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

[Ovinomancer]

I don't agree with that. Perhaps my decision is made with the mechanics in mind....I could certainly say that a horde of orcs would mechanically very likely destroy a small town and therefore I could decide that the orcs win and the town is destroyed.

I could just as likely decide that the townsfolk make some kind of Thermopylaen final stand that led to them winning. I could decide this based purely on my desire to have the PCs encounter the haggard survivors for some story related purpose; i.e. narrative needs rather than any kind of mechanical determination.

I think that what's happening is that a DM who makes such a decision is using his sense of logic and world details and the like to make the judgement call. And I think that game mechanics also lean on such logic and world details. So there's an underlying commonality at play, I agree, but I don't think that it's the mechanics dictating anything. It's simply that the mechanics are derived from the same factors as the DM's judgement.

Sure, 100% agree that you, as the DM, most often decide things "off screen" instead of using the mechanics to hash them out. But, don't you consider the mechanics when you do so? As you note in the orc example, you might look at the orc horde and what you've built about the town and decide they orcs win outright and move on. But how did you do that? Did you consider the stat blocks of orcs (at least generally) and those of the town? Would have come to the same conclusion about an attack by the same number of gerbils as you had orcs? Even if you come up with some Thermopylaen (love this word), it's because you need some plot device to offset the obvious mechanical outcome, no?

The point is, even when we as DM's make these calls, it's not in a vacuum. We have a wealth of experience and knowledge of how the game works that we use to provide consistent judgement calls. The mechanics are affecting the worlds we build, even if at a remove.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But you are deciding this... not the rules. You create or don't create the inconsistency or non-inconsistency of the world, not the rules. There are no rules that claim whatever the adventurers encounter... non-adventurers must also encounter. That's not a function of the game or it's rules that's a function of you choosing to make that so in your world. To do that and then claim it's affecting your worldbuilding is quite frankly silly... of course it is because you're choosing to build a world where it does... but the (encounter) rules of D&D in and of themselves don't force you to do that.

It may not be obvious, but I'm about to agree with you.

Fluff and crunch have to match up, or the consistency is shot. The crunch is that encounters happen X amount of the time. The fluff is that people run into orcs, dragons, etc. X amount of the time, where X is the same as the encounter frequency. If they don't match, the world consistency is off.

This is very much like the 'dissociated mechanics' kerfuffle. You had your choice of mechanics ('crunch') to model what your character could do, and the latitude to 'fluff' those mechanics in the narrative as you liked. It was only an issue if you willfully chose a flavor that didn't work for you.
Same thing, here, only it's shifted from the player to the DM and the character to the world (though, really, it's always applied to DMs on some level): you can let the mechanics imply what they may about the world, and not let it concern you, in which case the world will be consistent in that it always works according to the mechanics (though it might be decidedly Pratchett-esque), or you can change the mechanics to fit the level of consistency you want in the world, either way, it's only if you willfully choose to establish a fluff-crunch disconnect that you get an inconsistent world.
In both cases, the tools are there to avoid the 'problem,' it's just a matter of accepting responsibility for using them.

So, the only way to play is to provide encounters for PCs but never, ever consider how those might affect the broader world?

Not the only way, but a perfectly valid way.

So, then, if I make an encounter table that matches the PCs up against a Dragon (young), some gorgons, a pack of rabid manticores, etc, and then roll on it when they're walking from Peaceful Village along the Nevertrouble Way to Safeville, and tell the players that this is the safest area of the kingdom, then I don't have to do any explaining as to why all of these horrible monsters happen to occur to the players there?

They're heroes, heroes are trouble magnets...

... but, 5e went to the BA model, in part, so that you wouldn't have to resort to that kind of thing as much, or as dramatically. A more plausible encounter - bandits, a corrupt official and his guards, whatever - could still be non-trivial to a party of 'heroes,' you don't need to throw down a dragon (or whatever) just because they have some levels under their belt.

They should go, "Oh, it's a game...

It is important never to lose sight of that, yes. Not difficult, not a real risk, but important.

So you're purposefully choosing to place deadly encounters in the safest places of the gameworld because... why again?

Oh, because the original topic of the thread, and the 'solution' of using 3 deadlies/day: the story calls for a meaningful (possibly deadly) combat that day - maybe some sworn enemy of the PCs is going to ambush them or whatever, the world & the DM's vision/story, and the player's choices call for that to happen - but, it'll be a pushover and/or show balance cracks among the party if it's a sole encounter that day, so you need to attrit them a bit first, or present a plausible concern of encounters following it that they know about ahead of time to force them to manage resources even in a life-or-death struggle with a hated foe. It'd make 0 sense for the hated foe to divide his forces, so the other attacks have to come from somewhere.
So, throw in two 'random' deadly encounters.

