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

[Imaro]

Yes, there are some arguing that, which is why those on my side of this discussion are engaged in this debate. We feel that it will affect world building as you describe above, instead of being non-dynamic.

So you want a world that never changes?

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] in what way do purely narrated events in your game world mirror mechanics? They are 100% arbitrary decisions made in order to make an adventure more interesting for the players.

It isn't about creating believable worlds at all. It's about establishing adventure baselines and dropping hooks for the players to latch onto. Why did 83 knights perish? Because it establishes the adventure. If all 100 came back then thee would not be any reason for the pcs to go there.

All this time and none of you folks have shown the slightest evidence of how encounter mechanics change world building. Since the mechanics aren't ever actually used unless PCs are around, how can they.

The DM is not playing the game when he's writing adventure background.

 

[Sadras]

All this time and none of you folks have shown the slightest evidence of how encounter mechanics change world building.

Using 3 deadlies isn't what is causing the world to appear deadly (18 easy encounters would have the same effect) it's the need to balance your games against the adventuring day xp... (snip)...

Again though... we are saying it should be incorporated into your game in a way that fits your worldbuilding. Why would I introduce the Elminster encounter in a way that he has time and resources to take care of these things? Better that I modify the encounter to fit the world... right?

Bold emphasis mine.

Yes, I modify the encounter to fit my world. So you're saying my world modifies/dictates the encounters I run, but using an attrition mechanism which enforces only deadly encounters would not impact my world and this is because 18 easy encounters = 3 deadly encounters. Is that a correct assessment of yours and @Hussar's stance?

18 x easy encounters means orc patrols are small, weak with little-to-no combat expertise.
3 x deadly encounters means orc patrols are large, well-equiped and tactically savvy.

From my perspective that is a world-building change.

 

[Imaro]

Bold emphasis mine.

Yes, I modify the encounter to fit my world. So you're saying my world modifies/dictates the encounters I run, but using a attrition mechanism which enforces only deadly encounters surely would not impact my world and this is because 18 easy encounters = 3 deadly encounters. Is that a correct assessment of yours and @Hussar's stance?

I can't speak for @Hussar but I'm saying that it's the enforcement of the adventuring day that affects worldbuilding not the switching in or out of number of and frequency since it amounts to the same effect.

You seem to be saying encounters don't impact your world because you choose to build them to fit your world... which has been my stance since the beginning for solving the issue. The thing is fiction just like mechanics can be customized for the encounter so that it better fits the world as well.

18 x easy encounters means orc patrols are small, weak with little-to-no combat expertise.
3 x deadly encounters means orc patrols are large, well-equiped and tactically savvy.

Interesting I would say 18 easy encounter orc patrols are because they are coveting too much land... or maybe it's because powerful and combat savvy Orcs travel as loners or in pairs because their nature causes conflict between individually powerful Orcs to arise when in large groups. (increase the CR of the Orcs but lower their number)

while 3 deadly encounters of orc patrols point to weak orcs who travel in ginormous packs that are more dangerous because of their numbers and savagery than any tactical acumen on their part. (Lower the CR of the orcs and increase their number)

See how we took those numbers and created opposite fiction? I reshaped those encounters to fit a world that had different assumptions than the one you assumed it must have (that's why it affects your worldbuilding and not mine).

From my perspective that is a world-building change.

In what practical way... whether you traverse the Dark Meadow and have 18 easy orc patrol encounters or 3 deadly orc patrol encounters... from the perspective of the common man and the world at large it's a place that is dangerous because of its orcs. Is one more deadly than the other? Not in a mechanical or practical sense and dressing them up differently doesn't really change the deadliness or the effect the orcs have in the Dark Meadow...

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you want a world that never changes?

I think it's fair to want a world that changes based on your imagination or on 'the fiction' rather than in response to the PCs leveling, or within the limits imposed by a set of guidelines. Guidelines that you 'need' to follow if you want certain aspects of the game to 'work' - like class balance or encounter difficulty, that is. If you don't care if those things work, obviously, you're free to ignore the guidelines and run how you like - your players can deal with the consequences, figuring out which classes to play and what challenges to take on as they develop 'player skill' appropriate to your style.

