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

[hawkeyefan]

Not at all, and, as I said, I largely do this -- various methods as appropriate to what I'm trying to elicit or works at that moment in that place with the story going on. What does make you seem crazy is siding with the posters claiming that dogmatic adherence to a single pacing mechanisms doesn't impact the world as played while advocating for not doing that because it works better for the world if you don't. That's what I don't get.

You don't get it because that's not what I've done.

But it is simplistic to view the game world (or its associated mechanics) as ending at the limit of what the PCs can see, which some here seem to be advocating.

Is it? I personally find the imagination far less limited than the mechanics of D&D.

I know that may seem like a flippant answer, but I don't mean it to be. What I mean is that for the purposes of the game, I need the mechanics when interacting with the players and their characters. But when I'm not interacting with them? When I'm just deciding on the fictional elements of the world? Why let mechanics dictate anything?

And when I say that, I don't mean to abandon consistency or logic. Those exist without the mechanics.

For example, if I decide to start randomly determining weather, and my PCs are trekking through a tropical jungle, and I roll a result of blizzard...what do I do? Let this result impact my worldbuilding and come up with some reason that blizzards can happen in this jungle? Or do I simply discard that result as nonsensical and roll again? Or, ideally, would my weather table be designed with the specifoc location in mimd in order to avoid a result that would conflict with the world I've built?

Perhaps. But immersion comes from believability which comes from realism where such is possible; and from consistency. The game mechanics in effect become part of the game-world realism and thus must be consistent...and that mechanical consistency then needs to extend beyond what the PCs are doing at the moment.

I think immersion can come from many different places, actually. I wouldn't dismiss realism, although I don't think it's always essential. Consistency I would agree with more strongly...but I don't think consistency depends on mechanics.

Which means that while the DM is free to simply narrate remote events (100 knights went up the pass, only 17 came back) rather than roll all the dice, that narration has to reflect something that the mechanics could reasonably produce had they in fact been used. (unknown to the locals as of yet, several dozen stone giants have just tunneled to the surface up there, along with assorted pets, and are claiming the territory for their own)

That's just it - the illusion is only ever as strong as the DM and players make it, thus if the game system is forcing the DM to weaken it that's not helping.

How does the game system force the DM to do anything? Do you mean the need for encounters for PCs making the world a points of light setting only? I don't think that's the only way to make the mechanics and the world worl together, but if it is, then change one or the other.

The problem isn't "safe" areas, except as you say if said safe areas aren't really safe at all. The problem is "risky" areas (the road to Waterdeep being a fine example), where adventurers face threat and commoners by extension thus face certain death; meaning the encounter guidelines as written almost force a points-of-light type setting and thus absolutely affect worldbuilding in that they are dictating what type of world you can (wth any expectation of realism) build.

If the road is meant to be safe for commoners, then don't have threats for PCs.

Now if there was a great deal less difference in abilities between commoners and mid-level adventurers this wouldn't be an issue at all. But the greater that difference becomes, the more care has to be taken as to how all these threats to adventurers are going to affect the common world - if one cares about consistency, which I do.

If it's only one area and it's only met once (or it's only deadly once, for whatever reason), then fine.

But if it's a lot of areas (either by actual PC interaction or by tales and reputation), then simple extrapolation is going to very strongly suggest that those areas are now becoming representative of the game world as a whole, and bang goes your worldbuilding again.

Lan-"and if elite knights are dropping like flies, maybe the 3rd-level adventurers might want to look elsewhere for their fun"-efan

I can agree with your points here. I don't view them as nearly certain as you do...but I get your reasoning. I even said similar comments.

 

[SkidAce]

The only elephant in the room.

 

[Lanefan]

Is it? I personally find the imagination far less limited than the mechanics of D&D.

I know that may seem like a flippant answer, but I don't mean it to be. What I mean is that for the purposes of the game, I need the mechanics when interacting with the players and their characters. But when I'm not interacting with them? When I'm just deciding on the fictional elements of the world? Why let mechanics dictate anything?

