Getting to 6 encounters in a day

[Oofta]

That's simply not how the world works, though. You don't get better at casting fireball by casting fireball. You get better at casting fireball by hitting things with your staff (or casting cantrips, I guess), because you've run out of fireball for the day.

If you think that feels artificial, then I don't know what to say. D&D has always been kind of weird about that. If it helps, you can think of not casting spells in the same way as a fighter choosing to fight with their off-hand, because it increases the challenge.

Back when I gave out XP, it was for overcoming obstacles and achieving goals. How the players did it, what pace they decide to do things was completely up to them. If they decided to take a long rest, the world and other events continued to happen without them but I never punished them for it. Of course if they took a long rest reinforcements might be called, the BBEG might escape, etc.

But how much they learn? Why does it matter if they cram or spread the learning out over a few days?

And you're right that not every adventurer is going to worry about optimizing their learn-rate, of course. But why, then, should the game force advancement on you? Why should your character, who doesn't care about becoming the best, advance at the same rate as their companion who does care? That seems more artificial than anything else, especially if your answer is from a meta-game perspective.
I'm not a huge fan of Fire Emblem, but in the one I played (ten or fifteen years ago), this is addressed from an in-character perspective. Basically, the main character starts out at as a chump, but you also have a champion who is much more powerful to help you out. One of the other characters makes a point of saying that yes, you could just send the champion out to do everything alone, but it's not fair to deny the less-experienced hero their chance at proving themself - and it may even come back to haunt you, later on, if the champion is no longer around to protect you.

That's really all there is to it. The kinds of people who take the easy way out, and never challenge themselves, are not the kind of people who end up as mighty heroes. It does seem to imply that D&D really only works for certain types of characters, but then again, there are no rules saying that you must gain levels.

Which is another way of saying: your character has to play this way with this motivation and this goal. No thanks.

Anyway the answer is still: I think this is a lazy solution that relies on meta-game mechanics and I think there are better ways of challenging characters (whether you have 3 encounters or 9). You don't.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Back when I gave out XP, it was for overcoming obstacles and achieving goals. How the players did it, what pace they decide to do things was completely up to them. If they decided to take a long rest, the world and other events continued to happen without them but I never punished them for it.

That sounds awfully meta-game-y, to be honest; it's like you're rewarding the player for contributing, rather than awarding the character based on what they experience. Why would the character learn the same amount about fighting from standing on a roof and mowing down zombies with fire bolt, as they would from getting down there and wading through the horde with their longsword? The latter would be a much more intensive workout, where they're forced to get better because their life is on the line.

Which is another way of saying: your character has to play this way with this motivation and this goal. No thanks.

Only if you care about gaining levels. Why would you even care about getting better at fighting, if you never get into challenging fights in the first place?

Anyway the answer is still: I think this is a lazy solution that relies on meta-game mechanics and I think there are better ways of challenging characters (whether you have 3 encounters or 9). You don't.

As the DM, it's not my place to challenge anyone. I build the world. I play the NPCs. I adjudicate action resolution. I most certainly would never rely on meta-game mechanics at any point.

 

[abirdcall]

Two reasons:

1) real-world player perception is quite different from game-time PC perception. To the PCs, it’s a few hours; to the PCs, it’s anywhere from two weeks to (in my group’s case) a month and a half (three sessions). It leads to quite the sense of disconnect.

2) your question about 3 sessions till a long rest still does not answer my statement about an unrealistic number of encounters. Unless the PCs are regularly in the middle of a war zone, there aren’t many plausible situations of someone fighting eight encounters in rapid succession. War zones like the gnoll example above, timer countdowns where the bad guy finishes a ritual, “going to kill the hostages in two hours” - and that’s about it. Everything else is pretty much variations on those themes - and I could argue the last two are the same theme. Just because it makes the game math work doesn’t mean it’s the best choice.

If others find it plausible, that’s cool, but the PCs consistently having to fight a marathon of encounters before the day is out strains credulity for me.

Every published 5e adventure I have played is structured this way. I have a much harder time thinking of a compelling adventure where the characters get to sit around all day and engage with the world at their leisure.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

I did NOT read the whole thread, so if this has been mentioned upstream, sorry.

WARNING!! Semi-Rant cause by flare up of Grognardia Curmudgeonitis! For those that don't want to read: "It's not a system problem...it's a DM problem" is the gist of it all.

IMNSHO, Matt Colville is "DM'ing wrong"...at least from where I stand on RPG's. From what I gather, he's a DM that "builds to the PC's". I am 99% against that whole concept. If you do this, and I'm pretty sure he does, then yeah, the "5 minute work day" is going to be a thing simply because you are making it a thing. Players aren't stupid. If they are 3rd level and they just took on a bunch of goblins without too much trouble, they will continue on. If the next "encounter" is a hobgoblin and his pet mountain lion, the players "know" that he is within the realm of possibility to be defeated. Why? Because they KNOW that the DM "built this encounter specifically for them". After defeating this guy, and being beaten up and using a couple 1-per-day resources....they WILL stop. Because they KNOW that you, the DM, have built encounters "specifically for them"...at 'full capability'. So they KNOW that the next encounter WILL be far more tough...or should be. If, for whatever reason they press on, then they KNOW that you, the DM, WILL adjust-on-the-fly the next encounter so that it's no overwhelmingly likely to be a TPK.

