D&D 5E 5e Pacing Guide

[Hussar]

Just to sidebar a second out of the theoretical stuff (which is really interesting) but into the more stodgy practical.

Something that the two step recovery model (short rest/long rest) in 5e does is create a very different dynamic between different classes. And, it's very necessary, IMO, when designing adventures to keep that in mind.

A criticism I see levelled at 5e frequently is that the CR system is borked and encounters are either too easy, or DM's have to go way above the level of the PC's to challenge them. I think, and this is my entirely unscientific gut feeling, that what is going on is that DM's are designing scenarios without recognising the impact that the two step recovery system has. A group that is completely fresh, can punch way, way above its weight class if the players don't think that they need to hold anything back for a subsequent encounter. Think about it, if the players have that "one and only one" random encounter per day, then they can open up a huge can of whoopass in the opening rounds - the casters use their highest level spells, the fighter types action surge and spend all their superiority dice at once, the paladin smites for all he's worth. The baddie gets turned into a big pile of goo unless the DM builds an encounter that is much higher level than regular.

Now, try a different system of random encounters. Let's call it random events. Random events are built from 2-3 (or maybe 4) random encounters strung together. You could separate them by rounds, minutes or maybe even an hour or two between one encounter and the other two, if you like. The DM rolls his random encounters and then takes a few minutes to string them together in a coherent narrative. For example, maybe the three encounters are:

1. Angry bear(s)
2. Orc raiding party
3. Troll (s)

Now, maybe you roll randomly, or maybe you just decide the time spacing between them. We'll set the time at just before nightfall - the bear wanders into the party's camp and hijinks ensue. Maybe the party fights the bear, maybe they charm/bribe it, whatever. Ten minutes after the bear though, the troll, who had been hunting the bear, attacks the party because he's hungry and the party just stole his lunch. Attracted by the sounds of combat, some time later, minutes, perhaps tens of minutes, the orc raiding party assaults the group. Or, alternatively, maybe the orcs show up fifteen minutes after the bear and the troll a couple of hours later, after a short rest, but, before a long one. Sure, your short rest characters are back on point, but, your long rest characters aren't.

None of these encounters have to jack up the CR to be challenging. By the time the orc party jumps in, the party should have spent quite a few resources, making the orc raiding party a much more interesting encounter than it would have been. Perhaps by the time the orcs stumble in, it's full night, adding an additional layer of difficulty.

Any of these encounters, taken in isolation, wouldn't be much more than a speed bump for an appropriate level party. A single troll vs, say, a 5th or 6th level party? Yeah, it's going down pretty quick. But, that same encounter, (if we change up the order of encounters) after the wizard has blown through his fireball on the orcs becomes much more interesting.

The thing is, again, IMO, when designing events for the group, try to keep them in groups of 2-4 before the party can short rest again. You don't have to run them concurrently (that drastically ramps up difficulty) but, stringing them together in serial with only a few minutes or tens of minutes between them can lead to much more interesting play.

 

[Reynard]

Just to sidebar a second out of the theoretical stuff (which is really interesting) but into the more stodgy practical.

Something that the two step recovery model (short rest/long rest) in 5e does is create a very different dynamic between different classes. And, it's very necessary, IMO, when designing adventures to keep that in mind.

A criticism I see levelled at 5e frequently is that the CR system is borked and encounters are either too easy, or DM's have to go way above the level of the PC's to challenge them. I think, and this is my entirely unscientific gut feeling, that what is going on is that DM's are designing scenarios without recognising the impact that the two step recovery system has. A group that is completely fresh, can punch way, way above its weight class if the players don't think that they need to hold anything back for a subsequent encounter. Think about it, if the players have that "one and only one" random encounter per day, then they can open up a huge can of whoopass in the opening rounds - the casters use their highest level spells, the fighter types action surge and spend all their superiority dice at once, the paladin smites for all he's worth. The baddie gets turned into a big pile of goo unless the DM builds an encounter that is much higher level than regular.

