D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[Imaro]

But, and here's where the sidetrack started, @Imaro said there were no worldbuilding issues with going 3 deadly a day. In a great example of eating his own argument, he then proceeded to try to prove his point by saying that towns should be fortified, civilization has to be big enough to provide large enough armies and militias to defend itself, you should use lots of low CR monsters for higher level fights, and so on, all worldbuilding issues. I rather felt he defeated his own argument nicely. The whole argument was me challenging @Imaro's suggestion that 3 deadlies a day has no worldbuilding implications -- it's not my argument that you cannot ever use 3 deadlies a day as a pacing mechanism, and hasn't been from the start.

Ok let's have a quick reality check here... Your claim wasn't a general... It will have implications statement, with which I would have agreed, I mean it’s so broad who wouldn’t.

These are great points, but they don't consider the worldbuilding aspect this requires. If monsters come in deadly encounter units, why aren't they wreaking havoc on the non-adventurers? If the non-adventures can handle the deadly encounter units of monsters, why adventure? The solution set here works, mechanically, and does the job, but it requires me to stretch my game past where I am comfortable on the explaining why encounters are so deadly. Occasionally, yes, this works, but it doesn't work as a default, meaning that many times while trying to present a believable worlds it doesn't work out.

It was in fact the stated & specific issues, bolded above, that I disagreed were problems when worldbuilding and stated why I didn’t think they had to be...

1st question...Because in 5e a large enough number of non-adventurers will overcome a deadly encounter...

2nd question... Because non-adventurers would rather not die in large numbers, especially when there are more skilled individuals who will take the risk for a little coin...

Form there you proceeded to jump through more and more hoops to create worldbuilding problems around the two issues you stated, which I won’t requote here… going through convoluted examples that spiraled deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole of absurdity as opposed to admitting the specific problems you were calling out could be solved in numerous ways (many of which I and @OB1 suggested and even [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] with his shapeshifting dragon) and thus wasn’t a real problem created by worldbuilding or the use of the 3 deadly encounters.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok let's have a quick reality check here... Your claim wasn't a general... It will have implications statement, with which I would have agreed, I mean it’s so broad who wouldn’t.



It was in fact the stated & specific issues, bolded above, that I disagreed were problems when worldbuilding and stated why I didn’t think they had to be...



Form there you proceeded to jump through more and more hoops to create worldbuilding problems around the two issues you stated, which I won’t requote here… going through convoluted examples that spiraled deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole of absurdity as opposed to admitting the specific problems you were calling out could be solved in numerous ways (many of which I and @OB1 suggested and even [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] with his shapeshifting dragon) and thus wasn’t a real problem created by worldbuilding or the use of the 3 deadly encounters.

Dude, do you still not see that "enough non-adventures" is a worldbuilding issue?! That every one of you suggestions is modifying the structures if the world to accommodate 3 deadlines a day all the time? Step back from your arguments and look: you've been making my point all along.

 

[Imaro]

Dude, do you still not see that "enough non-adventures" is a worldbuilding issue?! That every one of you suggestions is modifying the structures if the world to accommodate 3 deadlines a day all the time? Step back from your arguments and look: you've been making my point all along.

If your point was that encounter balancing will affect worldbuilding... well I'd argue it's so broad and self-evident it really didn't need to be stated. Not just 3 deadly encounters but any balancing mechanism based on # of encounters per day will in some way affect worldbuilding. I thought your point was that it had to affect it in the specific way you claimed... which I don't agree with

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not just 3 deadly encounters but any balancing mechanism based on # of encounters per day will in some way affect worldbuilding.

OK then. So, if the system balances at a number of encounters per day that affects worldbuilding in an way you find undesirable, what do you do? Run an imbalanced campaign (at least it'll feel like it's 'really D&D'), or let the system dictate your world to you (who will know but you, really)?