And when I say that, I don't mean to abandon consistency or logic. Those exist without the mechanics.

Well, yes and no.

One can come up with a very consistent and logical game world in and of itself, yet have it fall apart when it meets the game mechanics at the table because what the mechanics produce doesn't agree with the rest of the established game world.

For example, if I decide to start randomly determining weather, and my PCs are trekking through a tropical jungle, and I roll a result of blizzard...what do I do? Let this result impact my worldbuilding and come up with some reason that blizzards can happen in this jungle? Or do I simply discard that result as nonsensical and roll again? Or, ideally, would my weather table be designed with the specifoc location in mimd in order to avoid a result that would conflict with the world I've built?

Ideally the table matches the general area. Which is easy to do if instead of having hard results on the list, have the results instead be variances from normal for the region. So, in a jungle if you roll heavy precipitation, high winds and below-normal temperatures (which would give a blizzard in winter up north) you get what amounts to a tropical storm or maybe even a hurricane.

(sorry, weather geek here!)

Now were I for some reason to roll this result for an illogical number of days in a row I probably would start thinking about what might be causing it, come up with some reason the weather is being messed with and maybe work it in to the plot somehow if possible.

I think immersion can come from many different places, actually. I wouldn't dismiss realism, although I don't think it's always essential. Consistency I would agree with more strongly...but I don't think consistency depends on mechanics.

Where I suggest that - because it's a game, in the end - the mechanics become the foundation for the consistency. What the mechanics cause to happen at the table during play is - or should be - simply a snapshot of what happens everywhere else in that game world when similar situations arise, meaning that whatever the DM narrates about the rest of the world has to be explainable either using the existing mechanics (for consistency) or as a known and intentional break from them, explainable in other ways.

Problems arise, of course, when the mechanics simply can't handle something otherwise realistic and logical such as long-term injuries.

How does the game system force the DM to do anything? Do you mean the need for encounters for PCs making the world a points of light setting only? I don't think that's the only way to make the mechanics and the world worl together, but if it is, then change one or the other.

Which takes us back to about page 3 of this thread. The whole issue to begin with was that the mechanics (in this case, resting) have a problem; since then it's been shown that some (if not most) of that problem is that the mechanics only work as intended if you either accept significant knock-on effects to worldbuilding or just choose to ignore them.

Changing the mechanics is the obvious solution (though long ago rejected by the OP); however changing the resting mechanics immediately produces knock-on effects all over the place, to the point that one might end up redesigning half the game before landing on something that works.

Changing the world one wants to build is the other obvious solution, but hardly satisfactory in any way.

If the road is meant to be safe for commoners, then don't have threats for PCs.

Agreed. Easy to do in a homebrew world, not so simple if one is trying to use a prepackaged setting (such as FR, which was the example given).

Lan-"welcome to the jungle, we got fun and games"-efan

 

[Tony Vargas]

I feel an odd compulsion to go all the way back to the OP and say something dismissive:

How do you make attrition work in a game where you don't fancy doing all the hard work, and instead rely on official published supplements?

You don't. By definition, if you're not willing to put in the work as DM to make D&D suck less, it's going to suck a bit more.

Don't know where that came from...

The whole issue to begin with was that the mechanics (in this case, resting) have a problem; since then it's been shown that some of that problem is that the mechanics only work as intended if you either accept significant knock-on effects to worldbuilding or just choose to ignore them.

Uhhhh... I guess it really is pretty complicated. The resting mechanics - short rest 1hr, long 8, only one long in a 24 hr period, etc - are abstract & unrealistic, of course, though not particularly more so than any other D&D mechanic, and would readily become 'inconsistent with the fiction' in many circumstances (again, not making them particularly special). But the elephant doesn't really materialize until you bring in other mechanics - class designs, hps, monster designs, specific spells - /and/ the guidelines that bring them together (encounter-design guidelines, encounters/rests guidelines) for meta-game (class balance, encounter difficulty prediction) purposes.

