So I ran a 6-8 encounter day...

[Oofta]

Lack of threading strikes again, let's get back to the original point made by Blue that set us both off arguing in slightly different ways...



Which is all lovely, of course, but does not address Blue's complaint, that it's a toolkit that is innately limiting to the stories you can tell, if you do try to use it to impose balance on an innately imbalanced system.

Obviously, if you are indifferent (or hostile) to balance, that's not an issue. And, if you find those limitations convenient lines within which to color, it may even seem like a positive. But those feelings about the limitations in question don't mean they don't exist.

So if there's such an issue with the system, why not tweak the perceived issue? If you don't want a long rest every 24 hours of in-world time, don't allow it.

There are any number of ways of justifying that, it can be as simple as: "Hey guys, in order for Bob's champion fighter to feel like he contributes equally and so that I don't have to deal with nova class issues we're only going to have 1 long rest every 6-8 encounters with a short rest or two in there. I'll let you know when you get rests."

Not a perfect solution of course, there is no such thing. You can either complain about an issue caused by something you can't change, or you can change what you can to ameliorate the issue as much as possible.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So if there's such an issue with the system, why not tweak it?

Why not, indeed? That's kinda the point of 5e's DM Empowerment and 'starting point' philosophy. As long as you bracket 6-8 encounter and 2-3 short rests with long rests, you've a shot at making it work.

The way to make that work for a wide variety of campaign pacings (that is, a campaign with a variety of pacings over it's run), would be to assign short & long rests dynamically, based on the story, not just re-set the length of rests like the 'gritty module' does. So Blue could take his weeks-long trek with only a handful of encounters and allow only one short rest in the midst of it, with a long rest coming at the journey's culmination... maybe the lead-in to it would also encompass a few encounters somehow? That kinda thing.

There are any number of ways of justifying that, it can be as simple as: "Hey guys, in order for Bob's champion fighter to feel like he contributes equally and so that I don't have to deal with nova class issues we're only going to have 1 long rest every 6-8 encounters with a short rest or two in there. I'll let you know when you get rests."

Worked for 13th Age.

Both those still impose the kinds of 'limitations' that Blue was complaining about, though, they just deal with those limitations differently. IMHO, the former (dynamically allocating rests based on the situation/story), does a bit better than the default (pick short/long rest durations & let them define campaign pacing) or the 13A solution (fixed cadence of rests & encounters regardless of player actions, short of accepting a campaign loss, or story flow unless the GM fits the story to that fixed cadence).

 

[Blue]

The only limits are those you place on yourself. To me it seems the options i present each used the mechanics to produce and control or infkuence the results as desired as far as balance.

My point was the toolkit as is provides you with balance if you chose it and imbalance if you chose that using the mechanics.

Its like a mathematical equation. It has variables you control and operations on those defined by the rules/mechanics. You seem to want to change the operations to create balance divorced from the variables (balancing outside the mechanics)

I see that as fruitless unless you grossly limit your variables - and it would only apply fir a small set of variables and overly simpke operations.

But good luck anyway.

You have a great point that balance will vary by table. I am not aiming for some mythical "perfect balance provided by mechanics". However, it's fairly easy and within consensus to be able to trend more toward the positive.

I'm going to use weapon damage to illustrate. If I changed great axes to do d100 damage, I'm pretty sure that most people would say I have increased imbalance. On the other hand, I wouldn't even attempt to argue either way that rapier should be a d6 weapons - there's so many variables around how it gets played by any particular table will be completely lost in the noise - everything within error rates.

Which brings us back to encounters per day. Encounters per day feel like a d20 battle axe. Not nearly d100, but noticeable enough. My experience, anecdotal from gaming friends, and wider forum consensus indicates that there is a change in inter-class balance when you reduce encounters per long rest sharply downward from there. 1-2 is quite noticeable, 3-4 is still noticeable.