 

[Imaro]

OK then. So, if the system balances at a number of encounters per day that affects worldbuilding in an way you find undesirable, what do you do? Run an imbalanced campaign (at least it'll feel like it's 'really D&D'), or let the system dictate your world to you (who will know but you, really)?

I guess I would try to use the tools to find a middle ground where balance is maintained and fidelity to my world is as well... sometimes I would use 2 or 3 deadly... other times 6-8 moderate to hard and so on, along with rest variants... depending on the specific situation (It's hard to give a general one-fix solution because all of our campaigns are going to be different)... but I would still try to keep the mechanics within the parameters of my world's verisimilitude for my players and I .

So if it's absurd to have a ton of Orcs in an area in my world and I want to maintain balance... no I don't create the 2 or 3 deadly encounters as a horde of Orcs ... Instead it's a pack of elite Orc trackers or Orogs... stronger, faster and more deadly than their normal brethren and charged with protecting the tribal lands from interlopers. However if I'm doing 6-8 encounters one or two of those may be with reg orc scouting parties. The same way if I need a deadly encounter in the city it may be a high level assasins guild, a mad wizard and his minions or something else that would fit the world. I guess ultimately with the tools at hand for 5e (monster building/modification rules, a wide variety of pre-made creatures, adventuring day XP, # of encounter breakdowns, etc.) I find it hard to fathom that one can't use these tools in various combinations to tailor an encounter that is both balanced and a part of the world as they want it to appear...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I guess I would try to use the tools to find a middle ground where balance is maintained and fidelity to my world is as well...

I'm sorry, the correct answer was: "neither - I'd change the system to fit my world."

 

[Ovinomancer]

I guess I would try to use the tools to find a middle ground where balance is maintained and fidelity to my world is as well... sometimes I would use 2 or 3 deadly... other times 6-8 moderate to hard and so on, along with rest variants... depending on the specific situation (It's hard to give a general one-fix solution because all of our campaigns are going to be different)... but I would still try to keep the mechanics within the parameters of my world's verisimilitude for my players and I .

So if it's absurd to have a ton of Orcs in an area in my world and I want to maintain balance... no I don't create the 2 or 3 deadly encounters as a horde of Orcs ... Instead it's a pack of elite Orc trackers or Orogs... stronger, faster and more deadly than their normal brethren and charged with protecting the tribal lands from interlopers. However if I'm doing 6-8 encounters one or two of those may be with reg orc scouting parties. The same way if I need a deadly encounter in the city it may be a high level assasins guild, a mad wizard and his minions or something else that would fit the world. I guess ultimately with the tools at hand for 5e (monster building/modification rules, a wide variety of pre-made creatures, adventuring day XP, # of encounter breakdowns, etc.) I find it hard to fathom that one can't use these tools in various combinations to tailor an encounter that is both balanced and a part of the world as they want it to appear...

Awesome, welcome to the point I was making in the post you've now quoted twice.

 

[Imaro]

Awesome, welcome to the point I was making in the post you've now quoted twice.

So then what's the issue? If I can modify the encounters (in a worldbuilding sense)... even balanced ones so that they fit in the world the way I want... what exactly is your issue? You claimed it would influence worldbuilding... I'm saying that with all the tools available it really doesn't have to unles you specifically let it. That is where we disagree and you seem to keep missing it.

EDIT: In other words unlike you I don't make the deadly encounter a horde of 50 orcs unless it fits the world otherwise I'll use another deadly encounter that does... in a city a single powerful necromancer with his disguised undead servants... on the road out of the city, an illithid and his thralls who sometimes kidnap and subvert those who they have a use for and are leaving the city... and so on. So again how is this affecting my worldbuilding unless I choose to let it? Having the tools to adjust the CR and even create new monsters means I don't have to compromise my world to get the encounter difficulty correct.

 

[Hussar]

Making rpg "toolboxes" seem like a great line of work to get into lol..... especially since apparently your fan base is gonna be filled with eternal apologists for any structural, logical, or balance flaw ("like OMG shoak1 - you do realize those terms are like soooooo subjective anyway, right LOL LOL?"), fans eager to fill any gaping hole in your design (or any elephant in the room) with their own sweat......fans who always put the word balance in quotation marks .

