the goblins or whatever cut and run. If the one player won't stop haggling with the shop keeper over the price of rope, you can handle it with blue booking later.

 

[Blue]

13th Age, which shares the same bones as 5e, handles this a bit differently and may have some idea that could be yoinked. It divorces refreshing everything from sleeping. You get that "daily" refresh after 4ish encounters. This allows pacing to be what will meet the story.

If you have three weeks of overland travel with four encounters, you only regain spells, HD, etc at the end of it. In 5e you'd have to balance those encounters with the fact that some classes like casters can use resources quicker and will shine with less combats per day.

On the flip side, if you are running a megadungeon and had 12 encounters in a day, 5e would leave the casters high and dry which isn't much fun. In 13th Age this would allow multiple refreshes so it's on a reasonable parity between classes.

Also of note that the 4 per "day" vs. the 6-8 per day means it expects less combat - consistently having that many encounters in a day strains my storytelling.

The characters CAN get a refresh early, but there will be some campaign setback. Perhaps the extra time allowed enemy reinforcements to arrive, or someone to get away, or a ritual to be furthered.

In some ways the 4 before rest seems rather gamist, balanced at the cost of making sense, but in play it doesn't. The DM and the players work together to weave it into the story.

DM: So why wasn't this a restful night?
Player 1: Dogs barking, all night long.
Player 2: Yeah, all over the quarter, like something was passing through that riled them up.
Player 3: I was up all night playing cards and drinking anyway, the other gamblers said it's been happening every night for a week.

Poof, a hook was just introduced.

The other way around, refresh at times besides a rest is the same. Maybe it's eating those lembas wafers the Elf Queen gave you, or a drink from a magical fountain, or a great St. Crispin's day speech from the paladin gets everyone motivated as the zombies keep banging on the doors and it's still hours until dawn.

 

[Remathilis]

The problem with this approach IMO is that it assumes play is a narrative. I reject this premise from the start. A narrative emerges from play, certainly, but it is not coherent until after play has ended. At least, that is how I prefer my gaming (especially D&D). It is possible to treat a game session like a narrative, and this happens a lot at conventions and anyplace else that there is a one shot, but I think RPGs are a poor medium to convey story. The strength of the RPG lies in other things.

I reject your rejection. Every adventure except the most basic (go into this dungeon, emerge when you have found sufficient XP and gold) has a goal (stop the bad guy, find the hidden macguffin, uncover the bad guy's plot, etc) and therefore have natural pacing elements. Now, its not the complex pacing of a novel (or a late 2e AD&D module) but every adventure has some, and a good DM can tweak and mold it as the PCs guide the action.

 

[Reynard]

I reject your rejection. Every adventure except the most basic (go into this dungeon, emerge when you have found sufficient XP and gold) has a goal (stop the bad guy, find the hidden macguffin, uncover the bad guy's plot, etc) and therefore have natural pacing elements. Now, its not the complex pacing of a novel (or a late 2e AD&D module) but every adventure has some, and a good DM can tweak and mold it as the PCs guide the action.

Plots create "natural pacing" not goals. There is a difference. A plot is what happens and what happens in an RPG is based on the decisions the players make. Plot happens during and after, not before, and as such the "pacing" is actually just the order and speed in which events occurred.

For example, let's say the PCs arrive in a village that is on the dining menu for a vampire that lives in an ld ruin not too far away. This is a situation. There is neither plot nor goal. It is just what IS when the PCs arrive. No, there is an adventure here should the PCs decide to do something about it (whether that something is kill the vampire, join the vampire, or hang around and empty the pockets and pantries of any of the vampire's victims). The story is what they do are how they do it and what the dice cause to happen in the process, etc.. The DM has to watch the "pacing" in the sense of the game being boring, but there are no pacing requirements as illustrated in the OP.

 

[OB1]

The problem with this approach IMO is that it assumes play is a narrative. I reject this premise from the start. A narrative emerges from play, certainly, but it is not coherent until after play has ended. At least, that is how I prefer my gaming (especially D&D). It is possible to treat a game session like a narrative, and this happens a lot at conventions and anyplace else that there is a one shot, but I think RPGs are a poor medium to convey story. The strength of the RPG lies in other things.

I'll use a couple of my favorite video games to illustrate what I mean.

I'd like to rebut this with my own video game illustration

In Metal Gear Solid 5, you are basically in an open world where you can run around and have "random" encounters with the enemy. Once you accept a mission, however, you are in a discrete subchapter of the story with a very specific goal. You decide how Snake will approach that mission, whether going in with guns blazing or by carefully studying the enemy, then using stealth and subterfuge to accomplish the objective. If you take the non direct approach, a mistake (ie failed skill check) may launch you into a combat situation, that could lead to other guards being called in. The enemies also react to the tactics that you employ, so that if your a fan of sniping from a distance, they will start to put their own spotters and snipers around bases to counter that tactic.

