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

[Imaro]

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?



The DM decides how often they happen and builds them.

SO then what exactly is the problem. If the DM controls how often and powerful they are when they happen... he's golden they only happen as often and are only as powerful as he wants them in his world. You don't seem to be arguing against what I originally said... mainly that the encounter guidelines as laid out in the DMG are for PC's and that the DM fiats encounters for everything else in the world.

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.

Who said stick around for a big fight... they get caught or spotted... the alarm is raised and the hamlet mobilizes for some payback. The thing is you're deciding they don't get caught through pure fiat... no matter in what terms you try to couch it or what reasons you give and you could just as easily decide they do get caught (and justify it in numerous ways)... in other words it's a self-created problem... like I said originally.

 

[Maxperson]

SO then what exactly is the problem. If the DM controls how often and powerful they are when they happen... he's golden they only happen as often and are only as powerful as he wants them in his world. You don't seem to be arguing against what I originally said... mainly that the encounter guidelines as laid out in the DMG are for PC's and that the DM fiats encounters for everything else in the world.

Fiat is only okay if done consistently and fairly. If the encounters are happening every 8 days or so to the PCs, he needs to fiat those encounters around the world at approximately the same rate. He could do it every 20 days, every 2 days, whatever, so long as it's consistent. He's not actually going to roll all of those out, but he does have to world build based on the existence of those encounters if he wants a world that makes sense within the rules of the game.

Who said stick around for a big fight... they get caught or spotted... the alarm is raised and the hamlet mobilizes for some payback.

And then what? They wander around in circles for a bit? The cultists are long gone before a village can mobilize itself. The few who catch the cultists in the act have to jump on them right away or go mobilize the village. They can't do both effectively.

 

[Imaro]

Fiat is only okay if done consistently and fairly. If the encounters are happening every 8 days or so to the PCs, he needs to fiat those encounters around the world at approximately the same rate. He could do it every 20 days, every 2 days, whatever, so long as it's consistent. He's not actually going to roll all of those out, but he does have to world build based on the existence of those encounters if he wants a world that makes sense within the rules of the game.

This is an interesting viewpoint... I wonder if I and my friends have the same deadliness and frequency of encounters in the U.S. as a group of friends in say Syria... I don't think so but then if I don't does that mean our actual world wasn't built "correctly"?

And then what? They wander around in circles for a bit? The cultists are long gone before a village can mobilize itself. The few who catch the cultists in the act have to jump on them right away or go mobilize the village. They can't do both effectively.

Again... you are deciding (and justifying) this happening, you could easily decide a different outcome happens. That's really all there is to it.

 

[OB1]

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.

This isn't quite right (besides the fact that it's 3-18 encounters, not 6-8) and I think it's important when considering world building. The DMG speaks to the limits of what a group of PCs can be expected to accomplish before needing rest. It doesn't dictate anything. It's a rule of thumb for DMs to use when building a story not a natural law of the world.

Fiat is only okay if done consistently and fairly. If the encounters are happening every 8 days or so to the PCs, he needs to fiat those encounters around the world at approximately the same rate. He could do it every 20 days, every 2 days, whatever, so long as it's consistent. He's not actually going to roll all of those out, but he does have to world build based on the existence of those encounters if he wants a world that makes sense within the rules of the game.

Sure, if encounters are happening at this particular time in this particular part of the world, it should be at the same rate. That particular time may be today, the particular part of the world may be a 100 acre wood. Those encounters may either be certain or uncertain, if uncertain a roll is required, otherwise the encounter just happens.

This is an interesting viewpoint... I wonder if I and my friends have the same deadliness and frequency of encounters in the U.S. as a group of friends in say Syria... I don't think so but then if I don't does that mean our actual world wasn't built "correctly"?
Again... you are deciding (and justifying) this happening, you could easily decide a different outcome happens. That's really all there is to it.

Yep, exactly.