LOL Sacrosanct - I'm guessing if the designers didn't include CR ratings, that would be fine w/you too ("If you're concerned about such things shoak1, you can calculate them - it shows you how on p. xx, so what's the problem?!?!?"). Rpg dudes are funny. Heck, why not just sell a book with pictures of dragons on the cover with blank pages filled with guidelines of where to write, and market it as the "Ultimate Toolbox" lol ?!?!?!? ("Shoak1, stop always complaining - its just a toolbox....You do know you're supposed to buy your own tools right?? Every table is different so how could they possibly know what tools YOU need silly?!?!?!?")

But, he does have a point. At some point, you HAVE to take ownership of your own playstyle. Particularly when a given system doesn't really dovetail with your play style. It works that way, no matter what the game is. Try running 3e, for example, where you have 6-8 encounters per day. It really doesn't work very well. Well, it works, but, you're going to kill PC's a lot. And, after a few levels, the encounters need to be so weak that they become insignificant. 3e doesn't work very well if you want to run that style of game.

So, what do you do? Do you insist that 3e is broken and needs to be fixed? Do you adjust the system yourself (maybe insisting during chargen that only certain classes can be taken and then futz about with the healing rules), or do you adjust your play style?

Because that's the choices in front of you. The "elephant in the room" is 100% of your own creation. Not everyone is having this issue. They aren't having this issue because they aren't insisting on the system conforming to their chosen playstyle but rather they have adjusted their play style to the system.

Look, you can keep trying to pound round pegs into square holes all day long, but, at some point, you have to accept that this is YOUR PROBLEM.

/snip
Now [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s levelling the "World building is badwrongfun, guys, you shouldn't be even concerned about it 'cause D&D is, like, not for world building!" cannon. Seriously, WTF, over?

Sorry, no badwrongfun going on here. It's simply an acceptance of the system. D&D is not, nor has it ever been, a world building system. It just isn't. The amount of lamp shading you need to do in order to conform a world to the system looks like a solar eclipse. Making the argument that "Oh, this kind of encounter doesn't make sense because of world building considerations" has never, ever been a criteria in D&D. From the entire combat system, to Hit Points, to the magic system, to the economy, to the monsters, every single facet of the system is going to make your world building an exercise in futility.

Sure, walled towns make sense. But, then again, there's a plethora of flying monsters in D&D. Walls don't matter a whole lot when a tribe of gargoyles decides to wipe out your town. Good grief, a couple of Air Elementals would decimate a town. Never minding what a handful of Umber Hulks would do. A D&D world that actually tried to fit the system to the world would be a very, very bizarre place. It most certainly wouldn't be the Faux Europe that most campaigns are.

 

[Hussar]

OK then. So, if the system balances at a number of encounters per day that affects worldbuilding in an way you find undesirable, what do you do? Run an imbalanced campaign (at least it'll feel like it's 'really D&D'), or let the system dictate your world to you (who will know but you, really)?

Or, Option C, realize that system balances have NOTHING to do whatsoever with world building and that the system is designed to create ADVENTURES, not worlds, and not worry about it in the least.

I mean, good grief, it's pretty much part and parcel to the genre. The Ring Wraiths could obliterate Bree. Kill every last man, woman and child in every town they come to on their way to find the Hobbits. Without so much as breaking a sweat. So, why are there any living creatures left along their path? Well, genre conventions. Monsters fight the heroes and vice versa. We don't worry too much about the background, because, well, it's the background.

It's funny, you get TV shows like Hercules and Xena, where our heroes just happen to find monsters everywhere they go. But, surprisingly enough, people outside of those "adventure areas" live pretty much normal lives. And no one questions this. Lovecraftian horrors could destroy the world at any time they choose, but, shock and surprise, they never do.

Again, trying to use D&D as a world building system is an exercise in futility.