 

[Imaro]

It was a question, I didn't say you said it. And, thank you for confirming the point you started arguing with.

My point is that you keep arguing about encounter building and confusing it with worldbuilding. You can choose to let one influence the other but it's not a given (again these are rules for creating encounters for PC's not for worldbuilding... you keep ignoring that fact), thus if you're having a problem with that it's because you are choosing to do that, there's nothing inherent in the encounter rules that forces it...

Wait, wait, you mean that you don't put deadly encounters in places where you've decided, as part of worldbuilding, are the safest places? What, exactly, are you arguing then?! My original point was this exactly: you can't use 3 deadlies a day as a solution to rests without impacts to worldbuilding. As you so succinctly note here, if you're putting deadly encounters in the safest places it doesn't make sense. It seems we're in violent agreement.

And my point is you easily could do so if you wanted to. Encounter building and world building are two different things. D&D has rules for encounter building that can affect worldbuilding if the DM wants them to... or he chooses to use them in an absurd way (Like placing deadly encounters in a safe area, which nothing in the encounter rules states has to be done). There are no mechanics for worldbuilding in D&D that dictate where deadly encounters have to be... so again your argument makes no sense. It's a choice you are making as a DM not one dictated by your use of deadly encounters.

Again, you're now arguing with me using my argument!

No I'm not... you've yet to show me where the rules for deadly encounters force changes on worldbuilding. What I have seen is you choose deadly encounters that make no sense in the context you're choosing to place them in...but that is an [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] problem, not one of using deadly encounters for balance.

Given you've now taken my positions to argue with me about my positions, this part is pretty moot.

So you agree that it's your choices around how to use the encounter rules vs. the actual rules themselves that is causing your problems? If so yes, we are in agreement.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure, 100% agree that you, as the DM, most often decide things "off screen" instead of using the mechanics to hash them out. But, don't you consider the mechanics when you do so? As you note in the orc example, you might look at the orc horde and what you've built about the town and decide they orcs win outright and move on. But how did you do that? Did you consider the stat blocks of orcs (at least generally) and those of the town? Would have come to the same conclusion about an attack by the same number of gerbils as you had orcs? Even if you come up with some Thermopylaen (love this word), it's because you need some plot device to offset the obvious mechanical outcome, no?

The point is, even when we as DM's make these calls, it's not in a vacuum. We have a wealth of experience and knowledge of how the game works that we use to provide consistent judgement calls. The mechanics are affecting the worlds we build, even if at a remove.

Well, it's possible that the mechanics are being considered, yes. But is that really what's being considered?

Let's run with the Orc/gerbil comparison. Why are their stat blocks different? (I suppose we'll have to pretend that gerbils actually have statblocks for this, but let's try....or if we must, let's use a mouse statblock reskinned to be a gerbil). Are the stats different for some mechanical game purpose? I would say perhaps that's an outcome, but not the goal of the stats being different.

The stats are different because we have an idea of what an orc is and what it's capable of, and the same for the gerbil. The mechanics are designed around these ideas. I think this is the main contention of this whole tangent....the mechanics don't exist first and then ideas get added to them, it's the other way around. Here's an orc, how can we represent that in game mechanics. It's not "here's a low level threat that may be dangerous in numbers, hey let's assign the orc to these stats!"

So any narrative decision I make is not about the mechanics, but instead is about the ideas that the mechanics represent. That's the commonality I mentioned. Other factors such as story needs and simple DM desire can easily override any such logic.

So while it's easy to follow such logic and say "ah you're letting the mechanics dictate the outcome" I don't really think that's the case. Some might see this as a semantic quibble, but I think it's a pretty significant distinction.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The stats are different because we have an idea of what an orc is and what it's capable of, and the same for the gerbil. The mechanics are designed around these ideas. I think this is the main contention of this whole tangent....the mechanics don't exist first and then ideas get added to them, it's the other way around. Here's an orc, how can we represent that in game mechanics. It's not "here's a low level threat that may be dangerous in numbers, hey let's assign the orc to these stats!"

Sounds like an imaginary-chicken/arbitrary-egg thing, to me.

Sure, Tolkien used the name of an obscure sea monster to re-fluff the 'goblins' of The Hobbit into something less fairy-tale-sounding for LotR, and D&D decided to have orcs. And, maybe, their stats were about emulating the vague nastiness of orcs in LotR, or maybe they were about filling in a low-level monster slot. (I'd assume the former, but am no mind reader.)

Now, though, the game gives us CR, so even if a monster's stat are designed to emulate it's concept, they map to a CR, and the monster can be used, by the DM, to balance out an encounter building formula as x CR y monsters. And, if, at that point, he finds no monster concept he likes, but a stat block that'd work, he can always re-skin them as something he finds more appropriate.

