Seriously, 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.

RPGPundit

A lack of interest in the campaign world seems to be one of the attitudes that grew up around 4e. Reading over at rpg.net, a lot of folks are very vocal about the fact that the setting only exists when the PCs are interacting with it and is irrelevant otherwise. It seems this attitude is now considered "sophisticated" compared with the naive old school view.

Granted, rpgs aren't fiction, and I'm not interested in writing novels about the campaign world. But having some idea of what's going on in the background (and how time marches on and the situation changes, even if the PCs are off doing something else) makes for a better experience in play IMHO.

As a game design or player advice matter, it makes a certain degree of sense.  If you're going to build a campaign from scratch and use Vancian magic or limited health recovery (or other slow-to-regenerate resources, such as Nobilis' various expendable stats), a playtest-driven set of information about the typical group's performance is kinda vital for newer GMs.  Without one or if the rule is ignored or poorly developed, I can say from personal experience it's quite easy to develop a set of encounters or dungeon that becomes frustrating for your player group, or worse, encourages very stupid behavior such a turtling after every encounter.

As an actual mechanical rule, it's ludicrous and nonsensical and tedious; player groups that make consistently and obviously poor decisions probably should find themselves being eaten by something vastly more powerful than them, or be able to avoid fights if they wish, or sometimes even run into stuff that isn't balanced for them.

((Of course, the fundamental issue is more likely that, especially in earlier D&D games, dungeons were typically built with little or no space for serious recovery.  Long-recovery resources were intended basically as free and constantly available consumables, which makes sense but fits gamist better than simulationist focuses.))

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.

RPGPundit

+1
And more.  IN-seting logic and player action/reaction should be the determinates.

I have a hard time groking how in a role-playing game, the world is not a living world, but something that molds itself to fit the PCs current situation.  

"There be dragons" to the north?  Not until the party is level 15.  That makes no sense.

"Hey, as long as you don't level up, there are no giants in the entire world!"


Ludicrous.  If a first level party hears about rumors of dragons to the north, and goes north, they shouldn't be surprised if they get eaten.  Encounters per day should only be limited by party actions, and not by some set number.  I.e., if the party only goes into one small cave for the entire day, maybe there's only one encounter.  If they start making their way through the Caves of Chaos, they could have over a dozen as long as they are still alive.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579367The 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.

+1. You said it far better than I could.

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.

Agreed 100%

I would add that it is far easier to manage a campaign when you run it as realistically as possible with only the bare minimum of changes needed to add the desired fantastic elements. The players can then assume things naturally. This lessen the amount of description and exposition the referee has to do. It increase the comfort level of the players as they better plan their actions and reactions.

Realistically as possible doesn't mean rules details to the nth degree. Abstract mechanics can be realistic despite not having a lot of detail.

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

So what prompted this post?

Quote from: gattsuru;579374I can say from personal experience it's quite easy to develop a set of encounters or dungeon that becomes frustrating for your player group, or worse, encourages very stupid behavior such a turtling after every encounter.

From my experience such problems are 9 times out of 10 the fault of the referee not adequately communication the situation that the PCs find themselves in.

Something that was thrown in stark relief between the times I roleplayed tabletop and when I roleplayed boffer LARPs. The live-action aspect of playing a boffer LARPS really showed to me all the stuff I wasn't telling the players. There are a lot of little clues that you use to figure out whether you are walking into danger or not or how to resolve the situation you are in. The experience has improved my tabletop referee as I point out advantageous terrain and elements that a veteran character would notice or use.

Doesn't mean that the characters never get surprised or make dumb mistakes. But there is a better acceptance of the result because the player felt they had the information in the first place.

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.

RPGPundit

I agree, but trying to play devil's advocate, there's something to be said for some sort of guidance along the following lines.

If the party are 4 x level X with all major types represented (fighter, cleric, magic-user, thief, or, say, DPS, Healer, Tank and Controller), then if you pit them against CR=X [level equivalent] encounters, the way the numbers work out in this game...

... 1-2 encounters per day will be a walk in the park
... 3 encounters per day will be low risk
... 4 encounters per day will be moderate risk
... 5 encounters per day will be tough
... 6-8 encounters per day will be severely challenging
... 9+ encounters per day will be over 50% likely to result in a TPK

[NB this is a hypothetical example for a hypothetical system, not actual guidelines!!!]

It may be useful to know these sorts of things.

There is, after all, always room to wing things a bit, bend the setting this way or that, so that the party have a reasonably tough time but, if they play things cleverly, don't walk into a TPK every afternoon. Note that I say bend, not break.

Having said all this, I have never, EVER followed or even taken any notice of anyone's guidelines for suggested encounters per day, and I've never set any such guidelines for myself or anyone else as far as I can recall.