Changing the mechanics is the obvious solution (though long ago rejected by the OP); however changing the resting mechanics immediately produces knock-on effects all over the place, to the point that one might end up redesigning half the game before landing on something that works.

Adding flexibility to the mechanics, though, would let the DM manage such effects and the meta-game aspects that the guidelines address. He'd still be making compromises among them, but he'd be doing so, himself, in a way presumably customized to his campaign, setting, & players.

Lan-"welcome to the jungle, we got fun and games"-efan

"Fun & Games" in the original Outer Limits, episode 27 sense....

 

[Krachek]

Blizzard in the tropic!
The right occasion to introduce an outbound elemental lord, or a lost white dragon, or a weird phenomena of the Feywild.
Logic is not an absolute in DnD.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I guess my first question would be...What's the main adventure and why is it not in and of itself influencing the environment in a consistent campaign (this is why this is a hard thing to theorycraft on there's always missing info).... For example if there is a dungeon that is the focus of the main adventure... why aren't monsters spilling into the forest to hunt, gather resources, etc.? If a dragon is coming to raze the city why aren't it's followers as well as fleeing beasts and humanoids making the environment ahead of it more dangerous as they try to escape it's wrath? Looking at the tiers and expected threats adventurers should be dealing with in a default game at those tiers... that's what I would expect to be affecting the world and providing the encounters moreso than Bad Magic Points did it (unless they really are the threat??). In a game that pushes those default play assumptions aside... well yes things get a little wonky because now we're doing something outside of the assumptions that the game runs on. Which is fine but then you by necessity will have to adjust things.

I almost feel like some are arguing for a consistent world but are in fact creating a non-dynamic world that is frozen in place and doesn't change with the threats, actions of NPC's and actions of PC's. Now in that type of game it does become harder to explain anything (not just encounters) that changes the status quo... but then you aren't creating a consistent world IMO, because a consistent world would change and respond to threats.

Actually, all of those make sense. Consistency in the world doesn't mean that big things can't happen, and in many cases I'd argue that it often makes big things happen.

The monsters, intelligent and otherwise, within the world have their own impact on the world, just like civilization does. Civilization pushes the monsters away from their cities and towns, but at times the monsters also push back. Not only does the civilized world encroach on monster territory, other monsters encroach on monster territory.

Being consistent isn't to prevent things from happening, it's more a question of what's happening in the world to make sense. I also think it's important for things to happen in the world outside of the PCs influence, in addition to those things that are changing in the world because of their influence. While they PCs are the center of our attention at the table, they aren't (usually) the center of attention or focus in the world as a whole. The amount of attention the PCs get in the world generally has a relationship to the amount of impact and influence they are having on the world. Locally it could be quite a bit, but 100 miles away most probably haven't heard about them at all unless they've done something of importance, and that something is known to others. Just another band of adventurers killing a few monsters and returning with their riches isn't enough to be of much interest outside of the local area. Of course, if they've been spotted wielding a sword of a hero from several hundred years ago, then news will probably spread a bit further.

But at the same time the PCs are plundering this dungeon or that, there are other adventurers elsewhere doing the same thing. They just don't happen to be the focus of our attention. And those adventurers are having an impact on that region, and might just be the ones that awaken a sleeping dragon...

 

[Hussar]

But, those npc adventurers aren't using any of the game mechanics when they awaken that dragon. The DM is just writing background. So how do mechanics like random encounters or size of encounters impact world building when they aren't used?

We worry about easy or deadly encounters with the PCs because it matters. It's no fun usually to mop the floor with the pcs. But obliterating some npc group is perfectly fine.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

[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.

Maybe not for you. For some of us, creating a believable world is part of the fun and part of the game, and helps immensely in the immersion and the believability that the characters are part of a real world. And part of making it a believable world is to make sure what happens in the world works within the structure of the rules. Why did 83 knights perish? Because they were killed by a small family of dragons, perhaps? And it's reasonable, within the rules, that they could/would die.