So it's neither 'fluff determines mechanics' nor 'mechanics determine fluff,' it's that the relation between the two is fluid, responsive to the imagination of the DM/players and the needs of the story/campaign/world and the quality of the play experience.

 

[Imaro]

Oh, because the original topic of the thread, and the 'solution' of using 3 deadlies/day: the story calls for a meaningful (possibly deadly) combat that day - maybe some sworn enemy of the PCs is going to ambush them or whatever, the world & the DM's vision/story, and the player's choices call for that to happen - but, it'll be a pushover and/or show balance cracks among the party if it's a sole encounter that day, so you need to attrit them a bit first, or present a plausible concern of encounters following it that they know about ahead of time to force them to manage resources even in a life-or-death struggle with a hated foe. It'd make 0 sense for the hated foe to divide his forces, so the other attacks have to come from somewhere.
So, throw in two 'random' deadly encounters.

I guess I was assuming that if they are in the safest place in the campaign world that the point would be for them to be, well, safe... to rest, recover, etc. I guess it's kind of alien to me to have a game where the PC's are constantly, every single day, having encounters (deadly or otherwise) even if they've sought out and are currently in the safest place in the world. Is that how most campaigns are structured... with continuous non-stop combat encounters?? Am I assuming too much by thinking it's a given that there will be spans of hours, days even weeks or months that the PC's won't engage in combat?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I guess I was assuming that if they are in the safest place in the campaign world that the point would be for them to be, well, safe... to rest, recover, etc.

Sure, rest, recover, ride past the book depository, take in a play....

I guess it's kind of alien to me to have a game where the PC's are constantly, every single day, having encounters (deadly or otherwise) even if they've sought out and are currently in the safest place in the world.

Certainly not every single day, just any day they're meant to have a non-trivial encounter, they 'need' to have two (if they're all deadly) or more additional encounters, because: Elephant.

Unless you flex your Empowerment to do something about the Elephant, like ruling that the normal rest-recovery rules don't apply in extended downtime (sure, you're getting plenty of literal rest, but you're also off your game), or tweaking the relative availability of short/long-rest abilities in single-encounter days in lieu of attrition.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sounds like an imaginary-chicken/arbitrary-egg thing, to me.

Sure, Tolkien used the name of an obscure sea monster to re-fluff the 'goblins' of The Hobbit into something less fairy-tale-sounding for LotR, and D&D decided to have orcs. And, maybe, their stats were about emulating the vague nastiness of orcs in LotR, or maybe they were about filling in a low-level monster slot. (I'd assume the former, but am no mind reader.)

Now, though, the game gives us CR, so even if a monster's stat are designed to emulate it's concept, they map to a CR, and the monster can be used, by the DM, to balance out an encounter building formula as x CR y monsters. And, if, at that point, he finds no monster concept he likes, but a stat block that'd work, he can always re-skin them as something he finds more appropriate.

So it's neither 'fluff determines mechanics' nor 'mechanics determine fluff,' it's that the relation between the two is fluid, responsive to the imagination of the DM/players and the needs of the story/campaign/world and the quality of the play experience.

Sort of, yes. I do think it is a bit of a two way street between idea and mechanics. I wouldn't say that mechanics can never inform the ideas we are working with, but ultimately, the mechanics are a tool to represent those ideas. So when I make a narrative decision, I am basing it on the ideas, not on the tool we use to represent those ideas.

A to hit roll hitting or not....that's a mechanical expression. A battle being won or lost by NPCs off screen with no PC involvement? Not a mechanical expression, but a narrative one.

Again, perhaps to some, this is a matter of semantics, but there's obviously a disconnect between viewpoints here, so to me, it seems relevant.

 

[Hussar]

Dude.





Again, I point out the opening page of Part 1 in the DMG, where they explicitly state the worldbuilding assumptions that the rules rest upon and explicitly say that you can change these, but need to pay attention to how that might change how the game works in your world. You've yet to address these core assumptions about the world the mechanics exist in, and it's becoming a glaring omission.

And, if those are the only two vampires in the setting, you have some worldbuilding to do: how to players know anything about vampires if there are only two? Does anyone else know anything about vampires? Why and what? How do I introduce vampire lore to the players to build a good adventure around encountering these two vampires? These are very pertinent to adventure design, but require answering questions about the world. If I later have an adventure that has more vampires in it, I'll need to make sure it's consistent with my earlier explanations in my previous adventure or have a good reason for the differences -- which then push out into worldbuilding.

Heck. I know tons about vampires and the don't even exist. Because there are only two, I shouldn't know anything about them?

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] - if the only way to lose a limb is to be hit with an artefact level sword, I'm going to say that it's a bit of an outlier.

Point being, if I, the DM, decide that the king dies of sepsis after being gored by a boat, I should be able to do so. Even though that completely bypasses the rules of the game.