But perhaps, subconsciously, I keep an eye on how the party are doing and even things out a bit so they don't TPK. I mean, I must be doing something - because I don't fudge things (or rather haven't in recent years) but I've never had a TPK, and hardly any character death, and even what I've had was probably PvP.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579377I have a hard time groking how in a role-playing game, the world is not a living world, but something that molds itself to fit the PCs current situation.  

"There be dragons" to the north?  Not until the party is level 15.  That makes no sense.

"Hey, as long as you don't level up, there are no giants in the entire world!"


Ludicrous.  If a first level party hears about rumors of dragons to the north, and goes north, they shouldn't be surprised if they get eaten.  Encounters per day should only be limited by party actions, and not by some set number.  I.e., if the party only goes into one small cave for the entire day, maybe there's only one encounter.  If they start making their way through the Caves of Chaos, they could have over a dozen as long as they are still alive.

I take it as a given that a party of 1st-level adventurers knows better than to go looking for fights they can't win. In whatever setting you like, the PCs simply don't have any motivation to actively seek out encounters that aren't "level appropriate" and lots of reasons to avoid them. Sure, the setting may have giants, dragons, and high-level horrors galore; shall we role-play our heroes' noble efforts to run away and hide from them on a daily basis? Is that fun? Any fun at all? Maybe once in a while, but as a GM or player I wouldn't want to make it a regular thing.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579377"There be dragons" to the north?  Not until the party is level 15.  That makes no sense.

"Hey, as long as you don't level up, there are no giants in the entire world!"

It's a gauge, not the Club.  And that's not really how it works.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579377I have a hard time groking how in a role-playing game, the world is not a living world, but something that molds itself to fit the PCs current situation.  

"There be dragons" to the north?  Not until the party is level 15.  That makes no sense.

"Hey, as long as you don't level up, there are no giants in the entire world!"

Ludicrous.  If a first level party hears about rumors of dragons to the north, and goes north, they shouldn't be surprised if they get eaten.  Encounters per day should only be limited by party actions, and not by some set number.  I.e., if the party only goes into one small cave for the entire day, maybe there's only one encounter.  If they start making their way through the Caves of Chaos, they could have over a dozen as long as they are still alive.

I agree.
However, i have to point out that there are really two problems here, and the thread's name only adresses one of them, and that is even the minior one.

I'll explain:
The title adresses the "Suggested Encounters Per Day".
Even though this in itself is unrealistic depending on the area that the characters is in and what they do, it is dwarfed by the other problem so elegantly described in the above quote, that i bolded the specific comments.
This, i dare say, is a real problem, if you want something that even resembles realism.

Either way, the game world is there, from orcs to dragons.  They move on with their lives regardless if a PC ever sets foot in their realm, no?  Or does the game world just stop until the PCs show up?

If the PCs hear about rumors of dragons to the north, they should be the ones to either go or not go; it shouldn't be per-determined by an encounters-per-day or level-appropriate encounter rule.  The dragons are there regardless.  By eliminating these high risk scenarios, it sends the message that the players don't really have to try.  They can skip rumors or research, they can skip travel prep, etc because they know that you're changing the game world to fit them.  Don't eliminate high risk encounters because "I assume the players wouldn't go there anyway."  Don't assume the players will do anything.  You're the referee, if the players do something foolish like no research and no travel prep, then let them pay for it because they'll learn the next time.  That isn't you being a dick as a DM.  That's you being impartial and not catering to the player's mistakes.

It sounds like another layer of entitlement to me.

Quote from: estar;579386From my experience such problems are 9 times out of 10 the fault of the referee not adequately communication the situation that the PCs find themselves in.

That's a separate issue, and an unfortunately complicated one to fix.  I'm talking more about times where the referee doesn't know the situation the PCs find themselves in.  It's not terribly rare for a newer GM to come from experience with non-Vancian settings or video-game-esque settings -- and snark all you want, but that's a lot of players -- and think that it might be reasonable for a 1st level party to take on fifteen normal encounters in a row.  That's a stupid and tedious sort of dungeon design anyway, so it doesn't need a rule change to make it so that player groups can handle it, but it's also not so nonoptimal that it results in Eaten By Grue; it's just tremendously boring paper-keeping if people rest regularly, or boring and resulting in rerolls if people don't.

QuoteDoesn't mean that the characters never get surprised or make dumb mistakes. But there is a better acceptance of the result because the player felt they had the information in the first place.

Agreed; as a hard-enforced mechanical rule "encounters per day" is nonsensical, and very few people like that sort of auto-leveling of enemies anyway even if you're willing to suspend disbelief (see The Elder Scrolls : Oblivion for one example).  If you decide to go Grue-hunting without a flashlight, you might well get eaten by a Grue.  I don't know that conflicts with the idea of a suggested encounter rate.