Quote from: CRKrueger;579507Nope.  Suggested encounters for a party that level, sure - it lets the new GM get a feel for what a party can or cannot handle.  Suggested Encounters Per Day trains a GM to provide a specfic playstyle experience- period.  X amount of Y level encounters expends Z level of resources, which means A number of set encounters to reach B level, etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Cool. I agree with that distinction.

I note that "encounters per day" and "encounter per level" are two different concepts though, unless you are somehow connecting days with levels. Did you mean to throw in the second concept?

Quote from: One Horse Town;579508Excluded middle - again.

Play the game and the world.

In a good game, they are the same thing....

Quote from: jibbajibba;579429I think if you have mixed humanoid groups rather than using them interchangeably to make a challenge for 1st (kobolds), 2nd (goblins), 3rd (Orcs), 4th , 5th .... etc level parties you try to work out the why for a population of kobolds here but no bugbears. So what would do that?

I don't think the monsters have ever been so neatly segregated in older modules (or home made ones that copied them). For example KotB is meant for beginner PCs but the monsters in the first level of the Caves of Chaos include an owlbear and an ogre in addition to the kobolds and goblins.

QuoteSo I guess what I am saying is rather than just populate the world with a range of level appropriate challenges in certain areas, like a MMO game, you should work out the why behind different populations occupying different areas.

When I tried to do this I found I couldn't justify it satisfactorily. I couldn't work out why there were so many sentient intelligent populations that seemed on one hand to be able to interbreed (1/2 orcs) but weren't integrated or eliminated by conquest. Either the world is new and these populations are just coming into contact or there is some divine action involved that protects them.

Or the small/weak ones eke out a living off the scraps left by the bigger/stronger ones, or by inhabiting less desirable territory (or the margins of the better areas takes over by the strong), or by targeting prey the big and strong don't bother with for some reason. In other words, The Law of the Jungle.

You can see this play out among wild animals: Not only do jackals NOT go extinct when lions are nearby, but they thrive since the lions leave scraps and usually don't bother jackals unless the little canines annoy them, since jackals pose almost zero threat against the big cats. On top of that, they aren't even big or numerous enough to provide a meal for lions, and don't compete with them for big game. On the other hand, leopards, hyenas and Cape hunting dogs DO pose a threat and DO compete for game and are not content with a few scraps, but prefer to take the whole kill if possible and guess what -lions kill them every chance they get.

So it should be among monsters.

QuoteBasically the Bugbears take over goblin lands and use goblins as slaves or kill them all off and take their stuff.

Instead of making bugbears and goblins separate species, I simply make bugbears the huge goblin leaders and the small bands and lone bugbears are leader(s) who have been ousted.

QuoteMy decision was to remove all but one humanoid race. And have them all but eliminated by humans (I kept Gnolls but make them level like humans) . So there are monsters, but they are real monsters, tentacled, hairy beasts that live in the dark places. The main enemies for PCs are other Humans. This also means that all the bad guys are generally 1st level, but they operate in groups and have leaders and the like.

Sorry waffling a bit

It makes sense, though I haven't gone as far as you have. As Arthur Collins pointed out in Dragon many years ago, just because there are dozens of humanoids or demi-humans in the game doesn't mean you have to include them.

If you don't want your campaign to become a Serengeti of humanoids but you want a wide selection just do what I've done: Start merging monsters. For example, I've made the Hags (annis, sea hag, green hag) female ogres and trolls, kinda like Grendel's mother. I only use one type of dragon. I lump ettins and hill giants together. I've made the campaign into less of a monster zoo while keeping some of the diversity.

Quote from: Elfdart;579521Instead of making bugbears and goblins separate species, I simply make bugbears the huge goblin leaders and the small bands and lone bugbears are leader(s) who have been ousted.

My goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears have formed a nation based on social collectivism that resembles the old Soviet Union and her satellite states.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367Seriously, does someone want to try to defend this notion?  In what way can this make sense in roleplaying?