 

[Imaro]

I think it's fair to want a world that changes based on your imagination or on 'the fiction' rather than in response to the PCs leveling, or within the limits imposed by a set of guidelines. Guidelines that you 'need' to follow if you want certain aspects of the game to 'work' - like class balance or encounter difficulty, that is. If you don't care if those things work, obviously, you're free to ignore the guidelines and run how you like - your players can deal with the consequences, figuring out which classes to play and what challenges to take on as they develop 'player skill' appropriate to your style.

Are there games that have balancing mechanisms that dont influence play? Serious question...

 

[hawkeyefan]

So far, I have not seen such a significant disparity from class to class based on the number of encounters we have. Sure, I've seen some classes shine when there are fewer encounters and others when there are more....but if you have some days that have few encounters, and other days with more, then it balances itself out.

 

[Tony Vargas]

....but if you have some days that have few encounters, and other days with more, then it balances itself out.

In theory, it should. 6-8 encounters implies an average of 7. If you have a 1-encounter day you could 'balance' that with a 13-encounter day, or two 10-encounter days, three 9-encounter days.

That is, of course, assuming you have flexed your Empowerment and taken responsibility for day lengths, in the first place.

Are there games that have balancing mechanisms that dont influence play? Serious question...

Sure. Most games that aren't licensed and don't come with their own settings baked into the mechanics don't constrain the GM's world-building decisions, for instance. Classless systems, tautologically, have no issues with class balance. Games that re-set after encounters have no issues with pacing affecting encounter difficulty. So, yeah, there are rooms out there with no Elephants in them.

Perhaps ironically, classic D&D wasn't one of them. Yet, back in the day, we adapted it to all sorts of things.

 

[Imaro]

Sure. Most games that aren't licensed and don't come with their own settings baked into the mechanics don't constrain the GM's world-building decisions, for instance. Classless systems, tautologically, have no issues with class balance. Games that re-set after encounters have no issues with pacing affecting encounter difficulty. So, yeah, there are rooms out there with no Elephants in them.

Sure but a classless system still has constraints with say points or whatever mechanism is used to balance characters against each other and the game... and games that reset after single encounters still have balancing mechanisms around that single encounter such as amount of enemies, strength of enemies, etc. These still influence play of the game and, should according to some people's position affect worldbuilding. it would seem this would apply to generic games as well...

Perhaps ironically, classic D&D wasn't one of them. Yet, back in the day, we adapted it to all sorts of things.

Or maybe it was just different constraints...

 

[Lanefan]

It isn't about creating believable worlds at all. It's about establishing adventure baselines and dropping hooks for the players to latch onto. Why did 83 knights perish? Because it establishes the adventure. If all 100 came back then thee would not be any reason for the pcs to go there.

Funny you should put it this way, as my original tale of the 100 elites going in and 17 returning was intended as an example of telegraphing that the PCs should in fact NOT go there as it's too bloody dangerous.

Using 3 deadlies isn't what is causing the world to appear deadly (18 easy encounters would have the same effect) it's the need to balance your games against the adventuring day xp. As long as that is a concern the world in general will appear to be a deadly place since anywhere they go there will be a number of encounters that are mechanically roughly equal in terms of danger. which is why I said the default for D&D is a pretty dangerous world (for the PC's??)... Which of course seems perfectly in line with the inspirations for D&D...

Fine so far, from a purely gamist sense.

But take a step or two toward the realist side and ask yourself how the average common farmer can possibly survive in such a world? How does she get her goods to market when every road is crawling with Orc patrols, no matter how "weak" those patrols may be? How does a merchant's caravan hope to make it from Waterdeep to Neverwinter without hiring half an army as guards (and what sort of prices will the merchant have to charge to make a profit on the trip!)?

Spin it out beyond the simplistic viewpoint of "it's all about the PCs" and things start to fall apart...unless the game-mechanical encounter expectations get thrown in a lake.

Lanefan