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

[Hussar]

Through their abilities. During those fights, they used resources, hit and missed, and did damage, just like PCs. Had they not beat the failure chance, they would be corpses.

Prove it. How many rounds did it take? How many HP did they lose? What spells did they use? Did they ever fail an encounter? And how tautological is "well, they aren't dead, so they must have succeeded"?

That's reaching pretty bloody hard to claim that encounters were successfully resolved without a single mechanic being used. It's all pure narration. Which is fine. We all do it. But, it's not proof that mechanics influence world building when you actually aren't using any mechanics.

 

[Lanefan]

But, remember, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], we're talking about how encounter mechanics do or don't shape the game world. If those knights met something(s) that ate 83 of them, and then the PC's go down the same road and don't lose a single PC, then you have exactly the same problem. Why were those knights so weak? Are our PC's so powerful that they can roll over something that can curb stomp such a large force?

Or did the knights in fact take out the threat and thus make the road safe? It's never been said yet whether the 17 survivors came back victorious or defeated...

The point is, those elite knights never had a single encounter, either before they were killed or including when they were killed. They had no actual mechanical existence. The DM simply eyeballed it and picked a number that sounds good. So, how do mechanics, in this case random encounter mechanics, or the guidelines that say PC's should hit 3+ encounters per adventuring day, enter into things?

Because those mechanics set the parameters of what "sounds good" and are in fact what make it "sound good".

I mean, this whole tangent went off because there were claims that if we baseline encounters for the PC's at 3/day (or more, since, well, 3/day is pretty predictable and not very interesting) then EVERY SINGLE NPC MUST have 3 encounters/day.

Yeah, that bit got a little extreme...and in so doing kinda buried the real point...

Heck, your knights didn't. They had 1 encounter (presumably) and got munched. When the PC's travel down that same road, instead of having that one honking big encounter (since large groups travel pretty slowly, that gave the bad guys time to mass up and attack), they have a series of smaller encounters that grind down their resources and everyone's happy.

So, in what way are encounter design guidelines impacting world building?

...which is this: what happens to the PCs sets a tone for what the rest of the off-camera game world is like, or is lileky to be like. If the PCs are finding dangerous foes and more or less deadly encounters at every possible turn, that tells me the rest of the game world is probably very dangerous as well for whoever lives there. By the same token, if the PCs are only finding dangerous foes and more or less deadly encounters when they intentionally go to remote areas or places known for their dangers, that tells me the rest of the game world - or at least the civilized parts - is probably not all that dangerous most of the time.

It's simple extrapolation.

Now, allow me to introduce our old friend the elephant. The resting rules as written more or less expect that for the game to work as designed the PCs need to encounter dangerous foes and more or less deadly things whenever they are adventuring. Fine for dungeon crawling, and I think everyone agrees on that. It's overland-travel adventures and wilderness adventures (and city-based adventures, for all that) where it all falls down, mostly because the resting rules demand something the game world might not be able to supply unless the overall danger level of the game world is adjusted upward to suit; and doing that has all kinds of impact on worldbuilding.

In short: the resting rules affect worldbuilding via their impact on encounter guidelines. I don't think it's supposed to work that way, but it does.

Lan-"the world is carried by an elephant, only not right now as the elephant is on a short rest"-efan

 

[Sadras]

@Sadras - the problem I have with your example is, so what? Since the PC's never actually see any of this - other than maybe a throwaway line of "Well, you see more Flaming Fist on the streets than usual" - what difference does it actually make to the game?

To be fair, you said you have not read the module, but just to let you know the PCs do interact with the Watch and the Flaming Fist quite a lot in the adventure. It is not just a throwaway line. How and why the city changes is critical for decision making purposes within the adventure.

And, frankly, most players aren't even going to notice or care. You could easily narrate this as "The Flaming Fist guards aren't prepared for these threats. That's YOUR job."

Perhaps this is where we are having the disconnect, it might just be a difference in playstyles. At our table we expect the game world to react naturally to threats in the fiction. It is very much integral to the immersive experience for us. Wandering monsters and/or the deadliness of encounters is not something believed to happen in a vaccuum with the PCs and to just be purely a gaming mechanic to assist with level increases.

Similarly time plays a large role. I'm currently running the ToD storyline as the main storyline and in the background other issues pop us well (LofCS, OotA and homebrew adventures). The players make conscious decisions about what threat they wish to respond to, while the world around them changes.
The adventure/threats do not stop because they are not available. Bad things happen because they did or did not pursue something. I have a rolled out timeline. The spotlight is not on them alone. So increasing the deadliness of encounters will affect my world.

So when you say "That is YOUR job" - at our table that breaks immersion. They prefer a living breathing world, not a static environment that does not change because everything rests on the PCs shoulders.

And, let's be honest here, that's a pretty specific example. I've never read the module you are referring to, but, don't the increased danger encounters only apply to the PC's? So, no one else in the city would even notice the increased danger. Why would they apply more broadly.

It really is not a specific example, but again it might very much be a difference in playstyles. It can only be this after so many posts of so many of us not seeing eye to eye on the matter.

From what I have seen from posters, my style is closer to Lanefans. Where the PCs are not centre stage, they do not exist in a bubble, they are just another cog in the world.

