This is probably the only time I'll ever agree with you, so enjoy it while it lasts.

Encounters per day is a funny thing. If the party is some mix of Fighters and Rogues they can only take 1 or 2, if that. If they are some mix of Clerics/Druids/Sorcerers/Wizards they can handle at least 5-10 times that number.

In neither case is "4", or any specific set number the right answer.

However many encounters the party hits depends on what they are doing. On any given day this could be 0, 1, 2, 4, 10, 15...

If you assault an enemy base and take too long to kill everything and get out you end up fighting the whole goddamned base at the same time.

If there's a Great Wyrm over here and you go over there, boom Great Wyrm.

Ultimately it all comes down to your ability to pick fights, take ones you can handle then leave and recharge so you can survive and repeat this process.

The problem with this is that not all parties can manage this. Sometimes you've had enough, you go to leave and another encounter takes objection to that. And either you have some ability to say "nope, really leaving now bye" or you just fucking die because you are out of resources.

The enemies track you back to your camp and either you have some ability to say "nope, we don't all get ganked in our sleep, bye" or you all get ganked in your sleep (and before anyone says anything about watches, it's beyond trivial for any intelligent foe to neutralize those first).

The thing about intelligent foes (in any encounter numbers) is that only a few types of parties can actually deal with them. Start adding in lots of them and the bodies will start piling up.

Quick, hide behind the dead Rogues!

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;582316Bear in mind, i am not knocking your style if it includes stuff like cr and encounters per day, i simpy find it doesn't work for me. I just fund I was on a very different page from the folks at wotc and paizo when i started noticing this sort of stuff.

No problem. It's hard for me to tell how much actual difference we're talking about here. i.e. If you were to play in a game of mine, I don't put in any illogical crazy monster-throwing. I disliked the trend in both AD&D1 and later editions to have dungeons with vast gaping logic holes like "what do they eat" or "why are they there". However, I have not moved to the extreme of only working from what would logically be living there for the world. At least for D&D, I still plan an adventure, and I take into account things like how tough, interesting, and fun it will be for the players.

(Re: arguments that GMs who allow PCs to have only 1-2 encounters per day are bad)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;582316it is true this has come up in that discussion, but peope in those instances are normally talking about the difficulty of avoiding multipleencunters mid adventure. For example storming the evil wizard's tower, then fleeing to a cave to rest after you run out of big spells. People are really just saying that in a believable setting with believable npcs that isharder to do because the wizard sendshis minions after you, he regroups and builds up his defenses, etc. Things dont come to a halt just because the pcs decided to rest. So i see this really more as trying to connect enciunters to what pcs are doing.

This is an example of the trend I was talking about. Here you're rejecting the idea that there is any metagame agenda or considerations - suggesting that the reaction was purely about world logic.

I keep hearing a series of these that makes it seem like you're working from purely world logic with no influence from what you think would make for a good adventure. However, I feel like this might not actually represent our true difference in styles.

Quote from: Bill;582386When I first started dming basic dnd 30+ years ago, I did place level 2 monsters on the 2nd level of a dungeon. That's kinda like using CR.

But I stopped doing that early on.

That reminds me of a basic D&D dungeon I was designing when it dawned on me that this didn't make much sense.  I think it was a werewolf that made me go, 'hey, wait a minute, what would HE be doing down here?'

Good memories...

Quote from: Mr. GC;582428This is probably the only time I'll ever agree with you, so enjoy it while it lasts.

I'm so deeply baffled by this as a first post, as well as the lack of who the "you" is that should be "enjoying it", that I honestly can't come up with a decent Gary Coleman joke...

Whatchutalkinbout, Willis?

Quote from: mcbobbo;582461I'm so deeply baffled by this as a first post, as well as the lack of who the "you" is that should be "enjoying it", that I honestly can't come up with a decent Gary Coleman joke...

Whatchutalkinbout, Willis?

It's very simple. I don't agree with most of what is said here. I do agree with this.

Quote from: mcbobbo;582458That reminds me of a basic D&D dungeon I was designing when it dawned on me that this didn't make much sense.  I think it was a werewolf that made me go, 'hey, wait a minute, what would HE be doing down here?'

Good memories...

You mean monsters are  not in suspended animation until a PC opens a door?

Quote from: jhkim;582456What the heck?!?  Below is not what I wrote.  This was marked as "Last edited by BedrockBrendan; Today at 10:58 AM."  Brendan - it looks like you edited my post instead of replying.  

Sorry about that Jhkim. My account was updated to make me a mod earlier today and I wasn't aware of the edit feature. I thought I was replying and was actually editing your post. My appologies.

Quote from: jhkim;582456No problem. It's hard for me to tell how much actual difference we're talking about here. i.e. If you were to play in a game of mine, I don't put in any illogical crazy monster-throwing. I disliked the trend in both AD&D1 and later editions to have dungeons with vast gaping logic holes like "what do they eat" or "why are they there". However, I have not moved to the extreme of only working from what would logically be living there for the world. At least for D&D, I still plan an adventure, and I take into account things like how tough, interesting, and fun it will be for the players.

(Re: arguments that GMs who allow PCs to have only 1-2 encounters per day are bad)



This is an example of the trend I was talking about. Here you're rejecting the idea that there is any metagame agenda or considerations - suggesting that the reaction was purely about world logic.

I keep hearing a series of these that makes it seem like you're working from purely world logic with no influence from what you think would make for a good adventure. However, I feel like this might not actually represent our true difference in styles.

I find what is logical outgrowth of setting and events tends to be fun(at least for me). I really like giving the players freedom to explore a reactive and believable scenario. Metagame considerations will be a factor, they just are not a priority for me. I would say my adventures tend not to feel contrived and I dont do thinks like plan out set pieces or make decisions based on what would be most exciting at the moment. If an encounter occurs it is chance, situational or a product of recent events. That works for me but it does produce pacing that doesn't appeal to everyone. Also this is a generalization of even my own style, setting and system can impact that as can the group of players at my table

Quote from: Soylent Green;582169I for one would welcome machine gun toting giant rabbits in any D&D game. I think would call them "hoops" and they might look something like this.

Good call.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;582477Sorry about that Jhkim. My account was updated to make me a mod earlier today and I wasn't aware of the edit feature. I thought I was replying and was actually editing your post. My appologies.

LOL, 5 minutes on the job and he's already going to be accused of running rampant with abuse of power!

RPGPundit