My personal opinion is that some classes have a more-flat-than-not effort output in regards to number of encounters per rest, while others are able to boost their average output dramatically if they know they are acting over smaller total. Primary spellcasters come to mind as a good example, but even the paladin can do a lot more if they can Divine Strike on every hit without running out because the encounters per day will be low. But really, if that's part of the root cause or not is less important to this particular post then that there does seem to be a wide feeling that that is a problem.

Can this be moved in the right direction by how the DM runs the game? Absolutely. You gave some great examples of that.

But that doesn't mean that it could not also trend in the right direction if the mechanics were done differently. I gave some examples from other systems, but having run both 5e and 13th Age, the simple numerical change of balancing around at-will, 1/encounter, and ~4 encounters per full rest (regardless of time passed) gave me more freedom as a DM to tell the stories I wanted to while still having strong support from the mechanics.

I see the purpose of the rules to help the whole table tell the best stories and have the most fun. That is enhanced when the mechanics and the narrative are in sync. I can do a narrative with any rules are none, but when I have rules that present the feel we're going for that makes it all flow smoother.

I see no problems in both improving game running skills and addressing mechanical rules issues to make the game even better. It isn't an either-or.

 

[Ymdar]

I ran 6 medium encounters a day as a test and it worked nicely.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You have a great point that balance will vary by table. I am not aiming for some mythical "perfect balance provided by mechanics". However, it's fairly easy and within consensus to be able to trend more toward the positive.

It could be as little as making balance achievable without reference to pacing. D&D (to varying degrees, 5e the most decided & admitted among them) depends on a pacing of multiple 'encounters' between recharging critical (mostly spell) resources to make both class and encounter balance achievable. (5e has been the most explicit about that pacing target, it was less critical in 4e which was better-balanced to begin with, and 3e; and it was not even exactly spelled out in earlier editions, at least, not in so many words, and with few guidelines. )

That does limit the kinds of stories you can tell with D&D, to, broadly, three: tireless heroes fighting toe-to-toe with numberless (but virtually harmless, since hp attrition could still swiftly end the 'day' were they even a teeny bit dangerous) enemies for protracted periods, mighty mages blowing away all opposition in moments, and teams of both sorts facing series after series of dangerous, discrete challenges bracketed by periods of rest, and averaging 6-8 such between 'longer' rests and 2 between shorter ones. Of course, you prettymuch never see the first sort, because they'd be really tedious to slog through, but they'd be theoretically 'required' if you were going to occasionally have the second sort. The last, of course, is the ideal norm 5e aims for.

Can this be moved in the right direction by how the DM runs the game? Absolutely. You gave some great examples of that.

But that doesn't mean that it could not also trend in the right direction if the mechanics were done differently. I gave some examples from other systems, but having run both 5e and 13th Age, the simple numerical change of balancing around at-will, 1/encounter, and ~4 encounters per full rest (regardless of time passed) gave me more freedom as a DM to tell the stories I wanted to while still having strong support from the mechanics.

13A's solution is solid enough, but it is also quite limiting to the way you tell stories, since the 1st, 5th, 9th, etc... battle in the party's story sees them at full strength once again, while the 4th, 8th, 12th, etc sees them on the ropes. Seriously, it's kinda artificial. Yes, the option of a 'campaign loss' does mean players can change things up by resting early, and the DM can, just like a 5e DM can change how long it takes to rest, change the underlying timing of full-heal-ups - but they're not terribly flexible solutions compared to just not resting balance on pacing, in the first place.

An example of balance not resting on pacing - a bad one, because there's not a lot of balance to rest upon anything in the first place - would be the last ed of Gamma World. It was almost entirely independent of pacing, virtually all resources simply re-set for each encounter. So you could have 39 encounter and level through half your 10-level career in a day, or have one encounter week for years. It'd've made no difference to how 'balanced' the characters (they didn't have classes) were, and only the slightest to how the challenges played out.

So you were free to pace your GW game as you wished, no meaningful limitation I noticed.

OTOH, the sheer, overwhelming, beer-and-pretzels goofiness of it certainly limited the stories you could tell...

