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

[Ilbranteloth]

To satisfy the elephant in an adventure where overland travel plays any significant role, this is largely (and sadly) true.

I don't agree with that.

I have lots of travel days that don't have encounters, or to be more specific, combat encounters with monsters. On any given day, the players don't know if they are going to have any encounters, and when they do have one, they don't know if there will be any more. There are other things that can happen besides just combat encounters too.

Furthermore, the only reason why the current system is a problem for people, is that if there's only a single encounter, the PCs are at full strength and can use all of their abilities for the day. I for one, don't have an issue with that. But like I said, they won't know (and I often won't) if that's the only encounter for the day. I also have fatigue rules, and overland travel has other hazards (and potential benefits) than just combat.

I also kind of question, what significant role does overland travel provide if there's a "better" rest system? That at the end of a day of travel that the PCs will have used more of their abilities?

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is a fair point...I don't know if I entirely agree with it, but I get it. This is why I'm saying that such trivial travel should be narrated. Save any and all encounters for areas where more than one per day is likely.

Yep, I think that's a valid style. You don't have to play through the odd 'random' encounter to establish what an area you're traveling through is like, especially with a higher-level party. "You travel through the lawless lands of Uhhr, frightening off would-be bandits who are no match for you several time..." "The monotony of your trek through the Evil Sands of Ilgrennata is broken by the occasional oasis and one short vicious battle with a sandworm..." Nope, no XP.

My point is that the mechanics are meant to support the fiction. So once I establish the fiction for my game, I shouldn't choose to use mechanics that disrupt the fiction. If I do, it's on me...not the mechanics themselves.

To an extent. If you establish the fiction of your campaign such that multi-encounter days don't make much sense, most of the time, the mechanics it's 'on you' for choosing to use are all the classes & monsters.
OK, that's an overstatement, you could use a selection of classes, like just the full casters (& Barbarian, maybe?) or just the Fighter, Warlock, Monk & half-casters....

...actually, neither of those sound that bad, now that I type them outloud...

...long and unproductive as this thread has mostly seemed, it does keep offering partial solutions like that.

But to look at it another way of taking things too far...at what point does verisimilitude take a back seat to the fact that we're playing a game? My players would rather have encounters and roll some dice than to marvel at the believable ecology of the Northlands.

In this case, they can both be on the wrong side of the Elephant, though. Whether you're all about the Vtude, or all about the gam'n fun, (and, anti-GNS activist that I am, I don't concede that anyone is really /all/ one or the other) the Elephant can step on your toes.

Or maybe because the PCs are in the wilderness where more monsters live? I don't run into many lions around here, but if I was exploring the Serengeti I think I might see one or two.

Though they might not attack. Animals are bizarrely aggressive in D&D.

So it's interesting that you raise the point about consistency since that was my complaint about shifting rest schedules based on whether you were in a dungeon or the wilderness.

Consistency with things as abstract and fantastic as spell slots, ki points, and even CS dice, doesn't have to be consistent in the same way your car starting when you turn the key is meant to be consistent. And, even RL life consistency isn't the same as the kind you'd get from precisely enforcing a reality implied by the very limited scope of a game's rules. IRL, a person can be invigorated and ready to go after an hour nap or 15 minute of mediation, or still be groggy and out of sorts after sleeping 10 hours. Someone driven could go two or three days without sleep, someone depressed can barely get out of bed. Even reality isn't one-size-fits all that way, why should fantasy be?

To not encounter more creatures, and for them to not be more challenging would be inconsistent to me.

Also a good reason.

 

[Hussar]

Last I checked, Oil of Sharpness ain't exactly artifact level...

Particularly as boats don't usually have gore attacks except when ramming other boats...

Lanefan

Oil of sharpness is very rare (so, one step below artifact) and confers a +3 bonus to an edged weapon.

So, you should probably check again.

But, yup, that should have been gored by a boar. Sigh. Stupid autocorrect.

 

[Lanefan]

Define rarely... in the LotR movies they are usually fighting or running from some enemy or another.

This might be because they - or one of them, anyway - is carrying the most effective monster attraction device ever known in that setting.

Most D&D parties don't have such a thing on board; or if they do they get rid of it ASAP. However, the LotR party's example is one where quite legitimately in the fiction the party have many more encounters than the general population. This can't really be used as a typical example, unless your PC party is knowingly or unknowingly carrying around an equivalent to the One Ring.

But then why not simply narrate the travel? If establishing that a bunch of encounters happen to the PCs along the road to the capital really breaks verisimilitude, then simply do not have that many encounters. Or simply skip them all and narrate the trip.

If it's a simple trip through known and-or safe lands, sure.

