Sorry but this only brings the discussion back to square one. There's no spellcaster that can dispel the party teleporting back to town to rest. And yet, that's not the point. The point is for the game not to rely on environment or monster nature for something entirely mechanical: the need to pace encounters.
I don't agree with you at all that pacing is "entirely mechanical". I think of the pacing of the game as being far more of a narrative element. Yes, it has an impact on some game mechanics, but that doesn't mean that it is an entirely mechanical construct. I think it is a narrative element that has an affect on some game mechanics.
Again, it seems awfully hard for y'all to keep published scenarios separate from your own campaigns.
Actually, I had the Redbrands from Lost Mines of Phandelver in mind when I wrote that. They're a gang in the town of Phandalin with whom the PCs will come into conflict. How exactly that conflict takes shape is really up to the DM and how things have gone in the game, and what the players have done. Soooooo....straight out of a published adventure.
Instead of you saying that the modules fail to do what you say they fail to do and asking us for examples and then shooting those examples down, maybe you should provide us with examples from your play of the modules where the mechanics fail you?
I think part of the problem is that you are making a broad assertion about the adventures, and then people are giving specific examples that counter your broad assertion, and then you disregard those examples. So perhaps a better approach would be for you to tell us which adventure you played, and which part was an issue in regards to the rest mechanics and their impact on attrition?
Maybe that would work better.
Assuming we can agree this seldom/never happens in print modules, let's not bring it up.
Besides, it treads too close to story-based restrictions, when I want mechanical restriction options.
I don't agree with that at all. I think the print modules expect different games to play out differently, and for the DMs of those games to have the villains do different things. Not only do I think they expect this, I think this is made patently clear in the adventures. They are full of advice of the "if the players do X, then Y" variety.
In your OP which I was addressing, you simply asked this:
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?
I think I gave some solid answers that really address this issue. None of them are a perfect catchall that will always solve this problem for you....but each used in turn, and alternating among them, will certainly impact your players' views of taking rests. They are not mechanical solutions, that's true...but I didn't realize that was an absolute requirement for you given it's not in your OP at all.
Obviously, I already am aware of lots of solutions.
But where are these solutions in official 5e adventures - that's the curious thing!
People have provided them. The solutions are not mechanical in nature, so you ignore them. Not much else to do about that.
Honestly, I think that if you want a mechanical solution to this problem of yours, then you should come up with one. I think that if it was as widespread as you seem to think, where a majority of games or at least a significant amount struggled with this issue, then perhaps you could expect it to be addressed in some way by WotC. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
I mean, if I have 12 players in my game, how much effort should I expect on the part of WotC to provide me with advice and or mechanics on how to handle that when I run a published adventure? Surely most gaming groups won't likely share this problem.
Sorry - I thought we had an agreement there but then you had to go back to this old chestnut.
The entire thread is me saying that no - the rules don't give us anything.
Unless you count it as giving us something when the rules say "you're allowed to use wandering monsters".
That's a way WAY too lenient way of looking at things.
The rules doesn't "give" me the possibility to have my story be on a clock. That's soo not in the rules.
Just because the rules contain a "DM Advice" section generally discussing ways to keep up the heat in no way means the rules "give" us what we need.
Our hard work and inspiration does not belong to the rules; it is not for the rulebook to give away. It was ours all along, long before we bought the D&D product.
When I give WotC money and see the rules being dependent on encounter pacing I need that same set of rules to provide a solution in that set of rules. Barring that, I need WotC to do all the work for us when we later buy their official modules.
Honestly, it's all there. If you don't like it, okay understood...change it.
Like I said, the best way to make attrition matter is to make deciding to rest a decision of import, which means that there must be some level of risk involved. Even if that risk is only perceived, it still has to be there. The best way to do this is through elements that are more narrative....if the PCs stop, then there are consequences.
Some mechanical expression of this may work, I suppose....it depends on the players, I imagine. Perhaps an XP multiplier that is in place for each successive encounter the PCs go without a rest. Once they rest, it's back to baseline XP. Something like that may work....or players may just accept regular XP progression at full strength rather than risking PC death for more XP. Not sure which kind of players you have. I would expect most other mechanical means to kind of fall in line with this.
And to be honest, it's the same as the narrative elements....maybe the PCs won't care if Ireena is turned. Maybe they don't care if Ogremoch is summoned to the material plane. Maybe they want to be slaves in Menzoberranzan. Ultimately, it's the players who will buy in or not.
I think narrative means would be more successful more often.
The rules providing a Jonathan Tweet like "no rest unless two encounters" optional variant would be a serious step forward to ending this issue once and for all. The scenario setting hard time limits with specific and significant consequences if deadlines aren't met, or the scenario putting hard limits to the nature and number of rests (that would require a significant investment to override, not some simple Goodberry or Leomund's Hut spell). That would be real steps toward recognizing the elephant in the room.
I think most scenarios give specific and significant consequences if deadlines are not met. Or at least, they suggest what those consequences could be and leave it up to the DM to decide. I don't think that those time limits are always "hard", but given the varying needs of different games, I don't think they should be expected to be so. They are certainly clear enough that a given DM can determine a hard number if that's desired.
You are right that the adventures do not set actual numerical limits on rests (other than the major one of only 1 long rest per 24 hours). But I think expecting such is to kind of understand the nature of the rest rules. So I wouldn't expect the adventures to do that unless there was a compelling reason to do so. Otherwise, I think they expect the other means to put pressure on the PCs and make them decide not to rest to be sufficient enough to not need a set number as a limit.
