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

[Tony Vargas]

Could you maybe tell us which deadly Scotsmen encounters are acceptable so we quit making mistakes about the untrue ones?

Ooh! Elite Uruk-Hai with kilts & claymores! Units of Bards gang-casting Sound Burst with their bagpipes!

You may have missed it, but the "rules" for encounter building are as strong as the 'rules' for worldbuilding -- the entire DMG is present as a set of recommendations and guidelines and not rules.

So, in effect, there are no rules for encounter building, there are guidelines and suggestions, just as there are for worldbuilding.

True. OTOH, most worldbuilding decisions /probably/ don't directly impact class balance or encounter difficulty as dramatically as pacing decisions, and the guidelines for encounters that you'd use to avoid those issues are significantly narrower than for world-building.

I've stridently maintained my position that using 3 deadlies an adventuring day distorts things, not because you have encounters every day, but because when you do it's always deadly. And in 3s.

Ironically, I've played with a DM - this was 3.5 - you consistently ran his game with that cadence. We were playing a 6hr session, once per week, back then, and when he was up, it was always 3 encounters per session, one day per session. Like clockwork. Just his style - haven't seen him in years, he must be doin' great in 5e.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But, then aren't the judgement call on what happens to the town and the mechanics of the orc both then built on a worldbuilding assumption of what orcness is? And, if so, aren't we then saying that encounter building with orcs rests fundamentally on a worldbuilding assumption? Kind of like how all of D&D rests on the core world assumptions in the DMG and also on the core world assumptions underlying popular myth and each and every MM entry?

And you're absolutely correct that such a use -- encounters all the time -- is ridiculous on it's face. That's never been my stance, or what I've argued based up. I've stridently maintained my position that using 3 deadlies an adventuring day distorts things, not because you have encounters every day, but because when you do it's always deadly. And in 3s. So, if you decide to roll for encounters (or plot them) for your 10th level party walking the Nevertrouble Way, you're introducing some serious threats to a "safe" area. So, either you don't have encounters in the "safe" area, which is a worldbuilding choice, or you do, and now need to maybe lampshade how those deadly things got there a bit. Or not, if you and yours don't care. It seems, though, given the recent turn in wondering why you're even having such deadly encounters in safe areas, that there's at least a level of caring even among those that nominally disagree with me.

I honestly, at this point, feel that there's been some major misunderstanding of what I said, and we're now all in internet arguing ruts about it.

Yeah, I think the discussion has been a bit unfocused at times. Not anyone's fault really.

I don't think I was implying that there are never world building considerations related to the number and types of encounters, just that I don't think the impact need be as great as has been stated. I also think that it's the kind of thing that will vary by group quite a bit....which I think you touch on when you said:

So, if you decide to roll for encounters (or plot them) for your 10th level party walking the Nevertrouble Way, you're introducing some serious threats to a "safe" area. So, either you don't have encounters in the "safe" area, which is a worldbuilding choice, or you do, and now need to maybe lampshade how those deadly things got there a bit. Or not, if you and yours don't care.

My point is that the world building is a decision made ahead of time by the DM, so any decision about encounter types that impact that decision would be within his ability to control.

I think earlier, I was disagreeing about how robust D&D is as a worldbuilding system based on Hussar's comments, but I don't think ourdisagreement went beyond that. I think we are looking at things from a slightly different perspective more than actually disagreeing.

Maybe the best way to summarize is....if the Nevertrouble Way is indeed safe, why would the DM ever decide to have encounters, let alone deadly encounters, there? So while in a way, I would agree that there can be an impact here, my question is why would it ever happen?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah the first few chapters are pretty hairy at times and after that I was liking the setup and environment. But later on as a handful of CR 1/2 or so foes become a joke its tedious. A lvl 7 party and having twice daily encounters, possible encounters, and you get things like a single drider, or a handful of drow. If you were getting the 6-8 encounters per day it would be a little better, but who wants to do a 300 mile journey section with 6-8 possible encounters per day? But I think since the module wants to keep giving the party anywhere from 10-100 NPC followers its geared towards people who like to just RP with NPC along the journey. My group isn't into that and I'm just going to skip the travel parts for the rest of the campaign unless there is a real need. Also they can teleport now which should get rid of a lot of that.

Gotcha. Now that you mention this, I think we actually discussed this in another thread maybe a couple weeks ago!

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Personally, I don't bother with random encounters in the same way that many seem to. If a trip is meant to be tough, then I set up a certain number of encounters ahead of time. They're "presented" as random encounters, but they're largely pre-selected.

If a trip is not supposed to be dangerous, then I narrate the trip, and I include a few highlights from along the way, and perhaps pause to expand on non-combat related items (if there are any exploration or interaction type encounters, for instance).

