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

[Maxperson]

But you are deciding this... not the rules. You create or don't create the inconsistency or non-inconsistency of the world, not the rules. There are no rules that claim whatever the adventurers encounter... non-adventurers must also encounter. That's not a function of the game or it's rules that's a function of you choosing to make that so in your world. To do that and then claim it's affecting your worldbuilding is quite frankly silly... of course it is because you're choosing to build a world where it does... but the (encounter) rules of D&D in and of themselves don't force you to do that.

Fluff and crunch have to match up, or the consistency is shot. The crunch is that encounters happen X amount of the time. The fluff is that people run into orcs, dragons, etc. X amount of the time, where X is the same as the encounter frequency. If they don't match, the world consistency is off.

 

[Imaro]

In these last few pages I keep observing what I will dub a "blindness" to the rules. Every monster in the MM is part of the implicit world-building rules. Are there dragons? Do they use stat-blocks from or based upon those in the MM, at or around the given CRs? Do their hit points work the same as other creature's hit points? Then their part of the world was built using the rules.

I disagree. Every monster in the MM is an example of a creature which using the actual rules can be modified and changed to fit your own. They aren't an implicit part of the D&D world they are an implicit part of the Forgotten Realms and serve as examples which can be used as is, modified or not used at all for any particular D&D world.

 

[Imaro]

Fluff and crunch have to match up, or the consistency is shot. The crunch is that encounters happen X amount of the time. The fluff is that people run into orcs, dragons, etc. X amount of the time, where X is the same as the encounter frequency. If they don't match, the world consistency is off.

But this is the crunch for designing encounters, which is then being, IMO, incorrectly applied as a worldbuilding rule. These aren't rules to create encounters for non-adventurers, or NPC's and they aren't the rules to populate the world... these are rules to design encounters for the PC's nothing more and nothing less. In other words you are choosing to take these rules and choosing to extrapolate things they aren't meant to determine and then claiming they make no sense when used in a way they were never meant for...

 

[Ovinomancer]

But this is the crunch for designing encounters, which is then being, IMO, incorrectly applied as a worldbuilding rule. These aren't rules to create encounters for non-adventurers, or NPC's and they aren't the rules to populate the world... these are rules to design encounters for the PC's nothing more and nothing less. In other words you are choosing to take these rules and choosing to extrapolate things they aren't meant to determine and then claiming they make no sense when used in a way they were never meant for...

So, the only way to play is to provide encounters for PCs but never, ever consider how those might affect the broader world? So, then, if I make an encounter table that matches the PCs up against a Dragon (young), some gorgons, a pack of rabid manticores, etc, and then roll on it when they're walking from Peaceful Village along the Nevertrouble Way to Safeville, and tell the players that this is the safest area of the kingdom, then I don't have to do any explaining as to why all of these horrible monsters happen to occur to the players there? They should go, "Oh, it's a game, and the mechanic you used for rolling our encounters doesn't have anything to do with the world we're playing in, cool, I get it, I'm glad we're in the safest place in the campaign world, which is just as dangerous as the most dangerous place in the campaign world!"

I have no issues with you if you want to play that way and your players enjoy it. I, however, like to provide a world that has some danger variety and cohension, and generally plan my encounter tables based on the area as defined by the world, not in spite of it. If I suddenly switch to deadly encounters perfectly scaled to PC level, that breaks that model, that there are issues. Which is, as I recall, exactly the point I started with before you and Hussar went off on this 'worldbuilding is totally separated from the mechanics!' tangent, which isn't true, either.

Or have you come up with a response to the core world assumptions in Part 1 of the DMG that the DMG says the rules use and, if you change those assumptions too much, you should be ready to adjust the rules?

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

How about, if the PCs are mid-high level, you - as DM - decide that the random encounters are less monster based and more story/NPC based?

How do they treat the diseased peddlar?
What if its really a polymorphed wizard? Or a gold dragon?

Have them encounter a crazed mystic who tells them their fortune?

Or have them ambushed by the family of the goblins they cleaned out of that dungeon back at level 1 when they interrogated one and let him go?

All of which predicate less of a random encounter and more of a planned encounter, true. But that's part of the game, or the job if you will, as DM.

Three pillars. Not just combat.

 

[Imaro]

So, the only way to play is to provide encounters for PCs but never, ever consider how those might affect the broader world?

Why do you keep attributing things I didn't say to me? Of course that's not the "only" way but if you're choosing to build your world based around the encounter rules for PC's... well that's going to have ramifications that arise because you've chosen to use a tool meant for one thing to do something else with.

So, then, if I make an encounter table that matches the PCs up against a Dragon (young), some gorgons, a pack of rabid manticores, etc, and then roll on it when they're walking from Peaceful Village along the Nevertrouble Way to Safeville, and tell the players that this is the safest area of the kingdom, then I don't have to do any explaining as to why all of these horrible monsters happen to occur to the players there? They should go, "Oh, it's a game, and the mechanic you used for rolling our encounters doesn't have anything to do with the world we're playing in, cool, I get it, I'm glad we're in the safest place in the campaign world, which is just as dangerous as the most dangerous place in the campaign world!"

So you're purposefully choosing to place deadly encounters in the safest places of the gameworld because... why again? This is my disconnect with you... no rule in the game makes you place specific encounters in specific places of your world? PC's don't have to be challenged with deadly encounters every day of their lives and probably shouldn't be in safe places... otherwise they aren't safe. So why are you creating a safe place in your world and then choosing to make it dangerous for anyione PC or NPC's... that's what I don't understand.

