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

[Tony Vargas]

It defies credulity that things only happen to PCs.

Meh, it's not that 'things' only happen to PCs, it's that the things that do happen to PCs are not representative.

When world building, the world is built and exists independent of the PCs.

You can build a world and run a campaign to create that impression, of course. But it's still an imaginary world, it has no independent existence, and it's purpose (the reason you & your players are imagining it) is to provide an environment for the campaign. Any sense of existence or independence you manage to convey is purely illusory.

The difference of opinion seems to be whether that illusion is merely desirable, or absolutely necessary...

Maybe that's where the two sides are going wrong. One side is talking about world building and the other side is talking about building encounters with terrain for the PCs to meet things in.

Given the way you're defining 'world building,' (if it's even possible - which maybe strains credulity a bit), I'd say that Yes) the Elephant does trample all over world-building including the whole issue of elephantine encounter schedules vs PC implying a credulity-demolishingly-dangerous world and No) that doesn't really matter because you can run a fantastic game without engaging in that kind of world-building. (And, no, I wouldn't contrast that with 'encounter building,' which you'd presumably do in addition to world-building, rather I might contrast it with something to suggest art-rather-than-science - 'World Painting' perhaps, like the 'painted back-drop' I mentioned. Impressionist painting, even: you create an impression of the world as a setting, it looks fine, as long as you don't stand too close to it. )

 

[Maxperson]

What 5-7 encounters that day? I don't think I'm understanding what you're getting at here... are you saying the farmers are having 5-7 encounters a day? Or maybe you're saying anytime the adventurers have an encounter the farmers do as well... If so... why?

The mechanics dictate that during a day with encounters, there are 6-8 of them. It's called an "adventuring" day. It's ludicrous to think that only adventurers have them. In a wide world, there will be such "adventuring" days all over it.

For who?? NPC's? Are you saying you give every NPC in your world 5-7 encounters a day? Do monsters also have 5-7 encounters a day with other monsters? Or with higher level NPC's?

Are you suggesting that the adventuring day happens literally every day? If it doesn't happen every day, then there's no reason to think that every NPC would have them every day. Besides, encounters are a shared thing with a group, so a single encounter for an entire town counts.

Apparently they are perfect, never make a mistake, never ever seen, never leave a clue behind, cultists who live in a small hamlet. You're right how could they ever be discovered?? Heck how will the adventurers ever discover who they are if they're just that good... What 5-7 encounters?

Hey man, look, Straw!

 

[Tony Vargas]

The mechanics dictate that during a day with encounters, there are 6-8 of them. It's called an "adventuring" day. It's ludicrous to think that only adventurers have them. In a wide world, there will be such "adventuring" days all over it.

Does that matter? Won't most days, for most non-adventurers be 'non-adventuring days?' Won't /those/ largely hypothetical, but very representative, days say more about the shade of the wide, every-day world than the exceptional experiences of somewhat-less-hypothetical non-PC adventurers, and not-hypothetical-at-all, but still imaginary, PC adventurers?

Or is it that, as the players experience the world through their PCs, the 'adventuring day' becomes representative to them? I can see how that might be an issue with them leading excessively dangerous and time-pressured existences. Though, IMX, it's the kind of things a lot of players don't seem to have much trouble suspending disbelief around...





Are you suggesting that the adventuring day happens literally every day? If it doesn't happen every day, then there's no reason to think that every NPC would have them every day. Besides, encounters are a shared thing with a group, so a single encounter for an entire town counts.

Hey man, look, Straw![/QUOTE]

 

[clearstream]

Okay I'm with you so far...for me encounter tables CAN be a statement about the world but they don't necessarily translate on a one for one basis. Because you encountered a dragon in the hills... there must be dragons in the hills... perhaps the dragon is migrating or was just gated in by a mad wizard and just an anomaly... perhaps not. The point is I don't necessarily tie encounter building for the PC's to worldbuilding. What if the PC's have someone or something following them into the Dragon hills that wasn't there before? How do I account for that with an encounter table that deals with what is in the area form a worldbuilding perspective? It wasn't there when the world was built and it doesn't relate to what is found in that part of the world... and yet it can be an encounter for the PC's.

It's not as black and white as I believe you and some others are making it... there is a middleground but n order to be there one has to accept that the guidelines for building encounters isn't in and of itself necessarily a tool for extrapolating the world.

I guess we're often forced to make our examples black and white to explain our concepts, which as you say are really more shades of grey. For me world-building allows for exceptions but is more about the generalities. If a PC winds up in Menzoberranzan they're very likely to run into some drow... and that is also true of a Noble, an Archmage, a farmer, a baker. It could be that one of the drow they run into is also just passing through.

I don't think encouraging ones players to think about what they should do and what others might do around themis particularly unique to one approach or the other... I also don't think one method precludes a "living" world. In fact I'm not so much getting if this is just you talking about your likes or if there is a differentiation in our styles being drawn here... because I'm not seeing anything that is precluded by not using encounter tables as a worldbuilding tool. I never claimed anything about there being a bubble around the PC's or even that I don't build a world... and I'm not sure acknowledging that I am in fact using a certain tool for the PC's (as opposed to NPC's or to extrapolate the details of my world)... such as the guidelines for encounter building stops me from having a consistent world. I've yet to see anything posted that comes close to proving that is the case. I get preferences and you may not like how I build my world but claiming it must be a bubble or must lack consistency has no basis.

Apologies, I thought that you and/or some other posters were saying that stuff only exists in a bubble around the PCs. Anything outside that bubble was deemed irrelevant. I believe the game works better when a world exists and the PCs move about in that world. Maybe we agree on that.