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.

Well, I've been talking about travel or exploration days more than a typical adventuring day, which I would consider to be more site oriented like a typical dungeon or bad guy lair or something. Multiple encounters in the same location.

If anyone is removing multiple encounters from EVERY day then yeah, they've fundamentally altered the expectations of the game's design and have a lot more to worry about than worldbuilding or rest mechanics. I don't know if such a game would require as much "repair" as you suggest, but yeah, it would need something.

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.

Sure, I think that my group is in the middle somewhere between those two approaches, but regardless of where they are except in all but the most extreme view, there's a tipping point. There's a point where the players have to accept that it's crazy coincidence that they keep running into all these threats, or the DM has to come up with a reason for it to happen (most of the threats are agents of the bad guys and are actively hunting the PCs, etc.), or everyone just turns a blind eye to it because they know they're playing a game, and they know that the world they're playing in is fiction.

 

[Imaro]

You may have missed it, but the "rules" for encounter building are as strong as the 'rules' for worldbuilding -- the entire DMG is present as a set of recommendations and guidelines and not rules.

So, in effect, there are no rules for encounter building, there are guidelines and suggestions, just as there are for worldbuilding.

Oh look it's the semantics game... not interested in playing.

I agree with the separation at the single encounter level, but if you build enough encounters, you're building a world.

No. You can choose to make that extrapolation if you want but nothing around the rules given for encounter building (and yes rules can be suggestions as well, since apparently this disclaimer is necessary or all understanding of the point is lost)... states that they in turn inform or define any part of worldbuilding. Again the media D&D draws from is full of worlds where one doesn't inform the other if you need some examples.

Okay, you've clearly lost the thread, here.

Or I've just lost you and everyone else pretty much gets what I am saying, even if they don't necessarily agree...

I haven't said anything about deadly encounters forcing changes in worldbuilding. I've said that using 3 deadly encounters an adventuring day to balance rests exclusively or even often can have worldbuilding implications. I've repeated this a few times now in our conversations to clarify, but it's still missing you somehow?

So you haven't said deadly encounters force changes in worldbuilding... just that using deadly encounters creates worldbuilding implications. Po-tay-toe...Po-tah-toe.

I can't even parse this -- what encounter rules vs actual rules are you talking about? There are no encounter rules, and I have no idea what actual rules you're referring to.

Rules can be principles, guidelines whatever so please stop with the petty semantics to avoid the actual point... mainly nothing in the encounter guidelines, principles, rules or whatever you choose to call them affects worldbuilding unless you choose to make it so. So no, using 3 deadly encounters per day doesn't inherently create implications for worldbuilding... outside of those found in every D&D game.

 

[Imaro]

First it was 'why are you using so many low CR monsters for your deadly encounters?' then it was 'why did you pick a dragon for that example, use something else' and now its 'encounters have to be combat to count.'

Could you maybe tell us which deadly Scotsmen encounters are acceptable so we quit making mistakes about the untrue ones?

Maybe you should keep up with what's being discussed when you choose to quote. Again maybe I'm not loosing the thread...maybe it's you loosing the conversation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So no, using 3 deadly encounters per day doesn't inherently create implications for worldbuilding... outside of those found in every D&D game.

I'm sorry, that last qualifier un-does everything you've said. Every D&D game has a DM that must decide pacing, which will say /something/ about the world (how dangerous it is, in general, for instance, how varied those dangers are situationally). The rest-recovery rules and the encounter guidelines have definite implications in deciding pacing. The DM, though, has absolute power when it comes to building his world, and deciding on any rules modules he'll use, so...

If you pick one rest-recovery variant - the standard, gritty, whatever - and stick to it, that's the pacing of your campaign, if you want to use the encounter guidelines to impose class balance and have meaningful use of CR. Trouble comes in batches of 6-8 (or 3 deadly, a distinction without a difference) clustered in whatever period you're allowed one long rest - or it makes only a token appearance.
If you claim the DM's prerogative to rule on how long rests take and what benefits are derived from them situationally (or you invent a story-based recovery system), you gain the flexibility to put those 6-8/3 encounters over whatever time period fits for that part of the story, and thus pace your campaign and 'build' your world as you like.
If the classes were balanced, and encounter difficulty robust, regardless of day-length, you'd also have that same flexibility, without having to flex your DM Empowerment..
If you don't care about (or actively revile) class balance and/or encounter difficulty (in a 'status quo'/CaW style campaign for instance), you also have the same flexibility by default.

I think that about covers it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh look it's the semantics game... not interested in playing.

Wha?! Your point hinges on there being actual rules for encounters and only suggestions and guidelines for worldbuilidng -- it's totally not semantics to point out that there are no rules for encounter building, only suggestions and guidelines.

