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

[Tony Vargas]

A lone assassin in a town can be a deadly encounter and yet it has little to no implications (beyond the basic ones of a fantasy world) in your worldbuilding so use that instead of the Dire Wolves.

A lone assassin? OK. A very sensible city encounter. The party has made an enemy, the enemy send someone to deal with them...
...Then do it at least twice more before the party can sleep that night to provide a suitable challenge?

I've asked the same question. The only possible answer I've been able to glean is that some people feel that in every day they are in any way active... PC's must have an adventuring days worth of encounters...

'Must have 6-8 encounters every single calendar day' is nonsense, and would lead to parties going from 1st-20th in about a calendar month.

I think the bar is simply any given day that they do have one encounter, you need to provide some more to fill it out, or it's a "5MWD." Such days would presumably be sprinkled among down-time and un-eventful days. It's a constraint on encounter/adventure/campaign design, unless you change of finesse the rules to fit the guideline to campaign, instead of change/finesse the campaign to fit the guideline.

But you wouldn't have ANY encounters in a safe area... that's the thing. It's a safe area.... easy, hard, moderate none would be there in a safe area.

You could quite plausibly have one encounter with a lone assassin sent to kill you, no matter how safe the area. That encounter would break the guidelines, providing a 5MWD. It wouldn't exactly make a lot of sense for the enemy with resources to send many assassins against you to spread them out to provide a challenge, rather than overwhelm and destroy the party all at once.

(But, /anything/ can be rationalized: for instance, the enemy in question puts out a 'hit' on the party, a bounty on their heads if killed within 24 hrs, say - and various dis-organized would-be assassins take stabs(npi) at collecting said bounty, some individually, then seeing that failure, the remainder, perhaps, as a hastily-assembled team...
...hey, look, it's time pressure again, this time on the other side!)

Can you provide examples from the game you're currently running?

Why would it matter? Clearly, if you're willing to subordinate your world to the needs of the guidelines, by always having 6-8 (or 3-18, though the extremes will have lesser issues of their own) encounters on days that you have any encounters at all, you can do so.

Just seems to me like something very odd to do....make rolls to determine something where no one will be impacted directly by the randomness of the roll.

It is odd if you stop and think about it, but hardly un-heard-of. It creates a sense of consistency, if only for the DM. You can re-enforce to yourself that you're being 'impartial' and running a 'real world,' by letting the dice decide things, even things that don't 'directly' matter to the PCs, but may indirectly matter to them via the shaping of the campaign world, I suppose.

On the WotC boards (and I think here), in the brief 4e era, the practice of having monsters or NPCs roll off-screen or when fighting eachother was dubbed 'monsterbating.' The pointlessness of the activity becomes clear when the system uses different stats and assumptions for monsters/NPCs than for PCs - it reminds you that the game is about your players, not your world. (Of course, an Empowered DM can make the game about the campaign, not the players - sometimes called 'setting tourism').

So, aren't 3 deadly encounters the equivalent of 18 easy encounters?

In theory. In practice they'll have a different impact on the party (class balance & encounter difficulty) and paint a different picture of the campaign.

In 3 deadly encounters, for instance, a barbarian with 3/rages per day is going to be a star performer, being at peak performance in all three, and with peak performance being desperately needed from everyone because the encounters are individually quite dangerous. In the 18-easy-encounter day, it'll hardly seem worth it to rage in any of those encounters, and the barbarian's performance won't stand out. Assuming the slow attrition of those 18 encounters adds up, he might rage the last three, say.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Now...I admit that I don't really bother with XP budgets and all that stuff. So perhaps I am mistaken here....but isn't the encounters per day a range? Like 3 to 18, depending on the severity?

So, aren't 3 deadly encounters the equivalent of 18 easy encounters?

So, if a Farmer goes from Daggerford to Waterdeep, isn't it just as dangerous for him to run into 18 individual wolves as it is to run into 3 dragons? Mechanically speaking, I mean.

Now, do we judge the difficulty of encounters on their own? Or are they judged when considering the ability of the individual(s) that are having the encounter? I think we all can agree that it's the latter rather than the former.

Which means, from the Farmer's standpoint, the road to Waterdeep seems like the deadliest thing ever....there are 18 deadly encounters every time he goes to sell some crops!!!!

That does sound like an impact to worldbuilding, yes. Thank you for pointing out that exclusively using 18 easy encounters a day can also have an impact.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It is odd if you stop and think about it, but hardly un-heard-of. It creates a sense of consistency, if only for the DM. You can re-enforce to yourself that you're being 'impartial' and running a 'real world,' by letting the dice decide things, even things that don't 'directly' matter to the PCs, but may indirectly matter to them via the shaping of the campaign world, I suppose.