A believable world has lots of hooks for the players to latch onto.

In fact, it raises a point that to me is an important one. Over the years lots of people have complained that something like ToH is too hard. To me, a tomb that has gone unplundered for centuries, with nobody returning alive, should be very, very deadly. I don't design such a dungeon to be "interesting" to play, with "fun" challenges. I design such a dungeon to kill, and the PCs have to figure out how to survive it. That's the challenge, to accomplish what nobody else has been able to do. And in places like that (should they choose to go) they are also quite aware that there is a good chance their characters will die. And resurrection is extremely rare in our campaign, so dead is usually dead.

The DM isn't "playing" the game when writing background, but that background can very easily fit within the structure of the rules. And that mirrors mechanics. And can be something you can creature using the rules and mechanics if you wanted to spend the time to do so. The story of the 100 knights that head out could easily be the story that you do choose to run for your adventure. They might be the PCs.

And if you are mindful of the rules and possibilities when designing the background and the world, then the decisions don't have to be 100% arbitrary either. As I stated, sometimes I'll engage the rules and random results when determining what happens to NPCs between the times that the PCs encounter them.

Just as I like a surprise as a DM when running the game, surprises during the development of NPCs can be a lot of fun too. I roll up NPCs randomly too, I generally don't assign ability scores, etc. And that helps me decide more about them, although I often have a few abilities in mind too.

The ones I rolled up last night were quite a mix, too. I use the AD&D order of S, I, W, D, C, Ch still:
13, 10, 13, 16, 13, 9 (Rogue)
12, 10, 10, 12, 12, 14 (Bard)
15, 15, 15, 9, 15, 17 (really! - Paladin)
9, 14, 14, 14, 16, 11 (really again! Wizard)

I roll them in order, 3d6 re-roll 1's once using the same rules that the players do. Mathematically I found that it averages almost the same as the standard array, just provides for more surprises usually. In this case I was looking for a wizard, and got a few extra NPCs on the way. I already knew I was going to need a paladin, and wasn't specifically working on that last night, but there he was. I require a Charisma and Wisdom of 13 for a paladin, so it was a nice surprise. I'll go through and level them up one-by-one to what I need, looking at what options there are at each level. I haven't decided if any of them are non-human yet either, although I'm thinking there's a high likelihood the wizard is.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe not for you. For some of us, creating a believable world is part of the fun and part of the game, and helps immensely in the immersion and the believability that the characters are part of a real world. And part of making it a believable world is to make sure what happens in the world works within the structure of the rules. Why did 83 knights perish? Because they were killed by a small family of dragons, perhaps? And it's reasonable, within the rules, that they could/would die.

But, again, reasonable and within the rules doesn't really matter. The reason we keep it that way is because it makes it more believable and thus, more fun. 83 knights dying to some overly amorous deer would be unbelievably and no fun. But, the presence of that small family of dragons (or, I believe the actual example was giants) is an entirely arbitrary decision. At no point were any actual mechanics USED.

You say you will "level up" these NPC's? You mean you will actually adventure these NPC's? As in put them in an actual adventure, play through the levels required and get your NPC? They have a chance of dying as they level up same as a PC? Or, do you simply go through the motions of leveling up and grow the NPC without actually playing anything?

I'm thinking the latter is far, far more common. I'm pretty darn sure that your 15th level wizard NPC (unless he's an NPC from a previous campaign) has never actually done anything. You might narrate that he's done X or Y, but, again, you're just narrating. The mechanics have very little to do with it. And, I'll bet dollars to donuts that your 15th level wizard NPC won't die and you start over with another 1st level NPC wizard.

I look at it like a simple math equation. X+Y=Z. Y is DM narration, which will always impact world buildling (Z). X is the mechanics. If X=0 (as in the mechanics aren't actually used), then how can it be argued that they impact Z?