 

[Sadras]

This is an interesting viewpoint... I wonder if I and my friends have the same deadliness and frequency of encounters in the U.S. as a group of friends in say Syria... I don't think so but then if I don't does that mean our actual world wasn't built "correctly"?

LOL, I dunno about you but I think there is plenty of stuff in our actual world that wasn't 'built correctly'.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well those tiers have different focuses...don't they. At tier 2 you're involved in saving cities and kingdoms... not towns. So given the assumptions for said tier... I can create 3 encounters centering on travel towards a mad wizard's tower whose encroaching forces happen to be a day away... Again 4 party members, we'll say 7th level XP Total: 6800

In or around the city

(2) CR 6 Invisible Stalkers - sent by the wizard into the city to hunt down and end the threat the adventurers pose as they are preparring to set out.

(5) CR 3 Professional mercenaries turned bandits (Veteran stats)- Originally hired to patrol the outskirts of the lands under the city's protection this professional mercenary company has taken to robbing those they were hired to protect and they've set their eyes on the PC's.

(2) CR 6 Wyverns _ The encroaching army has been depleting their hunting grounds pushing them closer and closer to the city.

After this point most of the encounters can revolve around the immediate threat of the wizard and his forces that are marching on the city

Great, what happens when those encounter happen in the town next to the dungeon, while the adventurers are on their way through? You keep taking your world into account when you design your encounters and then try to say that those encounters have no impact on worldbuilidng. I'm a bit flummoxed at this point.

Well, unless these wolves are abnormal or starving it doesn't seem like they would go out of their way to attack humans...if they have natural prey... especially with such a small pack.

Dude, they're dire wolves. DIRE. They are not normal wolves, they are wolves the size of horses. And wolves certainly have no problem attacking people, we just happen to live in a world now where we've put the wolves far away from us and either kill them or move them again when they encroach. Heck, the wiki for wolf attacks shows that nearly 15 fatal attacks a year occurred in France from 1200-1920. With wolves the size of horses that can kill far more easily than their smaller brothers, the average lethality of a dire wolf attack in a semi-medieval setting would be very, very high. Dire wolves roaming the countryside is a reason to hire adventurers, for goodness sake!

Well if I had context... a world with it's conceits already laid out... I wouldn't have to do that, consider them simply suggestions on how these encounters can fit into a general world with little to no effect on worldbuilding. However this is what I was referring to earlier when I said you are basically asking me to create a world on the fly in a forum thread... otherwise yeah it does look like justification after the fact.

Okay, hang on, I think I'm seeing it. You're trying to say that to use 3 deadlies a day you are restricted to only picking encounters that match the existing worldbuilding and do not break it. So, therefore, no large numbers of lower CRs because that causes a worldbuilding issue, and, if you do that, the fault is yours not the 3 deadlies a day. To that, I say you've not actually addressed the problem, you've just moved it to the other side of the equation and insisted that the imbalance exists only on the encounter building side and not the worldbuilding one. In essence, you're arguing that 3 deadly encounters a day can't impact worldbuilding because the built world puts hard limits on what kinds of deadly encounter you can present at the 3 a day rate.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is an interesting viewpoint... I wonder if I and my friends have the same deadliness and frequency of encounters in the U.S. as a group of friends in say Syria... I don't think so but then if I don't does that mean our actual world wasn't built "correctly"?

That's a pretty big distortion of what Max said (and, note, I don't play the same way Max does, we've hashed that out before). A better comparison would be that you and your friends have the same frequency of encounters as everyone else in the US while you're in the US, and then the same frequency of encounters while in Syria as Syrians do. Nothing Max said implied that encounter types and likelihoods are the same everywhere.

Again... you are deciding (and justifying) this happening, you could easily decide a different outcome happens. That's really all there is to it.