I would think that since the encounter tables must extrapolate into the world at large... it would by necessity limit the stories, which of course isn't necessarily a bad thing if you value consistency...

It's kind of a fact about the creative process. Seeds of inspiration (and constraints, for that matter) are valuable. That's one reason why story-building games often use cards: those seeds help inspire players to come up with ideas. And creative consultancies who work with companies to help drive innovation make use of seeds and constraints. I'm not saying here that there isn't value in a tabula rasa: typically it takes longer to get from there to something usable, however. As you notice, if the seeds are coherent the stories trend toward consistency. I find players noticeably value that. They sometimes rebel when stuff isn't consistent.

 

[clearstream]

You can build a world and run a campaign to create that impression, of course. But it's still an imaginary world, it has no independent existence, and it's purpose (the reason you & your players are imagining it) is to provide an environment for the campaign. Any sense of existence or independence you manage to convey is purely illusory.

A world concept is an algorithm for producing stories. In that role it has an independent existence. The reason Agatha Christie could write so much about Poirot is she had her Poirot-world and that gave her an algorithm for grinding out Poirot stories. Eventually we'll get an AI to parse her books and we'll have captured that algorithm. I believe it is easy to experience this. You take an existing world that you understand and enjoy, and add something to it. I think you'll notice how you are drawn to add some kinds of things and not others. How a nearby forest turns out to have something interesting about it, that the smith's wife is all too aware of.

 

[FrogReaver]

So I think all my campaigns are going to involve the PC's delivering a ring of monster attraction to someone to have it destroyed. That should probably clear up most issues

 

[Imaro]

The mechanics dictate that during a day with encounters, there are 6-8 of them. It's called an "adventuring" day. It's ludicrous to think that only adventurers have them. In a wide world, there will be such "adventuring" days all over it.

Actually we're discussing 3 deadly encounters but whatever... So you're saying adventurers aren't the only ones who have adventuring days. Uhm ok where are the rules for how we create and stock the adventuring days for all of our NPC's... and again shouldn't this mean monsters have them as well? And if so does that become a wash... shouldn't those cultists also be running into something dangerous that thins their numbers just like the farmers do?

Are you suggesting that the adventuring day happens literally every day?

No... I'm actually trying to parse whether you are saying or implying that.

If it doesn't happen every day, then there's no reason to think that every NPC would have them every day. Besides, encounters are a shared thing with a group, so a single encounter for an entire town counts.

So when do they have them?? Encounters are constructed based on level and group size... one of these things is missing for NPC's so how do you calculate these encounters for them?

Hey man, look, Straw!

No not really... you make a statement that amounts to these cultists will never be rallied against by the farmers because... they never get caught and I call you on it. No straw just pointing out they need to make stealth checks to be sneaky, athletics checks to grab and carry these people away... or is it okay if you decide all of this by DM fiat? Because if so you're creating the issue of cultists being so dangerous and ninja-like that they wipe out entire settlements without ever being caught or stopped.

 

[Maxperson]

Does that matter? Won't most days, for most non-adventurers be 'non-adventuring days?' Won't /those/ largely hypothetical, but very representative, days say more about the shade of the wide, every-day world than the exceptional experiences of somewhat-less-hypothetical non-PC adventurers, and not-hypothetical-at-all, but still imaginary, PC adventurers?

Most days for adventurers and non-adventurers will not have the 6-8 encounters, but those that do, will. Adventurers have them, because the world is full of adventure, not because they are cursed to be the ones to hit those dangers while the rest of the world is calm. The mechanic making it necessary for so many encounters to happen in order to challenge the PCs will alter the world building if the mechanic is properly taken into consideration. Of course, you could alter the mechanic to fall in line with the world you envision as well.

Or is it that, as the players experience the world through their PCs, the 'adventuring day' becomes representative to them? I can see how that might be an issue with them leading excessively dangerous and time-pressured existences. Though, IMX, it's the kind of things a lot of players don't seem to have much trouble suspending disbelief around...

To me there isn't any other way to experience the game world than through the PCs. I really don't read the novels as they are generally not very good. I solve the issue by not making characters with class levels rare. There will be adventurers and defenders with cleric, wizard, rogue and fighter levels in pretty much every town, village and hamlet. The larger the community, the more and higher level(typically) the NPCs with class levels.

What makes the PCs special is not their class, but rather their fates. PCs go on to do much grander things.

 

[Maxperson]

So I think all my campaigns are going to involve the PC's delivering a ring of monster attraction to someone to have it destroyed. That should probably clear up most issues

Make it a nose ring.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually we're discussing 3 deadly encounters but whatever... So you're saying adventurers aren't the only ones who have adventuring days. Uhm ok where are the rules for how we create and stock the adventuring days for all of our NPC's... and again shouldn't this mean monsters have them as well? And if so does that become a wash... shouldn't those cultists also be running into something dangerous that thins their numbers just like the farmers do?

3 deadly encounter, or 6-8 medium to hard encounters, it's still the "adventuring" day. The rules are in the DMG. As for monsters having them, sure. Do you really think that monsters don't encounter and fight other monsters? That an orc village is never attacked by a dragon?

So when do they have them?? Encounters are constructed based on level and group size... one of these things is missing for NPC's so how do you calculate these encounters for them?

The DM decides how often they happen and builds them.

No not really... you make a statement that amounts to these cultists will never be rallied against by the farmers because... they never get caught and I call you on it.

Never said that. I said they aren't going to stick around for an entire village to rally for a big fight. Big difference there. The Straw is strong with you here.