Do they still happen? And by "happen" what do we mean?
Because I think we're talking about preferences rather than how things actually must be. In my game, there are literally no random encounters for NPCs. They never ever occur. Anything that happens to an NPC or group of NPCs happens by DM design.
Well, they have encounters. And probably a whole bunch of them you didn't include between the last time you saw the NPC and this time.
Whether an encounter is random or not is pretty irrelevant. Rolling for random encounters in the game provides a measure of surprise for the DM as well as the players. It gives a % that something is going to happen, and sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
For example, I roll randomly for weather in my campaign. Just because I don't roll weather randomly for the NPCs doesn't mean it never rains for them.
Just because I don't roll random encounters for the NPCs doesn't mean they don't have encounters that fit the same probabilities. Although when I design a random encounter table for a given locale, those probabilities apply to any creature that happens to be in that region. And should our focus shift to an NPC, then I might very well roll on the random encounter table for them.
We can't compare this to the real world though...because the real world isn't a fiction being manipulated by a DM and players (not that we know of anyway
).
I just did, and as far as the PCs and NPCS, they don't know it either. Only the players do.
Sure it does. It makes the story ABOUT them. Therefore, whatever happens to them matters more than what happens to Joe the Blacksmith 100 miles away. The rules and everything about the game is designed around your PCs. So the game functions differently for them. They have encounters because they are adventurers. NPCs have things happen to them.
So this is not to say that the fiction of the world has to acknowledge their specialness....although it can. They can be fated for great things or prophesied to achieve some monumental victory...they can be Ta'veren or bound by Ka or the Chosen Ones or any other fictional trope. But it's not required in the fiction. We can read a story about a character who is thrust into the midst of great happenings and realize that the story is about that character, but he's not some kind of Chosen One. But we still know he's the star of the show.
I know I'm drifting away from the point of the (already tangential) discussion, so I'll just summarize by saying that I don't think it's accurate to say that PCs...no matter how mundane they may be in their world...are not more important or special than NPCs. They certainly must be so.
No, they don't have to be so. For example, Drizzt, Wulfgar, Cattie-Brie, Regis, and Bruenor are a pretty unusual adventuring party. But it would be wrong to extrapolate that and suggest that the demographics of the world are 20% drow, 20% human barbarian, 20% human, 20% halfling, and 20% dwarven and that they all live in harmony. Any more than we can look at a wizard, a hobbit, and 12 dwarves as representative of their world. Sometimes they are special because they save the world (or inflict upon the world) and such. Even so, until that time, they are just another dwarf, drow, or hobbit, like so many others of their kind.
What happens to them matters more to them, and those of us who are following them. Sometimes they rise above that level, and do something that matters to more people. But most of the time, to Joe the Blacksmith 100 miles away, they don't even exist. Just because we've chosen to look in on the life of these four people or whatever doesn't make them anymore important than the amoeba that happens to be in the drop of water I put under a microscope.
Sure, I can agree with most of that. Because I would expect that a DM would always give consideration to the kind of area in question, and would determine encounters accordingly. You're not going to have a random encounter table for the Shire that has Smaug and the Witch King of Angmar and the Balrog on it just so you can have your PCs be challenged. DMs have total control over this...which is why I don't really get the complaint. If it's a one encounter a day kind of area, then go ahead and do that. If your group doesn't find one encounter days fun, then stop doing it and simply narrate it.
Where I disagree is in the Travel and Dungeoncrawl resting comment. Why can't they be different? I think that's a pretty suitable solution that has been mentioned quite a bit in this thread. Have long rests be impossible in the wilderness while on a journey. Then the entire journey is viewed as an "adventuring day" in that sense. You can have 3 or 18 encounters or anywhere in between as suited. Spread them out in a way that makes sense for the areas the PCs travel. Problem solved.
I'm one of the ones that doesn't like the idea of resting "being impossible" in the wilderness. Explain to me why setting up a camp and sleeping for 8 hours in the wilderness is not restful. Then explain it to the migratory barbarians that are always on a journey in the wilderness.
If 8 hours of rest, sleep, food and water is what is needed to recover hit points, etc., then that's what it takes, wherever you are. It might be a "suitable" game solution, but doesn't work for me as an in-world solution. Moreover, I think that we should be able to come up with a game solution that works for both. Give me good in-world reasons why that 8 hours of rest doesn't work, then I'll consider it.
For me, though, the other question is why does it matter if they
can rest in the wilderness. I get that it matters for some people, because they are expecting something different from their game (an attrition system as best I can tell). But to me, it makes perfect sense that if you're in the wilderness, and you don't need to use the special abilities you recover via resting, then you'll have those abilities available. If those abilities are most commonly consumed in combat, and they don't have a combat for two days, then they don't use those abilities.