I hope I've been clear in the above. I'm happy should you want to continue the conversation, but from my perspective I earnestly believe the main disconnect that exists between the parties in this latter part of the thread are a difference in playstyles catering to a different audience/table. A feature and bug in our debates.

 

[Hussar]

See, no. A pcs life in no way reflects the larger world. Just because Vonan was meeting goes regularly does not mean that everyone else was too.

Unless you witness house fires regularly, a fire fighters experiences have no impact on yours.

 

[Sadras]

Unless you witness house fires regularly, a fire fighters experiences have no impact on yours.

At the outset, I should say that I do not believe a fire fighter is a good metaphor for an adventurer, but be that as it may.

Adventurer = Fire fighter
The Watch, The Flaming Fist, etc = Police, Security Companies
Temples/Churches = Hospitals
Council of Four (Dukes) = Mayor
Baldur's Mouth = Newspapers/TV
Warehouses/Guild Halls = Schools
Parliament, Patriars = Council, Municipalities

So a series of fires break out in the city.

• Investigative teams are organised and despatched to identify the source of the fires, determine if there is a link between the fires.
• The television and local newspapers broadcasts the news about the fires, survivors, firemen's reports, police investigations, comments by the mayor's office
• Recruitment initiative for reserve firemen put into effect
• Fund-raising organisation to improve fireman equipment
• Churches organise charity drives and fund raisers for victims who require surgery, who lost their homes and belongings.
• Perhaps a local suburban law gets put into effect - no use of fires for barbecues, perhaps the fires have put a strain on water supplies and water restrictions are put into effect
• A hospital in an area might reach capacity, or the victims are transferred to school halls for temporary residence/shelter.
• Clean up trucks are frequently seen in the areas of the fires - cleaning, gathering for recycling and the like.
• Council meetings are held to discuss plan, meet with residents affects, chief investigators/firemen...etc

In a medieval city, deadly encounters, I'd imagine would be a lot worse than today's fires. Unless the fire's affect squatter-camp like (i.e. 3rd world) locations.

 

[Hussar]

Who said anything about a "series of fires"?

I'm saying that a firefighter is like an adventurer. He routinely sees fires, just like an adventurer routinely sees adventures. None of the average, day to day work that a fire fighter does has really much of a visible impact on the city at large.

Put it another way. Frodo and company go into a tomb (the Barrow Downs) and find barrow wights and a magic knife. Does that mean that EVERYONE who goes into any tomb will automatically fight wights and find magic knives? Conan is chased into a tomb where an undead king gives him a magic sword. Does that mean that every tomb has magic swords?

PC's have different lives than everyone else.

 

[Maxperson]

Prove it. How many rounds did it take? How many HP did they lose? What spells did they use? Did they ever fail an encounter?

You don't have to know these things to know that an encounter happened. How many rounds did the 53rd fight one of your PCs take? How many HPs were lost? What spells were used? Did that PC ever fail at an encounter and live?

Is that encounter no longer an encounter because you don't know?

And how tautological is "well, they aren't dead, so they must have succeeded"?

How irrelevant to my point is, "well, they aren't dead, so they must have succeeded"? Answer: Very.

 

[Maxperson]

See, no. A pcs life in no way reflects the larger world. Just because Vonan was meeting goes regularly does not mean that everyone else was too.

Unless you witness house fires regularly, a fire fighters experiences have no impact on yours.

You keep using that False Equivalence. Fire Fighters get called very quickly to fires. They aren't walking around having lots of fires walk in on them and attack. Adventurers on the other hand do walk around just having lots of encounters walk in on them and attack. They are no different from the general populace in that regard, except for power level.

 

[Imaro]

Who said anything about a "series of fires"?

I'm saying that a firefighter is like an adventurer. He routinely sees fires, just like an adventurer routinely sees adventures. None of the average, day to day work that a fire fighter does has really much of a visible impact on the city at large.

Put it another way. Frodo and company go into a tomb (the Barrow Downs) and find barrow wights and a magic knife. Does that mean that EVERYONE who goes into any tomb will automatically fight wights and find magic knives? Conan is chased into a tomb where an undead king gives him a magic sword. Does that mean that every tomb has magic swords?

PC's have different lives than everyone else.

Pretty much this.

I was thinking about this topic while playing the first session of a game at work that just recently started, A B/X game at 1st level... in this adventure we ran into a group of corrupt guards, a wizard antagonist, 4 formerly enslaved orcs, a but load of minor undead, and green slime, mostly under the city we started in... yet in no way and at no point did I ever think this chain of events reflected what the general populace of said city experienced everyday. Why? Because we went looking for trouble... we're adventurers and the majority of the rest of the population doesn't and isn't adventurers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I mean, this whole tangent went off because there were claims that if we baseline encounters for the PC's at 3/day (or more, since, well, 3/day is pretty predictable and not very interesting) then EVERY SINGLE NPC MUST have 3 encounters/day.

I think the concern was more that forcing large numbers of encounters ( 6-8 of the guideline or the slightly dubious alternative of 3 deadlies) between daily rests, would be plausible only in an implausibly dangerous world.

So, in what way are encounter design guidelines impacting world building?

Some of us get really hung up on the Vtude - so much so that 4e had to die, and 5e adopt inherently imbalanced class designs - and some of us who do, also DM, so what the mechanics & guidelines imply impact, indeed dictate, world-building choices (for that sub-set).