Perhaps. I suppose I don't quite understand the need to be impartial in all ways while DMing. As a referee making a judgment on the rules? Sure. As a storyteller deciding what the weather's like, or what happened to the Duke when he went hunting? Ugh.

On the WotC boards (and I think here), in the brief 4e era, the practice of having monsters or NPCs roll off-screen or when fighting eachother was dubbed 'monsterbating.' The pointlessness of the activity becomes clear when the system uses different stats and assumptions for monsters/NPCs than for PCs - it reminds you that the game is about your players, not your world. (Of course, an Empowered DM can make the game about the campaign, not the players - sometimes called 'setting tourism').

Yeah, I think so....the PCs are the stars and the game doesn't happen without them. The DM can sit by himself and simulate all manner of scenarios on his own....but it all doesn't mean much if there aren't other players taking part.

In theory. In practice they'll have a different impact on the party (class balance & encounter difficulty) and paint a different picture of the campaign.

In 3 deadly encounters, for instance, a barbarian with 3/rages per day is going to be a star performer, being at peak performance in all three, and with peak performance being desperately needed from everyone because the encounters are individually quite dangerous. In the 18-easy-encounter day, it'll hardly seem worth it to rage in any of those encounters, and the barbarian's performance won't stand out. Assuming the slow attrition of those 18 encounters adds up, he might rage the last three, say.

Sure, I get that....makes sense. But as far as "balancing" the adventure day, it seems that 18 easy encounters are the same as 3 deadly. Does that mean that they have the same impact on world building? If an area is absolutely overrun with Stirges, it's as dangerous mechanically as running into three deadly creatures.

It's absurd.

That does sound like an impact to worldbuilding, yes. Thank you for pointing out that exclusively using 18 easy encounters a day can also have an impact.

Well my point was that the mechanics don't lend themselves to sensible world-building at all times. They don't serve, in my opinion, as a good starting point for world-building.

 

[Imaro]

That does sound like an impact to worldbuilding, yes. Thank you for pointing out that exclusively using 18 easy encounters a day can also have an impact.

I think he's saying any amount of the necessary encounters... even mixing the difficulties up... in the same area creates the same danger mechanically (either spread out or in short bursts)... In essence I think he's saying for the common man it appears dangerous irregardless of the mixture of encounters used... if one is following the guidelines.

EDIT: Which is kind of my point, it's more about the presentation of the encounters than the actual deadliness and number when it comes to whether or not it impacts worldbuilding.

EDIT 2: Which also goes back to my point about a D&D world by necessity having a certain danger level in order to support all the adventurers running around needing XP to level up...especially if NPC's and PC's must have the same experiences and some of those NPC's are adventurers.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What? If your desire is to have more than 3 encounters a day... well obviously only 3 a day won't work... pretty self evident... but that in and of itself has nothing to do with worldbuilding and everything to do with how you want to structure your encounters, in other words using 3 deadly a day doesn't work for you at an encounter level (because it's not enough encounters) not at a worldbuilding level. I could easily accommodate either one in the same world without it impacting the word if I want to. Why you ask... because I take into account my world when building encounters... like everyone does... in the same way I don't put a Roc at the bottom of the ocean. Are you saying you don't take your workd into consideration when creating your encounters?

I have no idea where you got the idea I was talking about having more than three encounters a day. Like, no idea. Nothing I said in what you quoted even gets close to talking about more than 3 encounters a day. This is just weird.

And, of course I take my world into consideration -- that's exactly what I'm talking about. 3 deadly encounters a day any time I have any encounters has knock on effects to worldbuilding. Nothing in that says that I build encounters completely randomly and then say 'see, completely random encounters don't work with worldbuilding and the problem is because it's 3 deadly randomly built encounters a day!' That's another of your strawmen -- that somehow those arguing the other side are saying things that mean we're talking about putting Rocs on the ocean floor.

I am not following this at all... why can't you have a deadly encounter in the safe area... you've got an entire adventuring day to space them out... so yeah one in a "pretty safe" area would be fine. Or are you saying the PC's only ever adventure in these pretty safe areas so now all of the encounters would have to take place in pretty safe land? Now that seems oddly contrived to prove your point... but even in pretty safe land if there's enough distance it's not unreasonable for some deadly things to be lurking about.

Three. Three deadly encounters in a safe area. The entire focus of this discussion is that if you have 1 encounter, you have to have 2 more, and all of them are deadly. So, your safe area has to have three encounters in pretty rapid succession every time you have any encounters. The net effect is that areas become 'safe' areas due to being unable to support deadly encounters at that pace as the players level. Or you're introducing new worldbuilding aspects to explain the new danger levels.

So, yeah, you can have a 'safe' area, and then, later at higher levels, have an invasion or incursion of some kind to change the background danger level of the area to support new deadly encounters for a time, but that's right back to worldbuilding.