And, rolling this back around, at what point have you used RANDOM ENCOUNTERS or ENCOUNTER BUILDING mechanics to impact your world building? You certainly didn't use either of them to decide that a family of dragons ate 83 knights.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, yes and no.

One can come up with a very consistent and logical game world in and of itself, yet have it fall apart when it meets the game mechanics at the table because what the mechanics produce doesn't agree with the rest of the established game world.

I'm not saying that can't happen. I'm just saying I don't think it's all that likely. The reason being that we can all think of plenty of examples of fictional worlds that exist without mechanics. Sure, most fantasy and sci-fi series have been licensed as RPGs, but most existed prior and more importantly, despite the game mechanics.

No matter how robust the system, putting mechanics on to the fiction limits things. So when no mechanics are called for, imagination wins out over mechanics.

Game mechanics are representative of the logic you want to be applied to the game world, they are not the logic itself.

Ideally the table matches the general area. Which is easy to do if instead of having hard results on the list, have the results instead be variances from normal for the region. So, in a jungle if you roll heavy precipitation, high winds and below-normal temperatures (which would give a blizzard in winter up north) you get what amounts to a tropical storm or maybe even a hurricane.

(sorry, weather geek here!)

Now were I for some reason to roll this result for an illogical number of days in a row I probably would start thinking about what might be causing it, come up with some reason the weather is being messed with and maybe work it in to the plot somehow if possible.

Sure, you can certainly use wonky random results from such tables as inspiration for story ideas. That'd probably be my only reason to ever endorse such random tables. But we've been talking about such things impacting the world-building, which is a bit different. Such inspiration means you've chosen to allow the results to impact your world-building, but it would be a positive thing, so it wouldn't be an issue.

I would expect most folks would simply change the results to match the expectations they've already set, or to have made sure that no there were no outcomes that would cause a conflict. Note that this applies to weather or combat encounters or just about anything else.

Yes, we may allow such things to affect the world-building, but they can't do so except if we allow it.

Where I suggest that - because it's a game, in the end - the mechanics become the foundation for the consistency. What the mechanics cause to happen at the table during play is - or should be - simply a snapshot of what happens everywhere else in that game world when similar situations arise, meaning that whatever the DM narrates about the rest of the world has to be explainable either using the existing mechanics (for consistency) or as a known and intentional break from them, explainable in other ways.

Problems arise, of course, when the mechanics simply can't handle something otherwise realistic and logical such as long-term injuries.

I don't know if this is entirely true. Different areas will have different encounter expectations, or different weather patterns. Chances of running into a Basilisk or a taunami are not going to be equal everywhere in most worlds. Not unless the DM has designed such a world.

But you did say similar aituations, and yes I agree with you in that regard. But again, the mechanics are not what make such expectations work.

Which takes us back to about page 3 of this thread. The whole issue to begin with was that the mechanics (in this case, resting) have a problem; since then it's been shown that some (if not most) of that problem is that the mechanics only work as intended if you either accept significant knock-on effects to worldbuilding or just choose to ignore them.

Changing the mechanics is the obvious solution (though long ago rejected by the OP); however changing the resting mechanics immediately produces knock-on effects all over the place, to the point that one might end up redesigning half the game before landing on something that works.

Changing the world one wants to build is the other obvious solution, but hardly satisfactory in any way.

Well we're like 140 pages in and we've long ago left OP's original point for some related tangents. But it all goes back to the mechanics aligning with the fiction. To me, step one is to alter/fix/eliminate mechanics that don't ribe with the world I want to present to the players. I'd only change the world as a result of some game mechanic if I found it to be an interesting change, or if the mechanic was central to the game and I saw no way to effectively change it (like HP and what they mean, for example; we pretty much handwave that without examining the logic of it).

Agreed. Easy to do in a homebrew world, not so simple if one is trying to use a prepackaged setting (such as FR, which was the example given).

Lan-"welcome to the jungle, we got fun and games"-efan

Why do you say that? I can decide any road is safe, whether it's in Faerun or Dingleberryland. Published material is always just a starting point.