Getting to 6 encounters in a day

[mpwylie]

The real solution may be to admit how people like to play. If players consistently take long rests after 1-w encounters, then perhaps this is the baseline. This is how people play, how people want to play, and this is how the game should be balanced.

My players also like to have high stats, to do massive amounts of damage, and win too.....so I guess that should be the baseline and I should give them all 30 for their ability scores, make all weapons do 10d12 magic damage, and at the start of the encounter just have them roll and attack and say they won? My players like their attacks to all hit also so should that be the baseline and I just stop having them roll attacks and instead tell me how much damage they do?

Your players may enjoy blasting through encounters like gods for a short while but without the tension and challenge, their interest in the game will fade quickly. The players getting everything they want is not what makes the game fun.

 

[Oofta]

So you're incentivizing them to achieve goals. Forcing them to play characters who achieve goals. Or forcing their aimless characters to pursue goals which may go against their concept. You're withholding rewards unless they achieve goals.



I don't care if you like the mechanic or not, truly. My argument is not with your opinion, but with the specific objections you are providing which are easily addressed.

What bugs me is that nobody seems to be willing to state the obvious.

The only reason to use this house rule is that you want players to play more encounters between long rests without using reasons based on the story.

I think that's a lazy cop-out. That's all.

 

[iserith]

What bugs me is that nobody seems to be willing to state the obvious.

The only reason to use this house rule is that you want players to play more encounters between long rests without using reasons based on the story.

I think that's a lazy cop-out. That's all.

Watch how this works:

Blood Makes the Razorvine Grow
In this Blood War mercenary campaign, you gain +5% bonus XP, cumulatively, for every combat challenge overcome after the fifth combat in a single adventuring day. The crucible of battle in this endless conflict forges warriors into weapons of unimaginable ferocity. Fight makes Might! Shed their blood!

There's your story-based reason tied to the mechanic. I can come up with these sorts of things so easily. I assume you're good with it now?

 

[Oofta]

Watch how this works:

Blood Makes the Razorvine Grow
In this Blood War mercenary campaign, you gain +5% bonus XP, cumulatively, for every combat challenge overcome after the fifth combat in a single adventuring day. The crucible of battle in this endless conflict forges warriors into weapons of unimaginable ferocity. Fight makes Might! Shed their blood!

There's your story-based reason tied to the mechanic. I can come up with these sorts of things so easily. I assume you're good with it now?

If you have a story based reason, then you don't need the house rule. The OP was quite clear: the reason to use this house rule is that the DM wants players to play more encounters between long rests.

Matt Colville posted on YouTube that he is working on house rules to help get past the "5 minute adventuring day" and to address what seems to be a fairly common occurrence being that games tend to have only one or two encounters before a long rest. I'd link but I don't know how.

His solution is to build in to his house rules benefits that accumulate only at the 3rd + encounter...

One caveat, I'm going by what the OP posted. I tried listening to the youtube post, but I just can't do it and gave up after 8 minutes of his rambling.

 

[ad_hoc]

What bugs me is that nobody seems to be willing to state the obvious.

The only reason to use this house rule is that you want players to play more encounters between long rests without using reasons based on the story.

I think that's a lazy cop-out. That's all.

I did!

I think it is more that people who will comment on the
Is thread are the ones who take issue with the design. Vocal minority.

 

[Oofta]

I did!

I think it is more that people who will comment on the
Is thread are the ones who take issue with the design. Vocal minority.

Yeah, sorry I didn't give credit where it's due.

There are times when I continue to post simply because people are so dismissive. If you think this is a good idea, great! I hope your players like it because personally I would find it annoying. Everyone has their pet peeves.

But saying that I'm not playing the game right or that I've "been proven wrong" if I don't agree this is a good idea is annoying.

Whether we're in the minority or not ... I dunno and don't really care. You could take a poll I suppose, but there are a lot of people on Reddit who disagree with Colville as well.

 

[iserith]

If you have a story based reason, then you don't need the house rule. The OP was quite clear: the reason to use this house rule is that the DM wants players to play more encounters between long rests.

You can have both a story-reason and a game-reason for it. Just like how you incentivize players and therefore their characters to achieve goals via whatever means of character advancement you use. The goals are tied to your story, presumably. You're literally doing the same thing, but somehow, you think the proposed mechanic is a "lazy cop-out."

Please explain this apparent contradiction. And remember, I'm not attacking how you choose to play or even the fact that you just don't like, at some gut-reaction level, the bonus-XP-for-more-fights mechanic. I am only addressing what look like post-hoc justifications for your opinion that don't seem to hold water.

 

[shadowoflameth]

It varies in my game. They usually have the freedom to move around in the world and decide where when to try to rest but You don't have to make it possible every time. I'm not saying attack them in the middle of the night in their skivvies every game but make it a possibility occasionally. Then they won't be too cavalier about assuming they can rest anywhere.

 

[Satyrn]

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

I actually shake my head at the fact it's become real world - well, corporate world slang.

 

[Oofta]

You can have both a story-reason and a game-reason for it. Just like how you incentivize players and therefore their characters to achieve goals via whatever means of character advancement you use. The goals are tied to your story, presumably. You're literally doing the same thing, but somehow, you think the proposed mechanic is a "lazy cop-out."

Please explain this apparent contradiction. And remember, I'm not attacking how you choose to play or even the fact that you just don't like, at some gut-reaction level, the bonus-XP-for-more-fights mechanic. I am only addressing what look like post-hoc justifications for your opinion that don't seem to hold water.

There's no contradiction. I don't like the rule, and I don't think it's necessary. But thanks for dismissing my opinion and calling me a liar.