And, with that, I could decide that an angry ancient red dragon appears and uses it's head lasers to turn all the cultists into kittens before providing the villagers with a sweet guitar concert. Where's the line? You're essentially telling Max to change his mind about what's important in maintaining his consistency so that he can better maintain his consistency. That's a touch circular, no?

 

[Imaro]

Great, what happens when those encounter happen in the town next to the dungeon, while the adventurers are on their way through? You keep taking your world into account when you design your encounters and then try to say that those encounters have no impact on worldbuilidng. I'm a bit flummoxed at this point.

Look at what you just said... I take my world into account when designing my encounters... exactly, not vice versa. The world informs my encounters (As well as my adventures, available monsters and so on) but the encounters don't inform my worldbuilding. In a real scenario where I am designing for my game the world would be built already and I would creating an adventure, location, situation, etc. for my group in said world.

Dude, they're dire wolves. DIRE. They are not normal wolves, they are wolves the size of horses. And wolves certainly have no problem attacking people, we just happen to live in a world now where we've put the wolves far away from us and either kill them or move them again when they encroach. Heck, the wiki for wolf attacks shows that nearly 15 fatal attacks a year occurred in France from 1200-1920. With wolves the size of horses that can kill far more easily than their smaller brothers, the average lethality of a dire wolf attack in a semi-medieval setting would be very, very high. Dire wolves roaming the countryside is a reason to hire adventurers, for goodness sake!

They are still animals... afraid of fire...fall for traps... will go for easier prey when available... etc. I could maybe see this argument for Worgs since they are actively malicious and cruel but Dire wolves are just animals... and 15 fatal attacks in a years time across all of France isn't a large number.

Okay, hang on, I think I'm seeing it. You're trying to say that to use 3 deadlies a day you are restricted to only picking encounters that match the existing worldbuilding and do not break it. So, therefore, no large numbers of lower CRs because that causes a worldbuilding issue, and, if you do that, the fault is yours not the 3 deadlies a day. To that, I say you've not actually addressed the problem, you've just moved it to the other side of the equation and insisted that the imbalance exists only on the encounter building side and not the worldbuilding one. In essence, you're arguing that 3 deadly encounters a day can't impact worldbuilding because the built world puts hard limits on what kinds of deadly encounter you can present at the 3 a day rate.

Wait you're saying that my worldbuilding shouldn't inform what encounters are found but encounters should inform my worldbuilding... now this makes no sense to me. It's like complaining I can't have sharks as an encounter in the middle of these mountains... well yeah, they're mountains... you created that constraint when you designed the world and you should abide by it when you want consistency in your world. Not even sure why this is controversial??

 

[Imaro]

That's a pretty big distortion of what Max said (and, note, I don't play the same way Max does, we've hashed that out before). A better comparison would be that you and your friends have the same frequency of encounters as everyone else in the US while you're in the US, and then the same frequency of encounters while in Syria as Syrians do. Nothing Max said implied that encounter types and likelihoods are the same everywhere.

He used "world" not me so no it wasn't a distortion and even taking it to your level of granularity... Someone in Napperville, Illinois doesn't have the same frequency of encounters or the same deadliness as say someone in Detroit... how low of a granularity level are we going to take this before we're basically saying people here have the same encounter frequency and deadliness as people here??

And, with that, I could decide that an angry ancient red dragon appears and uses it's head lasers to turn all the cultists into kittens before providing the villagers with a sweet guitar concert. Where's the line? You're essentially telling Max to change his mind about what's important in maintaining his consistency so that he can better maintain his consistency. That's a touch circular, no?

