Quote from: Sacrosanct;579978Um...no, they are not.  There's a big difference.  In one (low level monsters happen to be in this area), the GM has created the game world by plopping down it's inhabitants, and then the game world moves on independent of what the characters do.  In the other (encounters per day), the GM is constantly stopping or adjusting the living game world whenever the PCs happen to have hit their max encounters.  The PCs essentially have a pause button wherever they go, and their actions directly impact a game world.

I.e., in the first, it's "Here's where the orcs live because it's cool and here's a little history on the clan." and that's it.  They live there no matter what the players do.  In the second, the players control the game world based on their actions that may not even be related to what's being changed.

Two completely different things.

I understand the principles and it certainly can work. However, the fact you have here is where the orcs live and over here there are gnolls and over here ogres but don't worry because we won't mix them up so you have a nice upgrade path from 1st to 4th level... this is much more how the design ends up.

Likewise the encounter per day model can be ok we have had 6 encounters now so you can rest for the day.... but it can also be in the background the DM uses the idea that roughly 6 challenges of this strength are about right so they create an adventure that aims to hit the party with these encounters on the first day. The party can avoid them, they can trade with them etc etc they can fight them all... the point is its just a meta concept guide for new DMs to try and make a game enjoyable and challenging.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579978The PCs essentially have a pause button wherever they go, and their actions directly impact a game world.

No.  That's not correct.  

Encounters per day is a suggestion for the DM for planning purposes.  When stocking a dungeon, if he includes 'level-appropriate' foes, if he doesn't plan on them taking a break after that number of encounters, the likelihood of a character death increases dramatically.  Combat when the party is low on resources is much more 'swingy'.  A foe that they easily defeated when at 'full strength' might overwhelm them.  

So if you want to make the fights all 'about equally tough' and you don't want the PCs to be overwhelmed, you have to plan those breaks into the dungeon design.  For example, maybe the first several rooms are home to kobolds.  The next several rooms are home to goblins.  The kobolds and goblins are at war, so if the PCs start killing kobolds, the goblins won't come to help them (and if they take out the kobolds, the goblins will wait 1 or 2 days to start investigating because it could be a trap).  

There you go - you have a suggestion for the DM to plan the dungeon in a way that the party can have some fun/interesting/challenging fights without making death a real possibility.  

This is also good from a 'narrative' standpoint.  Rising action, rising action, climax, break.  Repeat.  

But if the PCs decide that they're still feeling pretty good after the kobolds, there is nothing that makes the goblins 'disappear'.  And if they engage the goblins and/or reveal that the kobolds are all gone and the only people left if the kobold warrens are the weakened PCs and they're loaded down with kobold treasure - well, that's a bad decision and even though a 'break' was 'available', it doesn't mean that they're guaranteed to have it.  

The world still responds to the PCs in a believable way.   But the design of the world takes into account that the DM wants to provide a challenge for the party without always trying to overwhelm them.  And there is NOTHING indicating that the party will always fight level-appropriate foes.  There is also NOTHING requiring that they fight every possible opponent they meet.  

Encounters/day makes sense from a DM perspective because so many class abilities are on a 'per day' refresh rate (most importantly spells).  If spells refreshed on a weekly basis, the number of encounters the party could reasonably expect to beat would be described in those terms.  It is simply an attempt to estimate how 'far' a party should be able to stretch their resources.  A party that consistently fights fewer or weaker encounters won't be challenged as much as one that fights more or stronger encounters - but a mix of challenges is the expectation.

I guess i am just not a fan of the gm pacing things so that the players have the ideal amount of challenge at any given point. This is one of the reasons i hate fudging, because it usually comes out of either a desire to save the pcs or a desire to appropriately challenging them. Nothing more irksome than the GM beefing up a foe midfight just so the fight lasts longer, or vice versa. That doesnt mean you need to constantly overwhelm or underwhelm the player but it gets tiing when adventures start following obvious pacing and challenge patterns. I prefer a bit of randomness and reactive environment to th e gm planning a series of staged encounters. So i think that is what i read into "x number of encounters per day". My own experience running d&d during 3E, where there was a lot of encouragement to design adventures around an encounter structure, just left me unimpressed. It wasnt what i was looking for as a gm or player. That said i take no issue with others desiring that...it just wasnt for me.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;579993No.  That's not correct.  