Now, try a different system of random encounters. Let's call it random events. Random events are built from 2-3 (or maybe 4) random encounters strung together. You could separate them by rounds, minutes or maybe even an hour or two between one encounter and the other two, if you like. The DM rolls his random encounters and then takes a few minutes to string them together in a coherent narrative. For example, maybe the three encounters are:

1. Angry bear(s)
2. Orc raiding party
3. Troll (s)

Now, maybe you roll randomly, or maybe you just decide the time spacing between them. We'll set the time at just before nightfall - the bear wanders into the party's camp and hijinks ensue. Maybe the party fights the bear, maybe they charm/bribe it, whatever. Ten minutes after the bear though, the troll, who had been hunting the bear, attacks the party because he's hungry and the party just stole his lunch. Attracted by the sounds of combat, some time later, minutes, perhaps tens of minutes, the orc raiding party assaults the group. Or, alternatively, maybe the orcs show up fifteen minutes after the bear and the troll a couple of hours later, after a short rest, but, before a long one. Sure, your short rest characters are back on point, but, your long rest characters aren't.

None of these encounters have to jack up the CR to be challenging. By the time the orc party jumps in, the party should have spent quite a few resources, making the orc raiding party a much more interesting encounter than it would have been. Perhaps by the time the orcs stumble in, it's full night, adding an additional layer of difficulty.

Any of these encounters, taken in isolation, wouldn't be much more than a speed bump for an appropriate level party. A single troll vs, say, a 5th or 6th level party? Yeah, it's going down pretty quick. But, that same encounter, (if we change up the order of encounters) after the wizard has blown through his fireball on the orcs becomes much more interesting.

The thing is, again, IMO, when designing events for the group, try to keep them in groups of 2-4 before the party can short rest again. You don't have to run them concurrently (that drastically ramps up difficulty) but, stringing them together in serial with only a few minutes or tens of minutes between them can lead to much more interesting play.

This post underscores the primary difficulty with travel and exploration in D&D. It is an issue I struggle a lot with because I run ongoing exploration based games at conventions (meaning each slot leads into the next but there is no ongoing story; it is a hexcrawl). The best solution I have found it to ensure that every hex has something in it worth finding (not necessarily a combat encounter) and encounter rolls happen often enough with enough of a chance to occur that most of the time PCs are not willing to go nova in case another encounter pops up. Now, I build the setting and gameplay to support this -- it's the Valley of Tombs where you can't throw a rock without hitting a small dungeon, or the isle of Dread which is teeming with gnolls and dinosaurs and gnolls on dinosaurs. I am not sure how to translate it to a regular game other than to clearly indicate the level of threat posed by any area through which the PCs are travelling (not by telling them the CR of the area, but by giving them plenty of in world cues).

 

[Blue]

I tried to keep the mechanic invisible to the players to keep some level of immersion. I just told them that they "couldn't a take a long rest here, too dangerous". That is going to be my biggest challenge: balancing the milestone mechanic with the desire to let the PCs decide when to rest...

I go the other way - all the players are in the know and help keep the narrative going.

 

[Blue]

I mean, even if you don't prefer this style of play, it shouldn't be this incomprehensible. DM: You're in the Keep. The Caves of Chaos are rumored to be up the road to the northeast. There's a swamp over thataway rumored to be the domain of degenerate lizardmen. There's forested mountains to the north; they're teeming with brigands, so the locals say, and the bandits often raid along the road. What do you do?

And then you play freakin' D&D!

Sounds like the classic and time-honored sandbox campaign, where the DM sets a setting in motion (as opposed to a story) and then the character entirely chose their direction and what they are going to do. Comprehensible to me.

 

[Rhenny]

This post underscores the primary difficulty with travel and exploration in D&D. It is an issue I struggle a lot with because I run ongoing exploration based games at conventions (meaning each slot leads into the next but there is no ongoing story; it is a hexcrawl). The best solution I have found it to ensure that every hex has something in it worth finding (not necessarily a combat encounter) and encounter rolls happen often enough with enough of a chance to occur that most of the time PCs are not willing to go nova in case another encounter pops up. Now, I build the setting and gameplay to support this -- it's the Valley of Tombs where you can't throw a rock without hitting a small dungeon, or the isle of Dread which is teeming with gnolls and dinosaurs and gnolls on dinosaurs. I am not sure how to translate it to a regular game other than to clearly indicate the level of threat posed by any area through which the PCs are travelling (not by telling them the CR of the area, but by giving them plenty of in world cues).