Now there is no question that while MGS5 is open world, it's mission structure is also very linear in that you can't affect where the story is going. But what I'm most interested in here is using the idea of the discrete mission structure for the adventuring day of a D&D party. So as a DM, I may let my players go for some time in an open world, exploring and interacting, but once they decide on a quest or mission that they are interested in, I slip into a highly structured adventuring day challenge.

Unlike MSG5, if they fail this challenge they don't get to hit reset and try again, instead, the world moves on and they have to deal with the repercussions. But it is in these missions that I try to adhere as closely as possible to the 6-8 encounter and daily XP budget rules, because I want to challenge the party and have a real chance that they may not succeed. The more encounters the party is able to avoid fighting, the better their chance at accomplishing their primary objective. There may also be side objectives that come up to tempt them into additional encounters that don't help them towards their primary, but offer other rewards.

All of this, in turn, allows my players to very much dictate the pace of play. They can wander around the world for session upon session, getting into a random fight here and there, exploring the world and interacting with NPCs to create friends, allies and enemies, but when they get it in their head that they have to help the Halfling Monks of the Risen Sun on Paradise Island fight off the impending Giant invasion, it's time for more structure to resolve that specific scenario.

 

[Reynard]

I find things like encounters-per-day and XP budgets and CR to be, at best, useful guidelines and usually not even that. I prefer a game that is organic and improvisational in nature, in which exploration and interaction drive the pace and the story is an emergent quality. I am not saying this is the right way to play, but it is what happens at my table. I have developed it even for cons, where I run an open world, ongoing game over the course of 4 or 6 slots. I have never wanted for bottoms to warm seats. I think the need for structure is overstated by many. I mostly blame Paizo. They did not invent the structured campaign but they perfected it and the explosion of "adventure paths" steals what I think is the best quality of tabletop RPGs: the crazypants uncertainty about what can happen next.

 

[Remathilis]

Plots create "natural pacing" not goals. There is a difference. A plot is what happens and what happens in an RPG is based on the decisions the players make. Plot happens during and after, not before, and as such the "pacing" is actually just the order and speed in which events occurred.

For example, let's say the PCs arrive in a village that is on the dining menu for a vampire that lives in an ld ruin not too far away. This is a situation. There is neither plot nor goal. It is just what IS when the PCs arrive. No, there is an adventure here should the PCs decide to do something about it (whether that something is kill the vampire, join the vampire, or hang around and empty the pockets and pantries of any of the vampire's victims). The story is what they do are how they do it and what the dice cause to happen in the process, etc.. The DM has to watch the "pacing" in the sense of the game being boring, but there are no pacing requirements as illustrated in the OP.

The thing is, there is still a plot here. The DM set up a scenario that has a natural progression: the PCs enter the town, they catch the "hook" (vampire threatening village) and then act upon the hook. The DM assumes a certain natural plan of action, usually based on player history (how have they acted in past to similar events) and character tendencies (ideals, bonds, flaws, and alignments) to gauge the likely course of action (a group of mostly good PCs will probably go stake a vampire; a group of merciless cutthroats might do a risk:reward analysis and move on to more fertile ground). Unless your group is completely Chaotic Neutral, it should be easy for DMs to gauge the usual course of action.

Most groups will probably go stake the vampire so the DM can build his "plot" around that assumption, including the finding of clues that lead to the vampire's identity, finding the proper tools to dispatch him, and then entering his abode and facing his minions and guards and finally the vampire itself. This is a rough-sketch of the plot the DM tailors his notes towards. If the PCs approach from a different angle (rather than seek out its tools, offer themselves as a "Trojan Horse" to surprise the vampire when he attacks) then the DM must improvise, but that doesn't stop there from being an original "idea" of the plot. It just means the plot the DM originally envisioned and the one that happened in play were two separate sets of events. Else, the alternative has the DM prepare multiple scenarios (for each course of action the PCs may take) or completely DM on the fly with no prep. Both are a lot of extra work for relatively little gain.

The pacing allows the DM to set up events with tension and struggle that forces the PCs to not confront the adventure on their terms (aka, the nuclear-rest-repeat scenario) and can be gauged (a bit imperfectly) to avoid this.

 

[abirdcall]

Limiting yourself to the predetermined quest line of Skyrim is to rob yourself of the potential in the game, and to try and do something different in Uncharted is an exercise in frustration.

I think we are using narrative in different ways. I prefer open sandbox play. That doesn't mean there isn't still a story that is created as the game goes. I don't like it when the DM creates the story, I want the whole table to do it.

At any rate, the post is supposed to be a toolbox to give ideas on pacing in 5e. Do you have any tips or tools for how you do it in your games?

 

[abirdcall]

13th Age, which shares the same bones as 5e, handles this a bit differently and may have some idea that could be yoinked. It divorces refreshing everything from sleeping. You get that "daily" refresh after 4ish encounters. This allows pacing to be what will meet the story.

This is great for 13th Age, but as this is a post about pacing for 5e, how would you apply this to a 5e game.

Or in other words, for someone reading your post and wanting advice on pacing in 5e, not a different game, what would you tell them?