D&D 5E 5e Pacing Guide

[abirdcall]

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.

I think you are selling yourself short. There is still a structure to your open gaming. An independent viewer would still be watching a story unfold. There would still be levels of pacing.

I agree that predetermining the story isn't great for D&D. That is not what this is about.

It also goes beyond just the encounters. The DM can help to set the pace in other ways such as enthusiasm.

Maybe that should be another topic.

 

[Reynard]

The thing is, there is still a plot here. .

We might be arguing semantics a little. When I see or hear the word I go to the literary definition. "The plot of a story consists of the events that occur during the course of that story and the way in which they are presented to the reader." (Literary Devices) So It implies in my mind a lot of pre-planned structure. The vampire example (one from actual play, mind you) is just a situation with enough details so that I can respond on the fly to the players choices, from ignoring it to razing his crypt to the ground. So, yes, there is a plot, but it is in the hands of the players.

 

[devincutler]

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.

This is because you are comfortable with and enjoy the freestyle approach to gaming wherein the PCs can go off the rails in any way possible and the DM makes things up as he goes along. This is a legitimate style of play that allows the players a sandbox to play in, but IMO also leads to a world where things feel like they are props that pop up for the player's enjoyment as opposed to a living, breathing world through which the PCs must make their way.

Many of us prefer a narrative that is there from the start and that the players (and PCs) can twist or disrupt as events occur. This allows not only for more rigourous and intricate storylines and plots, as well as battles, but also allows the world to seem more realistic.

In the former, improvisation IS the game. In the latter, improvisation is a fallback.

Neither is good or bad...just different.

 

[Reynard]

This is because you are comfortable with and enjoy the freestyle approach to gaming wherein the PCs can go off the rails in any way possible and the DM makes things up as he goes along. This is a legitimate style of play that allows the players a sandbox to play in, but IMO also leads to a world where things feel like they are props that pop up for the player's enjoyment as opposed to a living, breathing world through which the PCs must make their way.

Many of us prefer a narrative that is there from the start and that the players (and PCs) can twist or disrupt as events occur. This allows not only for more rigourous and intricate storylines and plots, as well as battles, but also allows the world to seem more realistic.

In the former, improvisation IS the game. In the latter, improvisation is a fallback.

Neither is good or bad...just different.

I don't think story lines make the world feel real -- they make it feel artificial to me. In my example, the vampire is there preying on the town whether the PCs come through or not, and will continue to do so unless the PCs choose to do something about it. In a story game, people and events are held in stasis until the PCs appear and cause a script to run. Again, IMO YMMV etc...

 

[Blue]

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?

Fair question. I'd treat this much like the optional Rest Variants on page 267 of the DMG. There they have options like "long rest" is 7 days, so they are already divorcing sleeping from the mechanical recovery of a long rest.

Rest Variant for 5e patterned on 13th Age

• 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.

Note: This doesn't count the "rest sooner but take a campaign setback" aspect of 13th Age because mechanical campaign setbacks are not a part of the 5e language. But it means exactly as it sounds if you want to use that as well.

This would have 8 Medium encounters being: long rest, 1, 2, 3, short rest, 4, 5, 6, short rest, 7, 8, long rest.

With Hard encounters occasionally it brings it down to the 6 or 7 that are also part of the common expectations from the DMG.

 

[abirdcall]

I don't think story lines make the world feel real -- they make it feel artificial to me. In my example, the vampire is there preying on the town whether the PCs come through or not, and will continue to do so unless the PCs choose to do something about it. In a story game, people and events are held in stasis until the PCs appear and cause a script to run. Again, IMO YMMV etc...

I think you are reading into things what isn't there.

That is still a story. And once the PCs engage with it, it is the story that you play out. You are focused on railroading for some reason, which is not what the thread is about at all.

I am quite confused at this point. I am not sure how else to explain it.

D&D is a collaborative storytelling exercise. The story is written at the table by all involved and by random elements. But it is still a story.

