CapnZapp
Legend
Not every single day.So I've seen a couple of posts about this recently, and while I get the idea that from a game design standpoint it makes sense to be able to design dungeons, whether published or home-brewed using the rules, it just hasn't ever been important to my games.
Ultimately, I think that this guideline assumes, and it seems to be a driving force for much of the DMs and players in this thread, is that they PCs should feel the threat of potential death, and that they should be running out of resources at the end of the day.
Why should every single day tax the PCs to the max? That doesn't make sense to me. Go to the classic source material - Tolkien, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, or whatever. Those life-and-death situations are there, but not all the time. Even in war there are usually days, if not even weeks, between major battles. A small group in enemy territory might see action more frequently, but I think that's more the exception than the rule, and it's certainly not the case every day for years on end. Much of the time the threat is not being discovered, or caught, rather than the threat of death.
Part of the issue I have is the believability of the party being at full capabilities at the start of each day, then nearly dead at the end, ready to get up the next like nothing happened. Part of it may be that I've been doing this for so long, and the original design was based more on the concept of the entire adventure lasting as long as it could before the party resources were exhausted. In early games, it used to be that the PCs would go into a dungeon, and go as deep as they could before they had to return to resupply. It could be hours, it could be days, or even weeks if they brought along pack animals and/or hirelings. Success was measured by returning alive, but it wasn't a question as to whether they faced certain death by the end of each session. Success was measured by returning with more of the loot, and how much they were able to explore before running low on resources.
Another part of the issue is that if the measure of success is "not dying this session", then everybody eventually dies, because at some point everybody will fail. Sure, not dying is part of the goal, but that is normal. Given choices, people will rarely enter a situation that's kill or be killed. Intelligent creatures run away or surrender. People fight to the death only when there is something worth dying for. If the measure for a successful session is focused on whether or not they died, it just sounds to me that you're missing a huge part of what makes the game interesting and different than anything else. If you're exploring a dungeon where you know monsters live, and that they will eat you if they catch you, then you'd do your best to remain undetected as much as possible, and try to set up any combats to be as much in your favor as possible.
That's not to say that death isn't a possibility. The players certainly do worry whether they might die or not. And every combat they enter into they worry if it would be that one. But they also go to great lengths to make sure that they have the upper hand if possible, and avoid combat where they can. So they certainly don't feel that were close to death at the end of every session. Just the dread and possibility when a combat does arise.
5e actually helps increase the danger they feel in combat. It's fast, often swingy, and deadly quick. In town encounters are usually more brawls and non-lethal attacks because they don't want to end up arrested for drawing a blade. My players focus a lot on finding ways to incapacitate their enemies, in part because it makes good tactical sense, but also because they aren't evil murderers. If they can bring somebody to justice, they do, even when it's inconvenient, because that's the right thing to do.
Also, I don't build adventures/encounters based on the level of the party. Some encounters are just not winnable, at least not by combat. Their best bet is to not get caught, but if they do, then the goal is escape, not to successfully kill the creature.
Again, the source materials are full of situations like this. Bilbo never stood a chance against Smaug in combat - the whole point was to avoid encountering Smaug at all. Luke, Han, Obi-wan and Chewie had no intention of meeting anybody, much less Darth Vader, on the death star. They simply wanted to rescue Leia and get out of there. Nobody in the Fellowship wanted to confront Sauron directly, it was all about destroying the item that gave him his power before he could find them.
The problem is, most players assume that if there's a monster, it's to be killed. Combat is the default option, and this is perpetuated by the concept of balance and the proper number of encounters per day, and the level of the encounters, and such. It's all designed around the concept that the primary purpose of the game is to attack everything you come across.
One of the things I always remember that is taught to people learning to fight in the real world is that there is always somebody better than you. You don't know who that is, but they are out there. If everything is as organized as the game design would have you think, then why would PCs ever go someplace where things were optimized for their level? I'd always go someplace that was optimized for 2 or 3 levels lower than me. Sure, it would take longer to get all the treasure, but I'd get it eventually. Because it's a game. At least if the purpose is solely killing monsters and collecting treasure. Or, since they fight nearly to the death every day, but survive, they would all be overconfident. Look how well that went for Oberyn Martell in Game of Thrones.
And I guess that's why it's different for me/us. Combat isn't the focus of the game. Combat is a means to an end, a necessary evil when it occurs. Sure, evil people and creatures abound, and must be dealt with. Combat is a much more common occurrence than in our world. But we often go sessions between combats (although they might get close in some of those), and there are other mortal dangers besides just combat.
But the game isn't about combat, it's about telling the story of these characters, the world, and their place within it. They start off young, and hopefully grow to an old age. Some of that naturally involves combat. But it's not the focus. At least for us. So the number of "encounters" per day, combat or otherwise, and the amount of resources used during a given session are irrelevant. A common thread among many of the great epics is that it's about the journey. There's a great quest, such as recovering the lost ark, or reclaiming the dwarves' home from Smaug. But the story is about the journey, how Bilbo grows from a simple hobbit who doesn't go on adventures, to one who can't just stay at home anymore.
Ilbranteloth
But on the days you DO want to tax the adventurers it becomes important to know their limits.
The other days you can handle however you want. No guidelines are needed.