The potential number of encounters you might have should depend on SETTING considerations, not fucking "balance" considerations! If you are traveling through "Dragon Swamp" with your level 2 party you shouldn't expect only level-2 encounters; and it should not happen that the "caves of peril" should have only 1st-level perils for a 1st level party but the moment a 10th level party steps inside suddenly 10th level perils are spawned!
Likewise, the idea that in the course of the day there must be "x" encounters, not more nor less, or something of the sort is absurd.

There should be as many encounters as makes sense in the place the PCs actually ARE, in the fucking SETTING.

Preach it. A minimum number of encounters per day sounds like those corporate KPI crap that they force you to fulfil in your annual employee evaluation...

Quote from: estar;579385So what prompted this post?

A recent post where someone mentioned the idea of "x encounters per day" (balanced to CR, no doubt) being an important part of (I think) 4e rules, and they seemed to be taking it seriously.

RPGPundit

Is anyone able to point to an RPG which includes suggested encounters per day?

EDIT: To clarify, as I said above (and confirmed by Pundit's post), I assumed this was a cite from 4e but I can't find a reference to it in the 4e books.

Quote from: Skywalker;579512Cool. I agree with that distinction.

I note that "encounters per day" and "encounter per level" are two different concepts though, unless you are somehow connecting days with levels. Did you mean to throw in the second concept?

Yeah I tossed it in, because it usually ends up being part of the whole paradigm where you know you have a set, small range of encounters to hit next level.

Quote from: CRKrueger;579565Yeah I tossed it in, because it usually ends up being part of the whole paradigm where you know you have a set, small range of encounters to hit next level.

*gah!!!!*
I still remember the first time I read that.  I still can't wash my eyes out enough.

Quote from: Skywalker;579564Is anyone able to point to an RPG which includes suggested encounters per day?

EDIT: To clarify, as I said above (and confirmed by Pundit's post), I assumed this was a cite from 4e but I can't find a reference to it in the 4e books.

3.5 DMG for sure.

Quote from: CRKrueger;579565Yeah I tossed it in, because it usually ends up being part of the whole paradigm where you know you have a set, small range of encounters to hit next level.

So, suggested encounters per level also trains a GM to provide a specfic playstyle experience?

I don't agree with your comment then, as I can't distinguish "suggested encounters per level" from "its 2,000 XP to hit level 2 and Goblins are 5 XP".

Suggested encounters per day is a different idea IMO and I agree that its a problem as it imposes and mixes a game concept over the natural flow of action/play.

Quote from: Benoist;5795713.5 DMG for sure.

Do they actually include a reference to "suggested encounters per day"? I am genuinely curious (and I don't want to sound pedantic) and would be cool to be shown otherwise. I just don't remember that concept every being explicitly mentioned.

Suggested encounters per level is definitely in 3.5 though. I remember that.

Well, a set amount of XP is in itself a framing of what's necessary to level up, but in AD&D for instance, this doesn't mean "this number of encounters" but rather how much treasure you've obtained (counting as about 2/3 of total XP in actual play), the monsters defeated, the occasional awards for problem solving and RPing... cf. DMG. So it can unfold differently for each character, in practice, depending on play style, character type, campaign specifics etc.

Quote from: Benoist;579574Well, a set amount of XP is in itself a framing of what's necessary to level up, but in AD&D for instance, this doesn't mean "this amount of monsters killed" but rather how much treasure you've obtained (counting as about 2/3 of total XP in actual play), the monsters defeated, the occasional awards for problem solving and RPing... cf. DMG. So it can unfold differently for each character, in practice, depending on play style, character type, campaign specifics etc.

True but encounters effectively are just an aggregation of those same components.

Also IIRC isn't treasure obtained in AD&D determined through monsters killed, given how the treasure system worked? Its been a while since I ran AD&D by the book, so I am bit rusty

Quote from: Skywalker;579575Also IIRC isn't treasure obtained in AD&D determined through monsters killed, given how the treasure system worked? Its been a while since I ran AD&D by the book, so I am bit rusty

No.  No one says you had to kill the monsters. In fact, it was better if you found a way not to.  That way you didn't have to put your character at risk for beating something not worth very many XP (the monster) when the treasure was the real goal.