I have no issues with you if you want to play that way and your players enjoy it. I, however, like to provide a world that has some danger variety and cohension, and generally plan my encounter tables based on the area as defined by the world, not in spite of it. If I suddenly switch to deadly encounters perfectly scaled to PC level, that breaks that model, that there are issues. Which is, as I recall, exactly the point I started with before you and Hussar went off on this 'worldbuilding is totally separated from the mechanics!' tangent, which isn't true, either.

But this makes no sense whatsoever. Why are you placing an encounter table with any encounters in a place you've determined to be the safest place in your campaign world. That's the issue... you're creating your own problem because... again I don't know why and you havew yet to explain why you as a DM are choosing to do this? If it's the safest place in the world there wouldn't be ANY encounters because then it isn't the safest place in the world...

Or have you come up with a response to the core world assumptions in Part 1 of the DMG that the DMG says the rules use and, if you change those assumptions too much, you should be ready to adjust the rules?

Huh? Is one of those assumptions Deadly encounters should be in the safest place of your campaign world? If not what do those assumptions have to do with what we are discussing?

 

[Imaro]

How about, if the PCs are mid-high level, you - as DM - decide that the random encounters are less monster based and more story/NPC based?

How do they treat the diseased peddlar?
What if its really a polymorphed wizard? Or a gold dragon?

Have them encounter a crazed mystic who tells them their fortune?

Or have them ambushed by the family of the goblins they cleaned out of that dungeon back at level 1 when they interrogated one and let him go?

All of which predicate less of a random encounter and more of a planned encounter, true. But that's part of the game, or the job if you will, as DM.

Three pillars. Not just combat.

Because apparently the only deadly encounters involve 600 Orcs, unintelligent bestial dragons, or anything else we can come up with to purposefully break the verisimilitude of @Ovinomancer 's world. It's just too much work to create deadly encounters that actually work in the places he's choosing to put them...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Making that decision doesn't mean that there wasn't the consistency that @Lanefan mentioned. The mechanics were involved, you just decided the outcome. The DM also decides the outcome for the PCs per the 5e rules if the outcome is not uncertain.

You are still acting in an internally consistent manner.

I don't agree with that. Perhaps my decision is made with the mechanics in mind....I could certainly say that a horde of orcs would mechanically very likely destroy a small town and therefore I could decide that the orcs win and the town is destroyed.

I could just as likely decide that the townsfolk make some kind of Thermopylaen final stand that led to them winning. I could decide this based purely on my desire to have the PCs encounter the haggard survivors for some story related purpose; i.e. narrative needs rather than any kind of mechanical determination.

I think that what's happening is that a DM who makes such a decision is using his sense of logic and world details and the like to make the judgement call. And I think that game mechanics also lean on such logic and world details. So there's an underlying commonality at play, I agree, but I don't think that it's the mechanics dictating anything. It's simply that the mechanics are derived from the same factors as the DM's judgement.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why do you keep attributing things I didn't say to me? Of course that's not the "only" way but if you're choosing to build your world based around the encounter rules for PC's... well that's going to have ramifications that arise because you've chosen to use a tool meant for one thing to do something else with.

It was a question, I didn't say you said it. And, thank you for confirming the point you started arguing with.

So you're purposefully choosing to place deadly encounters in the safest places of the gameworld because... why again? This is my disconnect with you... no rule in the game makes you place specific encounters in specific places of your world? PC's don't have to be challenged with deadly encounters every day of their lives and probably shouldn't be in safe places... otherwise they aren't safe. So why are you creating a safe place in your world and then choosing to make it dangerous for anyione PC or NPC's... that's what I don't understand.

Wait, wait, you mean that you don't put deadly encounters in places where you've decided, as part of worldbuilding, are the safest places? What, exactly, are you arguing then?! My original point was this exactly: you can't use 3 deadlies a day as a solution to rests without impacts to worldbuilding. As you so succinctly note here, if you're putting deadly encounters in the safest places it doesn't make sense. It seems we're in violent agreement.

But this makes no sense whatsoever. Why are you placing an encounter table with any encounters in a place you've determined to be the safest place in your campaign world. That's the issue... you're creating your own problem because... again I don't know why and you havew yet to explain why you as a DM are choosing to do this? If it's the safest place in the world there wouldn't be ANY encounters because then it isn't the safest place in the world...

Again, you're now arguing with me using my argument!

Huh? Is one of those assumptions Deadly encounters should be in the safest place of your campaign world? If not what do those assumptions have to do with what we are discussing?

Given you've now taken my positions to argue with me about my positions, this part is pretty moot.

 

[Ovinomancer]

How about, if the PCs are mid-high level, you - as DM - decide that the random encounters are less monster based and more story/NPC based?

How do they treat the diseased peddlar?
What if its really a polymorphed wizard? Or a gold dragon?

Have them encounter a crazed mystic who tells them their fortune?

Or have them ambushed by the family of the goblins they cleaned out of that dungeon back at level 1 when they interrogated one and let him go?

All of which predicate less of a random encounter and more of a planned encounter, true. But that's part of the game, or the job if you will, as DM.

Three pillars. Not just combat.

Excellent ideas, ones I actually use.

Again, everyone, please recall this entire side trek with [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] was because I said you can't use exclusively 3 deadly encounters a day as a rest balancing mechanic without causing worldbuilding issues. I said, in that same post and in subsequent posts, that I use a broad range of techniques (including non-combat encounters) to balance rests in my game. I'm rather baffled at this derailment myself.