No. You can choose to make that extrapolation if you want but nothing around the rules given for encounter building (and yes rules can be suggestions as well, since apparently this disclaimer is necessary or all understanding of the point is lost)... states that they in turn inform or define any part of worldbuilding. Again the media D&D draws from is full of worlds where one doesn't inform the other if you need some examples.

Right, okay, then you're now admitting that there are also rules for worldbuilding in the DMG, then? Because I'm pretty certain you're going to argue that point.

And the DMG is organized in increasingly smaller focus points -- worlds, encounters, specifics within encounters (treasure, monster building, options, etc). Do you actually need the encounter building rules to specifically tell you that they work hand in hand with the worldbuilding rules?

Let's go with an example -- pick any encounter you want to and then I'll show you where all the worldbuilding assumptions in that encounter are.

Or I've just lost you and everyone else pretty much gets what I am saying, even if they don't necessarily agree...

No, I've completely followed you. What I meant by that is that you're not arguing against what I'm actually saying anymore, you're arguing against something else, and that I'm not sure of. You haven't lost the thread in the sense of winning and losing, you've lost the thread of the argument as in you're not arguing the same thing anymore.

So you haven't said deadly encounters force changes in worldbuilding... just that using deadly encounters creates worldbuilding implications. Po-tay-toe...Po-tah-toe.

Again, three deadly encounters an adventuring day exclusively or mostly. I've bolded and italicized the portions you seem to keep missing in your quest to make it seem I'm arguing against deadly encounters in general. Ask my players, they'll disabuse you of that notion.

Rules can be principles, guidelines whatever so please stop with the petty semantics to avoid the actual point... mainly nothing in the encounter guidelines, principles, rules or whatever you choose to call them affects worldbuilding unless you choose to make it so. So no, using 3 deadly encounters per day doesn't inherently create implications for worldbuilding... outside of those found in every D&D game.

You're far too close to the trees; you keep missing the forest. Just having an encounter interacts with worldbuilding -- you've established this world is one in which encounters occur. Even saying that only heroes have encounters is a worldbuilding choice - you've chosen a world where the powers that exist recognize heroes and send them challenges. EVERY encounter works with worldbuilding. It may be slapdash or thorough, but it's still worldbuilidng.

 

[Imaro]

I'm sorry, that last qualifier un-does everything you've said. Every D&D game has a DM that must decide pacing, which will say /something/ about the world (how dangerous it is, in general, for instance, how varied those dangers are situationally). The rest-recovery rules and the encounter guidelines have definite implications in deciding pacing. The DM, though, has absolute power when it comes to building his world, and deciding on any rules modules he'll use, so...

I was talking inherent D&D/Fantasy tropes that will exist in (nearly??) every D&D world... there are monsters, adventurers fight them etc.

If you pick one rest-recovery variant - the standard, gritty, whatever - and stick to it, that's the pacing of your campaign, if you want to use the encounter guidelines to impose class balance and have meaningful use of CR. Trouble comes in batches of 6-8 (or 3 deadly, a distinction without a difference) clustered in whatever period you're allowed one long rest - or it makes only a token appearance.
If you claim the DM's prerogative to rule on how long rests take and what benefits are derived from them situationally (or you invent a story-based recovery system), you gain the flexibility to put those 6-8/3 encounters over whatever time period fits for that part of the story, and thus pace your campaign and 'build' your world as you like.
If the classes were balanced, and encounter difficulty robust, regardless of day-length, you'd also have that same flexibility, without having to flex your DM Empowerment..
If you don't care about (or actively revile) class balance and/or encounter difficulty (in a 'status quo'/CaW style campaign for instance), you also have the same flexibility by default.

I think that about covers it.

So you're talking pacing of adventures or encounters?? I'm looking for clarification because I'm not sure I would consider that worldbuilding per se.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you're talking pacing of adventures or encounters?? I'm looking for clarification because I'm not sure I would consider that worldbuilding per se.

Both, obviously, the two are inextricable in 5e. And, no, it might not be 'worldbuidling,' per se - for instance, if we consider campaign-building or story-telling as quite distinct from worldbuilding, but you were just going on about not getting hung up on semantics. Sticking to a specific pacing of encounter/day (or other locked-in period), is going to impact one of those, which are going to have which is going to have implications for the others, even if we can shuffle around semantics and shadings of meanings until we have a working definition of worldbuilding that plausibly denies those implications.

"This game is 'balanced' at 6-8 encounters per day" is inevitably a consideration. DMs not wanting their campaign to follow that guideline will deal with it or accept the consequence (or embrace, them - heck, some of their players may revel in the consequences).