But there's quite a few published adventures out there where the travel, or some of it, is itself an actual part of the adventure (or, in the case of the B-series module Journey to the Rock, is all of the adventure). And this is where the problems reside...how to make the travel bits challenging without spamming encounters all over the place, and without having to break consistency and use two sets of resting rules depending what the PCs are doing.

So, the PCs spend a week in the Shire and then a week in Mordor. We all know where more encounters will happen.

Skipping, then: Old Man Willow, Bree, the pursuit by the Ringwraiths - and that's just to get to Rivendell. Then there's some more minor stuff, and Caradhras, and the Mines of Moria....

Skipping the travel bits, particularly through dangerous territory, means you lose quite a bit.

So the question is, if you don't want the Shire to seem like a dangerous place, why have any encounters there at all?

Well, it's a bit late to ask JRRT about that; but he did put some there.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Oil of sharpness is very rare (so, one step below artifact) and confers a +3 bonus to an edged weapon.

Ah. Didn't realize they'd nerfed it.

But, yup, that should have been gored by a boar. Sigh. Stupid autocorrect.

Though gored by a boat was, you have to admit, funnier.

 

[Hussar]

Umm, I dunno about anyone else, but, one of the first Conan stories I read had Conan battling assassin demons sent by Thoth Amon to kill the king. He certainly does fight his share of critters. But, then again, why are we differentiating here between encountering a "monster" and an unfriendly humanoid? They're all combat encounters.

IOW, Conan is getting into fights pretty much constantly throughout the stories. It's not like he has one fight, then a day or two later, he has one fight, then a day or two later he has one fight. And it really isn't the case that he has one, and only one, fight.

Most of the time, the stories revolve around having a series of encounters with nasty beasties.

A campaign which insists on one and only one fight every scenario must be incredibly boring to play.

And, since it's something that's specifically recognized by the guidelines, can we really call it an elephant in the room? Everyone knows this is true. You have problems with the game because you insist (whoever "you" happen to be) that there can be one and ONLY one fight. Ever. Never two. Never three. Only one. Every time.

And you're talking about consistency? Seriously? You never have reinforcements show up 5 minutes later? No one ever takes a bit of extra time getting to the fight, thus having a couple of encounters before a short rest? Ever? The elephant in the room isn't the idea that you need multiple encounters in an adventuring day to make the game run smoothly. The elephant in the room is people trying to pretend that they want consistent worlds but then run incredibly predictable games where the players know that they will only ever have one encounter per day and act accordingly.

Again, try varying it up a bit and most of the problems vanish.

 

[Imaro]

Er, Smaug destroyed Laketown, and The Lonely Mountain. There is a story of the Shire being attacked in the Hobbit, oh and it's attacked again at the end of the LotR. Gondor and Rohan are attacked in LotR. And all of that is peanuts compared to all of the populaces that get attacked in the unfinished stories and the Silmarillion.

So yes, yes they do happen to the populace at large.

Monster attacks still aren't happening at the same frequency on these non-adventurers as they do the fellowship. You've cited two attacks on the shire in it's entire existence vs. how many attacks on the fellowship or on Bilbo and the Dwarves within the span of days and sometimes hours?

 

[Imaro]

This might be because they - or one of them, anyway - is carrying the most effective monster attraction device ever known in that setting.

Could be though the fact that they are in the wilderness... choose to explore forgotten and dangerous places, and so on (just like your average D&D party) seems to be just as big, or possibly a bigger factor. The same with Bilbo and the dwarves, Conan, Elric, Solomon Kane, Corum and so on.

Most D&D parties don't have such a thing on board; or if they do they get rid of it ASAP. However, the LotR party's example is one where quite legitimately in the fiction the party have many more encounters than the general population. This can't really be used as a typical example, unless your PC party is knowingly or unknowingly carrying around an equivalent to the One Ring.

But the ring isn't what brings the monsters (though I'll give you the ringwraiths) it's where they choose to/have to travel for the most part... into dangerous wilderness, dungeons, and other areas that are infested or overun with monsters... again just like the other heroes and stories I mentioned that you're ignoring. Conan doesn't have a ring that attracts monsters, neither does Elric, Solomon Kane, Corum, Kane the Immortal and so on. Yet they are attacked by numerous monsters that haven't overrun their worlds or decimated civilization because they encounter them much more frequently than the average inhabitant of the world does.

 

[Imaro]

=
Well, it's a bit late to ask JRRT about that; but he did put some there.

Lanefan

What encounters took place in the Shire? The ringwraiths visit it but no encounters or monster fighting takes place. I'm honestly drawing a blank on this one.

 

[Maxperson]

What encounters took place in the Shire? The ringwraiths visit it but no encounters or monster fighting takes place. I'm honestly drawing a blank on this one.

What are you talking about? People in the books mentioned the queer folk asking questions about the shire and hobbits. Lots of encounters took place. No fights, but yes encounters with them.