"Suggested Encounters Per Day" is an Abomination

jeff37923 · September 04, 2012, 04:59:02 AM

Quote from: Benoist;579585I don't have my DMG next to me and would have to unearth it, but it's either where ELs are first introduced along with the table showing CR X + CR Y = EL N, or the part where you have the table showing XP earnings per EL (not the same chapters). It is expressed as an amount of resources expected to be spent per EL plus minus or equal to APL, and the mention somewhere that the system was designed to handle on average 4 encounters of CR = APL per day.

Yeah, Table 3-2, that is not set as "per day", but as "per adventure". Pretty significant difference there.

Skywalker · September 04, 2012, 05:04:59 AM

So, what RPGs actually include "suggested Encounters per Day" then?

jeff37923 · September 04, 2012, 05:38:23 AM

Quote from: Skywalker;579628So, what RPGs actually include "suggested Encounters per Day" then?

I don't know. I'm curious about that one myself.

Melan · September 04, 2012, 06:28:10 AM

That must be Spherical Cows and Cubical Swine. I hear it is a popular storygame in Uruguay. :hatsoff:

Panzerkraken · September 04, 2012, 06:34:21 AM

Quote from: Melan;579639That must be Spherical Cows and Cubical Swine. I hear it is a popular storygame in Uruguay. :hatsoff:

is this a character illustration then?

OgreBattle · September 04, 2012, 07:35:45 AM

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

Because tabletop RPG's are something you play with real people, not computers, and controlled by a DM, not immutable programming.

Melan · September 04, 2012, 08:49:26 AM

Quote from: Panzerkraken;579641is this a character illustration then?

Please don't bring my portrait into this. Besides, I never wore that tie again after the photoshoot. :hatsoff:

Elfdart · September 04, 2012, 09:47:44 AM

Quote from: jibbajibba;579620It could actualy be worse than that.
You can imagine a Paladin or Ranger PC who is there to destroy the big Evil and clear the land of the monsters never taking treasure at all because they have no need for it. Thus reducing their XP gained by 70 or 80%.

If the goal of good guys is to defeat evildoers, then it's pretty stupid to leave treasure laying around for the next gang of bad guys to find and use if it can be avoided.

QuoteAnd as a connection to Ben's post on greed its an interesting dilema (yes the paladin could take all the gold back to the village and distribute it as alms but surely they should be off slaying the next big bad even more true of rangers).

I award XPs based (in part) on treasure recovered. What the PCs do with it after that doesn't matter, whether it's a monk giving most of it to his order or a magic-user buying eye of newt or a thief blowing it on slow horses and fast women.

1989 · September 04, 2012, 10:17:31 AM

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

No arguments, here. That's always been how I've seen it.

How do you see this thesis vs. 5e?

Benoist · September 04, 2012, 10:38:18 AM

Quote from: jeff37923;579627Yeah, Table 3-2, that is not set as "per day", but as "per adventure". Pretty significant difference there.

I don't know if it represents that much of a significant difference given the way it's been used by the fans as a bludgeon to tell adventure designers they were "wrong" to get away from the suggested baseline of ELs in the DMG, but I'll take your word for it (I honestly can't afford to go hunt for the book's references right now - they were packed for the repairs on my chimney this summer, and this doesn't seem quite over yet).

estar · September 04, 2012, 10:43:08 AM

Quote from: Melan;579431Hah! I did use a horribly butchered version of Christaller's theory for my domain management rules, so it would not be the first time it was applied to gaming.

Interesting I never knew what I did for my mapping had a formal name and theory. GURPS Fantasy has a write up that must of come from Christaller although they don't label it as such.

But I was doing a similar setup before then by following a distance rule between village, market village, town, and city. And it often resulting in a triangular pattern when geography is relatively flat.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/S2JmRso-NEI/AAAAAAAAAuI/9W0k5mpWaIU/s1600-h/Region,+Gormmah+Sm.jpg

Each small hex is 2.5 miles or one hour walking on level terrain. The larger hexes are 12.5 miles or five hours walking.

estar · September 04, 2012, 10:52:45 AM

Quote from: Doctor Jest;579492Of course, it's nearly impossible to design an adventure module for sandbox play, so to some extent you can't fault that as a design choice since it's much easier than trying to just make a location-based non-linear sandbox adventure that can be played by anyone and be commercially viable.

Well for my part I am trying to prove that can be commercially viable. Like Blackmarsh
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/89944/Blackmarsh

And my upcoming release of the Scourge of the Demon Wolf is typical of the sandbox adventures I run.

I am torn between whether I overdid it in stressing that the order in which I write the encounters is not the order in which they have to be run. Or I didn't stress it enough and people think it is a railroad.

jibbajibba · September 04, 2012, 11:00:09 AM

Quote from: Elfdart;579668If the goal of good guys is to defeat evildoers, then it's pretty stupid to leave treasure laying around for the next gang of bad guys to find and use if it can be avoided.

I award XPs based (in part) on treasure recovered. What the PCs do with it after that doesn't matter, whether it's a monk giving most of it to his order or a magic-user buying eye of newt or a thief blowing it on slow horses and fast women.

Agreed but I can see the Ranger saying to the trusted townsfolk that accompanied him 'take the treasure and distribute it to the folk of the town', just liek I can see hte Paladin saying "take the treasure aand donate to the temple I must ride to blah blah as there is danger afoot".

It just starts to feel a little odd.

Sacrosanct · September 04, 2012, 11:12:15 AM

Quote from: jibbajibba;579675Agreed but I can see the Ranger saying to the trusted townsfolk that accompanied him 'take the treasure and distribute it to the folk of the town', just liek I can see hte Paladin saying "take the treasure aand donate to the temple I must ride to blah blah as there is danger afoot".

It just starts to feel a little odd.

I would think the paladin and ranger should totally get xp for treasure in that scenario. We always played that the characters all got an equal share, and all got xp for their share. What they did with the treasure afterward was after the fact.

jibbajibba · September 04, 2012, 11:20:40 AM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579677I would think the paladin and ranger should totally get xp for treasure in that scenario. We always played that the characters all got an equal share, and all got xp for their share. What they did with the treasure afterward was after the fact.

I would do the same thing. But if the Thief had hidden a bag of gold they get extra XP, so if the Theif robs the paladin on the way home and takes all the gold, does the theif get extra XP? Does the Paladin get none?
As an aside does the Thief get XP from stealing from PCs? and if so can you get multiple XP for the same gold? We all kill the dragon we get a horde of 50,000gp. We all get 10,000xp. Then the thief steals the Paladin's share on the way home, is that worth 10,000xp? If the Paladin then gets it back by catching and imprisoning the thief is that worth an extra 10,000xp?

Does a GP carry a potential XP which can only be garnered once or is the act of caputring gold the thing that provides value ?