D&D 5E How do you use cities in your campaigns?

[doctorbadwolf]

One issue in 5E is the rest economy. If a party is getting into 6-8 violent encounters in a single day then they're either going to be thrown into a dungeon, asked to leave, or the whole city is about to descend into civil war.

(Of course, if you're running an urban campaign, you do need to be prepared for the likelihood of all three of those eventualities, anyway.)

But if I was running a primarily urban game in 5E, I'd probably look at making long rests at least several days. (Given how urban adventures often go - I might even rename a long rest as "laying low".)

I’ve never seen more than 4 violent encounters in an adventuring day in any dnd game, in 25 or so years, to be fair.

 

[Don Durito]

I’ve never seen more than 4 violent encounters in an adventuring day in any dnd game, in 25 or so years, to be fair.

I've seen it precisely once. About a month ago, when we specifically did an extended dungeon crawl session (something we pretty much don't do) to see how it went and discovered that 5E really does work much better that way (it took 3 weeks to play out one day in game). My Fighter went from feeling completely overshadowed by the Paladin and spellcasters to probably the most valuable player.

I resolved at that point not to ignore the recommended spacing in future.

However, I still have the old 3.5 Thieves World variant - and that's largely my preferred variant of D&D for a specifically urban centred scum and scoundrels type of game. I think all those extra skills actually help add a lot of character to an urban game, and the game has variant classes and restrictions on magic that make for a better fit for lower level urban gaming.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've seen it precisely once. About a month ago, when we specifically did an extended dungeon crawl session (something we pretty much don't do) to see how it went and discovered that 5E really does work much better that way (it took 3 weeks to play out one day in game). My Fighter went from feeling completely overshadowed by the Paladin and spellcasters to probably the most valuable player.

I resolved at that point not to ignore the recommended spacing in future.

However, I still have the old 3.5 Thieves World variant - and that's largely my preferred variant of D&D for a specifically urban centred scum and scoundrels type of game. I think all those extra skills actually help add a lot of character to an urban game, and the game has variant classes and restrictions on magic that make for a better fit for lower level urban gaming.

See there it is again, the thing I don’t get. I’m all for adding skills and using skill challenges and porting in gameplay and story devices from other games and media, but I just can’t figure out what it is about urban adventures that is harder to do in dnd, outside of like, the Ranger’s overboard focus on the wilderness and travel.

Idk, every example I see of a change to the game seems like it’s about soemthing other than the adventure being set in a city. Like, restrict magic if you want low level gritty adventure, absolutely. Use variant classes to change the flavor of the game, for sure. Those are great tools for...genuinely any type of adventure setting, from deserts to swamps to cities to wookie style cities in treetops to pseudo-Polynesian widespread island chains.

As for the default pacing, the idea of taking several sessions to chew through 6+ fights just...sounds like bad dnd, to me. I’d rather not play dnd than do that. I’d rather upgrade the fighter’s utility and versatility than either.

 

[Don Durito]

As for the default pacing, the idea of taking several sessions to chew through 6+ fights just...sounds like bad dnd, to me. I’d rather not play dnd than do that. I’d rather upgrade the fighter’s utility and versatility than either.

Well it took several sessions because we were doing things other than fighting. It sounds like you're assuming that the whole thing was back to back combat...which would be...odd. It's just that three sessions went by before there was a long rest.

It's definitely preferable to having six combats in a single session.

Another thing that may cause issues if you're big on verimsimitude is the fact that characters' effectiveness depends highly on their gear (eg. low dex characters are wedded to their armour), which they probably shouldn't be free to go around with everywhere in an urban environment - but you can mostly handwave this (and probably should).

 

[cmad1977]

I run cities much like any dungeon really.

 

[Bitbrain]

Reply to OP.

As places where the PCs can rest, interact with large numbers of NPCs, obtain quests, throw massive parties, get in trouble with the law, have single-session urban adventures in between missions where they go out into the wild, and so forth.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well it took several sessions because we were doing things other than fighting. It sounds like you're assuming that the whole thing was back to back combat...which would be...odd. It's just that three sessions went by before there was a long rest.

It's definitely preferable to having six combats in a single session.

Another thing that may cause issues if you're big on verimsimitude is the fact that characters' effectiveness depends highly on their gear (eg. low dex characters are wedded to their armour), which they probably shouldn't be free to go around with everywhere in an urban environment - but you can mostly handwave this (and probably should).

okay, fair enough. I just can’t imagine ever seriously trying to force situations where they cannot rest until they hit 6 fights.