Yes, I remember in the old days, the wilderness tables for encounters were always more deadly than the site based adventures. Unless you build in a bunch of quicker combats to simulate the journey and erode the PCs through multiple encounters, the threat and occasional encounter with some really deadly creatures may be inevitable.

Travel is one of those areas that seems so wide open that it allows for tons of interpretations and ways to play it. Some pick one or two really big fights. Some use a string of smaller encounters. Some use ability checks with hazards or some abstract way to deal damage and cause casters to cast spells. Some use a combination. Some just fast forward using a montage to get the PCs to the adventure location.

 

[Reynard]

Travel is one of those areas that seems so wide open that it allows for tons of interpretations and ways to play it. Some pick one or two really big fights. Some use a string of smaller encounters. Some use ability checks with hazards or some abstract way to deal damage and cause casters to cast spells. Some use a combination. Some just fast forward using a montage to get the PCs to the adventure location.

It is also worth noting that travel and exploration are different thibgs. In the latter case, the PCs are trying to get somewhere. They want to move quickly and encounter as little trouble as possible. In the former case, they are essentially looking for trouble. This should be reflected in the frequency of encounters, and probably the kind as well (i.e. a party hurrying toward their destination might get jumped by bandits but are unlikely to find that old barrow filled with treasure and unquiet spirits). It's n8ce when the PCs are in a position to choose which they want to do -- usually if they have a known goal but not a time limit. Then it becomes a choice between efficiency and uncertainty.

 

[Hussar]

This post underscores the primary difficulty with travel and exploration in D&D. It is an issue I struggle a lot with because I run ongoing exploration based games at conventions (meaning each slot leads into the next but there is no ongoing story; it is a hexcrawl). The best solution I have found it to ensure that every hex has something in it worth finding (not necessarily a combat encounter) and encounter rolls happen often enough with enough of a chance to occur that most of the time PCs are not willing to go nova in case another encounter pops up. Now, I build the setting and gameplay to support this -- it's the Valley of Tombs where you can't throw a rock without hitting a small dungeon, or the isle of Dread which is teeming with gnolls and dinosaurs and gnolls on dinosaurs. I am not sure how to translate it to a regular game other than to clearly indicate the level of threat posed by any area through which the PCs are travelling (not by telling them the CR of the area, but by giving them plenty of in world cues).

Well, even in areas which are more "civilised", I think you can still apply the concept I outlined above. Simply switch out different encounters as part of the overall event. But, the basic concept remains the same. You don't ever have just one "encounter", you always have events. Or, toss in the odd stand alone encounter just to let the party steam roll things once in a while. It's always good to let the players feel like big damn heroes once in a while.

I think the basic advice here is to always kind of keep an eye on an ongoing narrative. Random encounters shouldn't be discrete all the time. It's okay to let random encounters blend together. Even in a site based adventure, the advice still works. In most site based adventures, you have X number of locations (rooms in a dungeon for example) for the players to interact with. Instead, take about 10-20% of the encounters and move them out of their location and make them "on the move" instead. So, instead of 10 orcs in a guard room with some other room behind them, put five of those orcs in the hallway, going through a guard shift, and then have the other 5 (or maybe whatever number you feel is right) in the nearby room.

The key here is not to simply run the encounters into single encounters. That doesn't get the results you want. If you blend encounters into one, then Daily recharge characters get a big power boost. Take the above 5 and 5 orcs encounter. If you run the encounters separately, then the best the wizard can hope to do is hit 5 orcs with a single spell. Run it together, and potentially, that area spell gets twice as powerful because now she can hit 10 baddies with the same spell. Keep the encounters apart by a minute or two means that that wizard now has to burn two spells to get the same effect. It's all about designing to the capabilities of the PC's.

And, you can switch it up as well. Maybe the party goes into the guard room with the orcs and deals with those orcs. Five minutes later, the relief group of orc guards stumbles onto the party. This has the added benefit of making the site based adventure feel more "living" rather than static. You don't have to do this every time. Say, 1 encounter in 5. Just often enough that the party will start to feel the time pressure - if they ponce about in this encounter, maybe something will come and find them. It motivates the group to keep the pace up and makes the game much more exciting.