 

[5ekyu]

You have a great point that balance will vary by table. I am not aiming for some mythical "perfect balance provided by mechanics". However, it's fairly easy and within consensus to be able to trend more toward the positive.

I'm going to use weapon damage to illustrate. If I changed great axes to do d100 damage, I'm pretty sure that most people would say I have increased imbalance. On the other hand, I wouldn't even attempt to argue either way that rapier should be a d6 weapons - there's so many variables around how it gets played by any particular table will be completely lost in the noise - everything within error rates.

Which brings us back to encounters per day. Encounters per day feel like a d20 battle axe. Not nearly d100, but noticeable enough. My experience, anecdotal from gaming friends, and wider forum consensus indicates that there is a change in inter-class balance when you reduce encounters per long rest sharply downward from there. 1-2 is quite noticeable, 3-4 is still noticeable.

My personal opinion is that some classes have a more-flat-than-not effort output in regards to number of encounters per rest, while others are able to boost their average output dramatically if they know they are acting over smaller total. Primary spellcasters come to mind as a good example, but even the paladin can do a lot more if they can Divine Strike on every hit without running out because the encounters per day will be low. But really, if that's part of the root cause or not is less important to this particular post then that there does seem to be a wide feeling that that is a problem.

Can this be moved in the right direction by how the DM runs the game? Absolutely. You gave some great examples of that.

But that doesn't mean that it could not also trend in the right direction if the mechanics were done differently. I gave some examples from other systems, but having run both 5e and 13th Age, the simple numerical change of balancing around at-will, 1/encounter, and ~4 encounters per full rest (regardless of time passed) gave me more freedom as a DM to tell the stories I wanted to while still having strong support from the mechanics.

I see the purpose of the rules to help the whole table tell the best stories and have the most fun. That is enhanced when the mechanics and the narrative are in sync. I can do a narrative with any rules are none, but when I have rules that present the feel we're going for that makes it all flow smoother.

I see no problems in both improving game running skills and addressing mechanical rules issues to make the game even better. It isn't an either-or.

Regarding that some can improve if they know more frequent rests etc... Vs others more flat (and counter that some more obviously reduced if they know its going to be an overly long road.)

Yes.

Now, replace that same concern over some flat, others better if know x, others worse if know y... Not with rests...

Fighting giants vs fighting undead?

If you know you are going to be fighting mostly fire giants over "a long enough stretch to be considered imbalancing" vs knowing you will be fighting mostly frost giants vs knowing you will be mostly fighting undead vs mostly fighting demons etc etc etc...

Dont you wind up with even more imbalance class up or down vs flat issues then?

Certainly your limited known casters unlikely to be able to dial up the best mix like the preppers do.

Just like the known lotsa undead means those clerics shine quite a bit brighter maybe than say sorc or fighter or rogue.

Is it not feeling as "limiting" that your choices in adversaries can and does have a dramatic impact on character and class balance as the nature of the challenges is a KEY elrment of balance consideration in actual play?

My point is simple, power or value or balance is the product of seeing how package abc of abilities intersects with need/challenge xyz.

The nature of the challenges chosen by the gm is imo the greatest single factor of balance in direct mechanical means. Everything else (outside ofvpoorly designed sttictly greater thans in really bad games) is dependent on that challenge for meaning.

"Short rest vs long rest" and 4 per day s vs 8 per days vs 12 per days are just another facet of the challenge. Facets easily mixed in to lotsa of different types of campaign and a lot less "limiting" than the bulk of the "what is this challenge" choices will be especially if those aspects are "known" to the players ahead of time.

Of course, anything can "feel" limiying to someone, especially if it butts up against preferences or "tenets of faiths" but i really dont see how this particular "feeling" of limiting can be seen as objectively more "limiting on the GM" than much of the other "what this challenge is and how its challenging" decision are.

Or how decisions on pacing (or the other challenge-defining aspects are somehow non-mechanical or outside mechanics.

How goid is fireball vs magic misdle really does vary mechanically if i am fighting fire giants or invisible stalkers, doesnt it?