Also the question was never whether you could or couldn't use different difficulties and encounters to vary the players experience it was whether 3 deadly encounters a day impacted worldbuilding. You keep going off on tangents that don't really matter to the main crux... is it possible to have 3 deadly encounters an adventuring day without impacting world building... yes, it is.

No, it was always using 3 deadlies a day exclusively. I clarified that multiple times over our discussion. Go back and look.

Ok so now that I completed your proposed exercises in encounter building... We've moved to the point where I need to write up an entire campaign in this thread to prove my point. This is getting ridiculous. You're the one claiming it can't be done... I've yet to see you present anything to back up that assertion while I have provided you with the examples of your own creation showing how it can be done.

Um, no. There were criticisms consistent with my position for every one of those, so you can't just claim fait accompli because you responded to your own satisfaction. If you cannot extrapolate a bit what the impact of multiple such days as you provided might be, that's not my failing, nor is it me calling for you to build an entire campaign world. Strangely, I've already offered to hear such examples from your current campaign world, which is presumably already built.

As to your last statement... I'm not sure what you mean by outleveling it. I've never said this. Nothing becomes completely pacified through inaction because I as DM can adjust CR, #appearing and so on. I stated this earlier.

This is bizarre. Are you saying that an area that threatened 1st level characters can successfully threaten 10th level ones just by changing the CR, #appearing, and so on of the threats that your worldbuilding allowed at level 1? How does that work? Where were these advanced threats back at level 1? Where are the level 1 threats at level 10?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Sorry, but, no. Correlation does not equal causation and all that. Just because PC's have dangerous encounters everywhere they go does not mean, in any way that dangerous encounters are everywhere.

After all, everywhere a fireman goes there's a fire. That doesn't mean that there are fires everywhere. Same with police officers. Funnily enough, police officers find crimes pretty much everywhere they go. However, that doesn't mean that crimes are committed everywhere.

Ahh, but it is true wherever Angela Lansbury goes. No matter where she went on vacation, there was a murder...

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well my point was that the mechanics don't lend themselves to sensible world-building at all times. They don't serve, in my opinion, as a good starting point for world-building.

As a good starting point? No one's saying so, so yes. A good starting point for worldbuiliding is a concept or theme. Mechanical issues will impact that and need to be considered, though. There are a number of campaign/world ideas that I've round binned because they just do not work with D&D mechanics.

I think he's saying any amount of the necessary encounters... even mixing the difficulties up... in the same area creates the same danger mechanically (either spread out or in short bursts)... In essence I think he's saying for the common man it appears dangerous irregardless of the mixture of encounters used... if one is following the guidelines.

EDIT: Which is kind of my point, it's more about the presentation of the encounters than the actual deadliness and number when it comes to whether or not it impacts worldbuilding.

You're actually headed back in my direction, once again. Any dogmatic adherence to a pacing mechanism has implications for the world it's set it -- whether you pick 3 deadlies or 18 easys or whatever inbetween, if you're fixed on meeting that required goal for pacing it will impact your world. If you vary pacing methods, including ignoring them altogether some days and just doing what works, you end up with a better narrative that doesn't impact worldbuilding as hard. If you're being exclusive, this introduces pain points, and whether you do the work ahead to build a world that accommodates (your plan) or have to do legwork or handwaiving to make an existing setting work, it's still there.

The best approach is to use what works when it works, as I said waaaay back up at the beginning of this detour. Any dogmatic approach has failure points.

 

[LordEntrails]

Ahh, but it is true wherever Angela Lansbury goes. No matter where she went on vacation, there was a murder...

So if we killed her, we would be saving countless individuals from needlessly being murdered...
Makes sense

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Sorry, but, no. Correlation does not equal causation and all that. Just because PC's have dangerous encounters everywhere they go does not mean, in any way that dangerous encounters are everywhere.

After all, everywhere a fireman goes there's a fire. That doesn't mean that there are fires everywhere. Same with police officers. Funnily enough, police officers find crimes pretty much everywhere they go. However, that doesn't mean that crimes are committed everywhere.

Encounters are how you build campaigns. Not worlds. Your encounters will be informed by your world building, but, the reverse is not true.

Back a few pages ago, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] mentioned a group of 100 soldiers wandering down a road and meeting something that disagreed with them and only 17 survived to return. Yet, at no point, were any mechanics actually used. I'm going to bet dollars to donuts that he never rolled a single random encounter, never rolled any combat mechanics, never actually engaged the game in any way, shape or form.

Yet, I'll double down and bet even more dollars to donuts, that if the PC's walk down that EXACT same road, random encounters will be rolled and every encounter, random or otherwise, will be played out using the mechanics.

Mechanics DO NOT APPLY to the world. End of story. Even [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] who claims to use random encounters and mechanics when PC's aren't present only does so arbitrarily. He (or she, appologies) won't use them for every single NPC in his entire world. Not even for a tiny fraction of NPC's. And, I'll bet that not a single classed or leveled NPC has been created using actual encounter mechanics.