Even if all the characters ever do is sit in a tavern and drink, it is the story of them doing that.

 

[Reynard]

I think you are reading into things what isn't there.

That is still a story. And once the PCs engage with it, it is the story that you play out. You are focused on railroading for some reason, which is not what the thread is about at all.

I am quite confused at this point. I am not sure how else to explain it.

D&D is a collaborative storytelling exercise. The story is written at the table by all involved and by random elements. But it is still a story.

Even if all the characters ever do is sit in a tavern and drink, it is the story of them doing that.

I agree with all of that. But the OP suggested planned pacing to me, not table pacing, which may be where the disconnect is. Table pacing is important of course, but it is entirely responsive. The goal is to keep players engaged. As long as they are, no matter what is happening, then the pace is correct. I have seen extremely fiddly tactical battles occur with what could only be described as glacial pacing, but everyone was hyper focused because that was what they wanted to be doing. I have seen breakneck chase scenes confuse and bore players because the pace of play was way off. There are no hard and fast rules for pacing, only the ability to read your players and manage their fun.

 

[abirdcall]

I agree with all of that. But the OP suggested planned pacing to me, not table pacing, which may be where the disconnect is. Table pacing is important of course, but it is entirely responsive. The goal is to keep players engaged. As long as they are, no matter what is happening, then the pace is correct. I have seen extremely fiddly tactical battles occur with what could only be described as glacial pacing, but everyone was hyper focused because that was what they wanted to be doing. I have seen breakneck chase scenes confuse and bore players because the pace of play was way off. There are no hard and fast rules for pacing, only the ability to read your players and manage their fun.

Yeah, still not sure how to respond as I don't know where you are coming from (Pretty sure the OP doesn't say anything about how much real game time things like combats take).

So I guess I will just say that that wasn't the intent and move on. I think we are having a conversation about different things.

 

[Greg Benage]

This is because you are comfortable with and enjoy the freestyle approach to gaming wherein the PCs can go off the rails in any way possible and the DM makes things up as he goes along. This is a legitimate style of play that allows the players a sandbox to play in, but IMO also leads to a world where things feel like they are props that pop up for the player's enjoyment as opposed to a living, breathing world through which the PCs must make their way.

That's super-interesting. I can and do enjoy both styles of play, but I would say just the opposite. A well-run sandbox feels like a living, breathing world that exists independently of the PCs. The world in a well-run story game feels like the setting of a story.

Even if all the characters ever do is sit in a tavern and drink, it is the story of them doing that.

I think you're being a little disingenuous. Yes, "story" can mean nothing more than "an account of events that occurred, real or imagined." I could recount the "story" of my recent visit to the restroom. However, this kind of "story" doesn't have any kind of narrative structure, or pacing, or any other kind of narrative techniques or management designed to deliver entertainment value to a reader or audience (or the players in a story RPG). Now, I could, after the fact, try to turn an account into a story by adding narrative structure, pacing, theme, or whatever other narrative techniques I choose, but that doesn't mean there's no difference between the notion of "story" as an account and "story" as narrative. Just the opposite, in fact.

Some players want an RPG experience in which the DM's (or referee's, or judge's) job is to create an environment, describe it to the players, and adjudicate the outcomes of their interaction with it. Full stop. These players want "what happens" to be up to them. They don't want it to be managed, handled, processed or structured by the DM for the purpose of creating a "better narrative." These are distinct styles of play. Both can be awesome. But they are different.

 

[Libramarian]

I disagree with the premise that rests do the same thing in D&D as character exposition or comic relief scenes in movies. I think dramatic pacing has more to do with the balance between the "three pillars" (combat, exploration, social) in the campaign. Rests are just a strategic decision, they're like "let's check our resources...should we rest here? OK we rest." then back to the action. They typically don't involve any roleplaying and they're over very quickly. To "reset the tension" a better choice would be a light social encounter or short adventure.