If we get to the point ehere classes and charscters are balanced across all the potentislal chalkenges, each contributing equally, we realky have seemed to get very close to making those choices not matter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If we get to the point ehere classes and charscters are balanced across all the potentislal chalkenges, each contributing equally, we realky have seemed to get very close to making those choices not matter.

So, the only way a choice matters is if it makes you 'better' than the next guy in some hands-down, way? Kinda zero-sum, i'n't?

Now, replace that same concern over some flat, others better if know x, others worse if know y... Not with rests...

You mean add another layer of 'concern,' don't you? Because that is /also/ the case, still in 5e (albeit, less so than in 3.5, and more so than in 4e).

Dont you wind up with even more imbalance class up or down vs flat issues then?

If the imbalances harmonize, sure.
Party vs 'known' undead: the cleric turns them, and can preps spells just to deal with them, the wizard, likewise, can prep the best spells he knows, the 'known' casters can spam the spells they do know that work best in the situation, etc...

You're getting into Class Tiers with that question, really.

Is it not feeling as "limiting" that your choices in adversaries can and does have a dramatic impact on character and class balance as the nature of the challenges is a KEY elrment of balance consideration in actual play?

It's potentially additive, at least, sure. You saw it in AD&D modules. The undead encounters would be huge compared to other sorts of monsters, because the cleric would turn/destroy some of them, but there'd still be an encounter left. Does it always make sense to have more zombies than gnolls in a dungeon?

My point is simple, power or value or balance is the product of seeing how package abc of abilities intersects with need/challenge xyz.

Yep, definitely getting into Class Tiers with that point. Yes, character abilities often work better in some circumstances than others, so the more versatility you have within your class abilities, the higher your Tier.

It's an issue for DMs to deal with, over an above the issue of pacing, sure.

Of course, anything can "feel" limiying to someone, especially if it butts up against preferences or "tenets of faiths" but i really dont see how this particular "feeling" of limiting can be seen as objectively more "limiting on the GM" than much of the other "what this challenge is and how its challenging" decision are.

It doesn't need to be 'more limiting' than other issues D&D also suffers from, to be acknowledges as actually limiting. It's not the only such hurdle DMs face? Not a revelation.

 

[5ekyu]

So, the only way a choice matters is if it makes you 'better' than the next guy in some hands-down, way? Kinda zero-sum, i'n't?


You mean add another layer of 'concern,' don't you? Because that is /also/ the case, still in 5e (albeit, less so than in 3.5, and more so than in 4e).

If the imbalances harmonize, sure.
Party vs 'known' undead: the cleric turns them, and can preps spells just to deal with them, the wizard, likewise, can prep the best spells he knows, the 'known' casters can spam the spells they do know that work best in the situation, etc...

You're getting into Class Tiers with that question, really.

It's potentially additive, at least, sure. You saw it in AD&D modules. The undead encounters would be huge compared to other sorts of monsters, because the cleric would turn/destroy some of them, but there'd still be an encounter left. Does it always make sense to have more zombies than gnolls in a dungeon?

Yep, definitely getting into Class Tiers with that point. Yes, character abilities often work better in some circumstances than others, so the more versatility you have within your class abilities, the higher your Tier.

It's an issue for DMs to deal with, over an above the issue of pacing, sure.

It doesn't need to be 'more limiting' than other issues D&D also suffers from, to be acknowledges as actually limiting. It's not the only such hurdle DMs face? Not a revelation.

I think the vast majority of my response to your post points likely are varying forms of "no, but what was said but i get why you seem to need to see it that way."

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the vast majority of my response to your post points likely are varying forms of "no, but what was said but i get why you seem to need to see it that way."

I do get weirdly hung up on facts, which can be really problematic in a lot of internet discussions, I find.

 

[5ekyu]

I do get weirdly hung up on facts, which can be really problematic in a lot of internet discussions, I find.

i give you hilarity points for that one, given previous choices you have made in this conversation.

you also gets points for form.

enjoy.