The argument is ludicrous on its face. Game mechanics might inspire world building. And world building will certainly impact encounter creation, but, there is no evidence whatsoever that the reverse is true.

'Tis true, I don't have time to do that for all of the NPCs. Nor would I (I'm a he). want to.

My point, though, is that the rules can be applied, and in some cases I even do so. What's important to me is that there is consistency regarding how the rules are applied. That doesn't mean that I have to roll random encounters for each NPCs entire life (actually, I don't do that many random encounters for the PCs either, I'm pretty arbitrary about that too). It's just that the results (the NPC) should be possible through the use of the rules, random or otherwise.

As far as a classed or leveled PC, they actually have. Simply because I tweak the rules a lot, and I playtest them, usually by myself, and usually using (more) random encounters than I'd throw the PCs, unless I'm testing specific scenario ideas. The playtest characters become NPCs. Also, a lot of the NPCs in the campaign are former PCs too, that went through the normal PC route.

My whole point in this discussion is that the idea that PCs have an unusual number of encounters, or that it's not consistent with the number or types of encounters that others in the campaign world (NPCs, etc.), I'd say, no. I work hard to maintain a level of consistency and believability within the world itself. It's one of the things that bugs me in movies and other mediums, actually. Including RPGs, with the constant addition of new intelligent races that haven't existed in my campaign for hundreds of thousands of years, but they are expected to be accepted without raising an eyebrow.

 

[Imaro]

I have no idea where you got the idea I was talking about having more than three encounters a day. Like, no idea. Nothing I said in what you quoted even gets close to talking about more than 3 encounters a day. This is just weird.

So you weren't speaking to mixing up the encounter difficulty and numbers as somehow avoiding or alleviating the impact for worldbuilding?? If not I misunderstood what you were getting at.

And, of course I take my world into consideration -- that's exactly what I'm talking about. 3 deadly encounters a day any time I have any encounters has knock on effects to worldbuilding. Nothing in that says that I build encounters completely randomly and then say 'see, completely random encounters don't work with worldbuilding and the problem is because it's 3 deadly randomly built encounters a day!' That's another of your strawmen -- that somehow those arguing the other side are saying things that mean we're talking about putting Rocs on the ocean floor.

No it's not a strawman... it's exactly what I do when designing my encounters without running into the issue of unwanted impact on my world. It's the same process and same underlying philosophy. Use common sense and logic when picking the encounters.

Three. Three deadly encounters in a safe area. The entire focus of this discussion is that if you have 1 encounter, you have to have 2 more, and all of them are deadly. So, your safe area has to have three encounters in pretty rapid succession every time you have any encounters. The net effect is that areas become 'safe' areas due to being unable to support deadly encounters at that pace as the players level. Or you're introducing new worldbuilding aspects to explain the new danger levels.

LOL!! See this is where we border on the absurd. Why are the PC's in an entirely safe area and we are trying to force an adventuring day on them? If we use easy encounters that's 18... is it safer now? this is where the commons sense thing kicks in. I don't declare a part of my world safe and then have adventuring days there because by definition it's not safe. You;re constructing absurd situations to narrow this down to a situation where your point is proven... but it just shows how silly it is there is no number of encounters that equal an adventuring day that you can have in the single area designated as safe that won't make that name sound like a lie.

So, yeah, you can have a 'safe' area, and then, later at higher levels, have an invasion or incursion of some kind to change the background danger level of the area to support new deadly encounters for a time, but that's right back to worldbuilding.

Huh?

No, it was always using 3 deadlies a day exclusively. I clarified that multiple times over our discussion. Go back and look.

SO we are or we're not talking adventuring days, because otherwise I'm saying the same thing as you... or are we talking every day... again commons sense and logic on top of the fact that the guidelines are for Adventuring Days... not every day.

Um, no. There were criticisms consistent with my position for every one of those, so you can't just claim fait accompli because you responded to your own satisfaction. If you cannot extrapolate a bit what the impact of multiple such days as you provided might be, that's not my failing, nor is it me calling for you to build an entire campaign world. Strangely, I've already offered to hear such examples from your current campaign world, which is presumably already built.

How about you establish what the criteria is where you admit it can be done and we go from there.

This is bizarre. Are you saying that an area that threatened 1st level characters can successfully threaten 10th level ones just by changing the CR, #appearing, and so on of the threats that your worldbuilding allowed at level 1? How does that work? Where were these advanced threats back at level 1? Where are the level 1 threats at level 10?

Actually I'm saying most of the time the PC's don't adventure over again in the same places... what's the point and how can you stay in line with the intended progression of the game if you do? Mechanically yes you could just adjust the CR of those threats... increease the numbers... etc.