THAT is Matt's problem. Not the system and not any "rules mechanics". It's him. He's DM'ing "wrong"...at least IMNSHO.

If the DM ignores the PC's specific make up and only thinks in terms of "there's 5 of them and they're about level 3", it will be better. When the DM does what he is supposed to (as per "old skool" DM thinking), which is design the world and adventures logically as his campaign setting dictates, you won't have the "5 minute workday". We never had this problem up until 3e. When I was playing 3e (not DM'ing), the system pretty much encouraged the "kill, kill, Nova-kill, rest" mantra because, well, EVERYTHING in the game was designed around this idea of PC's being "at full". With 3e onward, the game designers all had this sort of "players should win most of the time" mentality. Maybe it was from their upbringing, maybe it was from video games, maybe it was from something else...the point is that RPG'ing became not so much as a "use your imagination and co-operation to defeat/overcome challenges", but more of a "use your imagination, co-operation, and special abilities to win". When a game system gives the Players choices and powers every level, more or less, it is encouraging the "use these abilities...stop when you run out". This, again IMNSHO, does a rather large harm to RPG'ing.

Right. So enough b'chin and whi'nin from me. Matt (or any other DM out there), if you are reading this for whatever reason, next time you "design an adventure", try designing it being high-level without having any consideration for the PC's at all...not even level. Then place it in front of them during a session. See if they are smart enough to figure out "Whoa! We're level 3 and that right there, guarding that huge entrance, is a 6-pack of Hellhounds!? ...uh...nope!...Time to turn around guys!". IF they do...that is a GOOD sign! If they DON'T...then it's proof that they are "expecting to win because you build encounters to suit them". If the later, then you need to adjust your DM'ing style...not adjust "encouragements" to the players to continue.

^_^

Paul L. Ming (...STILL a "Killer DM"...I guess...)

 

[5ekyu]

One of the things I've been considering is that a Long Rest is something which takes place between adventures. It takes an indefinite amount of time, during which you can prepare all of your spells, and all of your injuries heal up, and that's just not something you can do while other events are in motion.

That requires a fairly scripted story structure where an adventure is a discrete package with a beginning middle and end, like running a module from start to finish with no off book side trips or side plots.

It also seems to just take away character choice in favor of "when the GM wants us to, we get long rest." But it leaces **attempts at** short rests in the players hands (circumstances apply.)

At least in 1e it was iurc a neutral fixed determinant, dawn, and not "when we make GM happy" sort of thing.

To me the key basic poibts are this...

1 - six encounters between. Long rests is not required, its just a defined baseline they used in playtest. Its spelled out so the gm can have a starting point for estimating if they need to adjust this or that. Its was meant as an educated example, not a recipe to be forced.

2 - stories and situations where pressures and circumstances provide serious issues for long rest time outs are pretty ubiquitous. In 5e a gm should consider pre-game what rests will do and have a coupke of contingencies. The "rewards and punishnents, trade offs etc" should be (can be completely) in game, not player side.

3 - Its always perfectly fine to have "we hit at full power" type stories too... Plan accordingly for the non-weardown types.

4 - If a campaign is having problems caused by rest cycles, you can always talk about it. But before i take long rests **out of in-game** and make them GM-fiat-fodder, i would go for making them some neutral in-game fixed element, like dawn or some pre-determined time from use. It majes no sense for "we slept in our magical shelter last night and got nothing" followed by "tonight we sleep outside in camp and we get bacl all our stuff" just because in between they drove off the BBEG.

It almost hands party recovery to the NPC...if the BBEG decides to take advantage of their delay to flee - possibly ending the adventure- they recover, but if he decides to reinforce... They dont.

 

[Sunseeker]

I dunno. I came up with an alternate travel system that broke the travel between adventuring days and regular days, basically every few days of travel the party comes across some situation such that there are a number of encounters to tackle before they can continue on their way. A fast moving river in hostile territory, a treacherous mountain pass guarded by monsters etc etc. something that makes the travel memorable and provides a good adventuring day of fun rather than the drip drip of the standard system.

It’s not hard to cobble together an sdventuring day of that sort from the random encounter tables.

I mean, I don't run random encounters. I generally think its a waste of time and I like to theme my game and how my players experience it. So the players aren't going to run into a random pack of wolves randomly prowling the woods, unless it's a lead-in to something else (like something bigger chasing the wolves out/making them extra angry, etc...). Once they run into this "event" they've essentially entered a situation modeled on the points I made: in order to beat it they have to keep moving forward, and the enemy is actively trying to push them out.