Encounters per day is a suggestion for the DM for planning purposes.

I believe a part of the complaint is players who feel the the DM is somehow "cheating" if he/she doesn't slavishly adhere to those suggestions.

Quote from: Dimitrios;579999I believe a part of the complaint is players who feel the the DM is somehow "cheating" if he/she doesn't slavishly adhere to those suggestions.

But the same players would complain if they found a troll guarding a giant diamond in an adventure for 1-3rd level PCs.

They don't have to kill the troll they don't have to get the diamond but some of them will still bitch about it.

Quote from: Dimitrios;579999I believe a part of the complaint is players who feel the the DM is somehow "cheating" if he/she doesn't slavishly adhere to those suggestions.

This is exactly it.  Because we've already had people here say if you don't follow the guidelines, you're a dick DM.

Quote from: Opaopajr;5798732) the world is small enough to be easily managed by one side, be it race, alignment, etc.

Ask your local jaguars, grizzly bears, wolves, Aztecs, and Apaches if this is or is not the case ITRW.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579918Man, people are spending an awful lot of time arguing for a pedantic level of realism in a fantasy game.  Just create your world and have fun.  Who cares that it might not be realistic because last fall a 10th level hero happened to stay at an inn in the area.

I don't see it as pedantic, but a juxtaposition.  OP said that arbitrary PC-to-NPC level/challenge match ups were bad.  I'm saying we are selective about which 'bad' we're willing to accommodate.

Then at least point out that the guidelines have additional flexibility.  I don't have my 3.5 DMG in front of me, but it had suggestions for encounters of EL below average level, equal to average level and above average level.  

In any case, if every party has a single fight and then they rest or retreat (5 minute work day) they can handle a much more difficult fight than if they have several encounters during the course of the day.  An environment is more fun if there is the possibility of multiple encounters (it feels more dynamic).  A DM 'slavishly following' the guidelines still doesn't tell the players what to do.  If the DM has a safe spot where they COULD rest after the suggested number of encounters, but they CHOOSE not to, then they'll have more encounters than suggested, and that's 'by the book'.  

I'm so spoiled by access to the SRD.  I actually have 3 gaming books at work, but not the DMG.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579835I'm sorry, but I fail to see the absurdity. Do you care to elaborate on what, exactly, you find absurd about sandbox play?

RPGPundit

The absurdity is your insistance that D&D sandbox isn't mechanical but organic.

D&D is a level based game.  Level is pure mechanical.

Quote from: Sommerjon;580018D&D is a level based game.  Level is pure mechanical.

Yes it is. AC, HP, levels, these are all purely mechanical representations

Planning out the number of levels of things the PCs will encounter in a given time frame is pure bullshit. Doing this tells them that their choices on where to go and what to do are meaningless because they will be facing N encounters of W-Z difficulty per day.

On reflection, this is the kind of shit that makes players disregard the setting so damn much. If the underlying "engine" remains constant no matter how they engage the setting then the setting really is just window dressing so why pay much attention to it?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580026Yes it is. AC, HP, levels, these are all purely mechanical representations

Planning out the number of levels of things the PCs will encounter in a given time frame is pure bullshit. Doing this tells them that their choices on where to go and what to do are meaningless because they will be facing N encounters of W-Z difficulty per day.

How is it meaningless?

Quote from: Sommerjon;580029How is it meaningless?

In such a model the players have no input as far as the level of assumed risk goes.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;580030In such a model the players have no input as far as the level of assumed risk goes.

And they have input on assumed risk through an "oldskool sandbox"?
 How?  
Isn't their assumed risk purely dependent upon; quality of description from the DM, encounter chart, and how metagamey they feel like being?

Quote from: Sommerjon;580018The absurdity is your insistance that D&D sandbox isn't mechanical but organic.

D&D is a level based game.  Level is pure mechanical.

Then all roleplaying system for progression are mechanical. I see D&D levels little different then how GURPS handles follow on options for templates. Lenses that cost X Points that modified the base template (also in points) in some way.

Level is abstract and there are a large jump in power level but doesn't make it any less organic than any other arbitrary method of measuring character progression.

It boils down to a preference issues. Whether you like the detail that point based (or percentile based) systems give you. Or you like something simpler and more abstract.