Right... it's an individual choice but claiming the rules are forcing this on me and then admitting it's a decision of DM fiat just doesn't make sense. Nothing inherent in that situation makes it more consistent for the cult to be impossible to discover, have no chance of being ran out of town and be impossible to murder with hamlet mob justice... unless you are rolling for everything which I don't think he is and that's the end result your "consistency" is just how you want it to play out... which again means the issues that arise are on you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

Oh, duh, I just realized: and, of course, Adventurers have 6-8 encounter days while non-adventurers do not, because that one day the non-adventure might have had 6-8 encounters, the first one kills him (or sends him runnning for safety), while it just whet's the Adventurers' appetite (wonder what this ogre was doing here, we should track it back to its lair and see if there are more... the correspondence we found on that ogre-mage leader suggests there's a terrible plot coming to fruition soon, we should do something about it... as opposed to "OMG! an Ogre!" :CRUNCH: )

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.

That's how I see it. Though more as limiting how you can portray the world, than the world itself.

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.

Funny, I feel the same way about experiencing the world through the PCs, and not caring for the novels, but feel the opposite way about NPCs with class levels. The PCs could be the only PC-classed characters in the world, as far as I'm concerned - the classes & PC status don't just model their abilities, but their protagonism. That's why I quite liked the NPC Classes from 3.x - and, contrarily, like the way 1e, 4e & 5e use stat-blocks for monsters and NPCs rather than PC-style 'builds.'

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

But, you mean that in an after-the-fact way, I assume? Not that the PCs are special at first level because that's going to happen, but that they prove to have been special at 15th after it has happened, because, at any prior point they might have been TPK'd and some other NPC party finished the AP?

but then if I don't does that mean our actual world wasn't built "correctly"?

The real world is most definitely not built correctly. **blasphemy deleted** ..er... I mean, no DM crated the real world. Yeah, that's a safe way to put it.

This isn't quite right (besides the fact that it's 3-18 encounters, not 6-8)

Lol. In the same sense that you could substitute 3 deadly encounters with a short rest after each or 18 easy encounters with a short rest every 6th for 6-8 medium-hard with a short rest every other, there's other considerations. The number of rounds over the the day, and how long those encounters are, for instance. To balance a class like the Barbarian, that cooks off a daily resource to gain large a benefit for the whole encounter, with one like the Warlock that blasts away with encounter resources, and one like the wizard that does so with dailies, and one like the fighter or rogue that grinds away most of it's effectiveness in at-will abilities. You can't just balance the total exp challenge over the day. A three-trans-deadly-combat-encounter day, for instance, will favor the Barbarian with 3 rages rather obviously. In a 6-encounter day, he only rages (and out-shines the fighter, say) in half those encounters. In a 3 encounter day, he does so in all of 'em. Similarly, for the barbarian to shine compared to the wizard, he'll need each of those 3 encounters to go long enough that his whole-encounter range stacks up to the wizard's spells as the wizard is forced to spend at least some round casting lower-level slots or using cantrips. If it's a round or two of rage vs a round of Action Surge & one not vs a 9th level spell & an 8th, it's not going to exactly 'balance,' but if it's 8 rounds and half of them are spent casting cantrips, it evens out - though the fighter still needs a non-raging combat for his turn in the sun.

and I think it's important when considering world building. The DMG speaks to the limits of what a group of PCs can be expected to accomplish before needing rest. It doesn't dictate anything. It's a rule of thumb for DMs to use when building a story not a natural law of the world.

It's a guideline. Color inside it for usable encounter guidelines & class balance (if, for some strange reason, you want such things /and/ insist on playing D&D, /and/ insist on playing the current ed - that's 5e /trying/ to be accommodating to more styles, you can ignore guidelines and play however you did back in the day, or you can walk the tightrope...).

You're trying to say that to use 3 deadlies a day you are restricted to only picking encounters that match the existing worldbuilding and do not break it. So, therefore, no large numbers of lower CRs because that causes a worldbuilding issue, and, if you do that, the fault is yours not the 3 deadlies a day. To that, I say you've not actually addressed the problem, you've just moved it to the other side of the equation

Nod. There's a issue that can be a problem. There are clear solutions to that problem, each with issues of their own. Most of the discussion is driven by denying the issue, pointing out problems with the issues the solutions bring in, or shifting 'blame.'