I find that 5e runs just fine with 1-3 encounters in a day, but I get that everyone has different experiences.

it’s mostly the city thing that confuses me. For instance, I can easily imagine how to force 6 fights into a day in a city. Not consistently without the world going weird, but I can certainly imagine urban adventures where it happens several times in an adventure.

I just...wouldn’t want to, whether in a city or wilderness.

 

[aco175]

A big city like Waterdeep should have many more encounters being non-combat rather than everything ending up in combat. The players have opportunity to think more flexible and use the city as well as the DM. Fighting in Waterdeep should draw the watch regardless of whom starts it. If a fight is brewing the players can get aid or call for bystanders to call if they have not already.

It is easy to want to break up the night with a fight and rolling dice. I tend to use sewers and back alleys with thugs and such. I have even used a secret dungeon entrance as a place that the watch patrols and the PCs needed to sneak past them to get into the dungeon.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Towns and cities can have the effect of bogging down gameplay in mundane concerns that don't support the vision of the game as bold adventurers confronting deadly perils. Cue the shopping scenes, hanging out in taverns posturing among other PCs, and the endless interviewing of cagey, quirky NPCs.

So I'm very careful that I keep the action in a city-based adventure pretty tight and short-lived so that we don't fall into the trap of playing out the fantasy equivalent of running errands with a spouse on a weekend. There's enough of that drudgery in real life. I don't need it in my fantasy game.

Typically I use towns and cities as a safe haven for rest and resupply before the adventurers get back out to adventure in the vast wilderness filled with forgotten places. It's rare that I run a city adventure. If I do, it's because the campaign involves an iconic city like Sigil in Planescape or Sharn in Eberron. But that's about it. All other towns and cities are a means to an end.

My group actually enjoys that sort of thing (well, not shopping drudgery). We've spent large parts of sessions basically hanging out with NPCs with no immediate adventuring context. In Waterdeep, the party made friends with a scholarly young Cormyrian from a noble family with a pet Tressym, got a temp job as Volo's bodyguard while he explored town for his upcoming "Volo's Guide to Waterdeep" book, had aesthetically customized gear made, and tried out the food and atmosphere at a variety of inns and taverns before settling down for more long term accommodation. In Sigil they made friends with a girl band and sold memories to the sensoriums in the Civic Festhall (while the bard joined the Sensates). In the latter case, I used the bard's faction membership to give him a quest-giver for an adventure, but so far in Waterdeep, nothing on that list except their eventually lodging has led to any adventuring.

It's funny, because even though I love that sort of exploratory role-playing, I'm possibly the participant most likely to want more combat encounters (since, I'm DM, I can drop some in, but I get the feeling too many combat encounters can bore my group).

What this is helping me realize though, is that I don't like it when games tell you what they are supposed to be "about". "This is a game about cinematic action-packed adventure!" Why? That's the same annoyance of the old World of Darkness games that told you how you were supposed to play them, but nobody played them that way because the setting invited other interesting styles that people preferred. Why not just "This game's task resolution system is designed to support cinematic action"? Then players have valuable information about how task resolution will work, but can play the game however they want. This isn't immediately relevant, since D&D leaves it very open, but it just got me thinking.

Not that I have any problems with your style, I just find it interesting to see the different perspectives on role-playing out non-adventuring.

 

[iserith]

It's funny, because even though I love that sort of exploratory role-playing, I'm possibly the participant most likely to want more combat encounters (since, I'm DM, I can drop some in, but I get the feeling too many combat encounters can bore my group).

It's not that I'm even jonesing for combat encounters. I just want meaningful stakes in the scenes on which we're spending our valuable time. Running errands of the sort that I referenced in my initial posts just aren't those.

What this is helping me realize though, is that I don't like it when games tell you what they are supposed to be "about". "This is a game about cinematic action-packed adventure!" Why? That's the same annoyance of the old World of Darkness games that told you how you were supposed to play them, but nobody played them that way because the setting invited other interesting styles that people preferred. Why not just "This game's task resolution system is designed to support cinematic action"? Then players have valuable information about how task resolution will work, but can play the game however they want. This isn't immediately relevant, since D&D leaves it very open, but it just got me thinking.

There are probably better systems out there for playing out other scenarios. Right tool for the right job and all that. I do what it says to do on the tin and it seems to work great.