 

[ccs]

Nitpick: A player may be motivated to level up. A character would be motivated to learn more magic, get better with their weapons, get tougher, etc...

There's an "In-Character" slang term for doing that stuff. It's referred to as leveling up....

 

[5ekyu]

I mean, I don't run random encounters. I generally think its a waste of time and I like to theme my game and how my players experience it. So the players aren't going to run into a random pack of wolves randomly prowling the woods, unless it's a lead-in to something else (like something bigger chasing the wolves out/making them extra angry, etc...). Once they run into this "event" they've essentially entered a situation modeled on the points I made: in order to beat it they have to keep moving forward, and the enemy is actively trying to push them out.

I think random encounters ger a bad rap, to some extent, but also deserve it. Of course, they are encounters not combats so thats a wide open pallet to paint.

I use the term to represent more unexpected off kilter events but **still** give them meaning.

A random predator attack against a large armed group can be extremely informative about the area and things going on. Is it starved to desperation by loss of the usual game? Is it terrified and fleeing out of its tertitory due to mystery? Is it showing bald blistered spots causing it pain and driving it to attack tough prey?

Other conflicts can also serve to introduce a lot of other tags - with ties to the area, the events or even tie-ins to character backgrounds.

Are a couple of the bandits/raiders (former) members of the soldier PC's unit or company, even before or after he served? Or are they of the cleric's religion? Are some of them wearing **that** armor even though they are not the ones who should be? Does one of them carry a brand that means something to a PC.

Or maybe the encounter is the site of a raided group of travellers, looted and left. How much story and choices can you seed into that to make it have a lot of meaning? Even if its just proper burials and services it sets the stage to learn about them and later on seed in the raiders with instant heat as soon as some item tells the PCs who they are.

***Heat delayed burns longest and hotest.***

I think too many people take the position that random encounters are meaningless, are "waste of time" instead of seeing them as encounters to be used to add depth that can add personal elements and tangential hooks that a more direct "theme and plot" can sometimes not portray as well alone.

So, when running a game, one of the first things i do, and keep doing, is write down "stray hooks". Can be as easy as a sentence or a paragraph.

Early on in development, they each serve to illuminate setting elements and groups. Once i have PCs more (min 5) are written for each pc - race, class, sub-class, background and history.

As specific plots stories and locations are developed, do some specific to those.

Then, when its timing and situationally appropriate for a "stray" encounter pull in one of those hooks, posdibly randomly. I use playing cards for flavor (suit) and magnitude (face value)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That requires a fairly scripted story structure where an adventure is a discrete package with a beginning middle and end, like running a module from start to finish with no off book side trips or side plots.

Not really. It's just setting the time requirement to an arbitrarily large value. Replace "between adventures" with "six months" if it would make you happy. They are equivalent values in any situation where a Bad End would happen if the party stopped adventuring for six months, which could cover any variety of scenarios. If you take six months off from chasing the apocalypse cults, then the world ends.

At least in 1e it was iurc a neutral fixed determinant, dawn, and not "when we make GM happy" sort of thing.

The funny thing is, I'm actually pulling this directly from an older edition; I just can't remember which one. The idea that it was tied exactly to a daily cycle came later, probably with 3E.

Checking my AD&D PHB, all it says about spell recovery is that the DM will tell you how long you need to rest before recovering spell slots.

 

[5ekyu]

Not really. It's just setting the time requirement to an arbitrarily large value. Replace "between adventures" with "six months" if it would make you happy. They are equivalent values in any situation where a Bad End would happen if the party stopped adventuring for six months, which could cover any variety of scenarios. If you take six months off from chasing the apocalypse cults, then the world ends.

The funny thing is, I'm actually pulling this directly from an older edition; I just can't remember which one. The idea that it was tied exactly to a daily cycle came later, probably with 3E.

Checking my AD&D PHB, all it says about spell recovery is that the DM will tell you how long you need to rest before recovering spell slots.

Really, too many editions blur together after a while but i would have bet body part that in 1e "dawn" or "midnight" or "day" was directly tied to at least cleric recovery, not some indeterminant anytime gm wants to from 5m to six months?

Wow.

But i gotta say back to the first part, again, if the gm chooses to hinge spell recovery and other long rests on some external six month timeframe that varies from "adventure to adventure" it makes the whole thing seem less like folks in a world making choices than it does characters in a story following a script.

How can people (pcs) plan if they dont know basic recovery physics from one "adventure" to another?

"An indefinite amount of time" is **to me** a forced inconsistency to a campaign's truthiness. I want it to be that when things dont add up the same as they did last week the characters **and** the players can all go "hmmm... What is wrong?" instead of the players going "must not be adventure over fiat yet. We haven't accepted the closing dialog" or some such while the characters just treat it as normal.

I want "you slept last night but your spell points did not reset." to be a HOLY CRAP something must be wrong and that only works if my campaign runs by consistent and expected events, not "indeterminant" ones.

I would not throw all that away to make controlling resources an element the GM controls by *rule* as opposed to by events.