Asisreo
Patron Badass
When it comes to "doom clocks," they usually make much more narrative sense in the majority of scenarios anyways.I will say to Flamestrike's point.... considering the benefits of the doom clock both to interesting play and mechanical balance, can we as DMs incorporate them more readily in our narratives?
My knee jerk reaction, already presented is.... "lots of my game are not doom clock compatible".
But that is an assumption....and the question becomes, considering the benefits, is it worth it to me as a DM to rethink my narrative a bit, and try to incorporate doom clocks as a stronger narrative construct, to really make an earnest effort to put them in...and then see how well I can get them to fit my narrative.
Probably the simplest example would be the long journey notion. I've already mentioned that narrative issues with having lots of encounters over the journey....and I stick by those.
However, an alternative would be to have the wilderness encounter on the last day of the journey, just as the parties are getting into XYZ location to do the thing. Assuming a time pressure is already set, than this last encounter would add to the stakes, as the players don't have the luxury of a full rest. So now I can add this to the encounters per day, even if it is just a "random wilderness encounter".
The only time no doom clocks make sense is if the target is simply waiting for the arrival of the party, specifically. Any sort of plots or plans must be carried out eventually so having the antagonist willing to actively engage with anything means a doom clock begins.
Its possible to set up an adventure where the target does nothing, but it would feel like there were hardly any stakes anyways. I mean, why kill "Evil Overlord" if his plans for all eternity was to just do quiet research?