I've designed many D&D stories and campaigns.
To preface, I generally too want and have many opinions on long rest and that there should be sufficient content between each long rest, this misses the mark a little imo. Because it's not tabletop, it's a video game. There's no DM to individually prepare an encounter based on knowing their particular table and their party comp between sessions, or to adjust on the fly. And there are no way all of these, arguably unrealistic and self-assured for argument examples would all occur in one session in tabletop. (I'd leave the table if it did and not come back), and the DM has had time to take into account what the players have at their disposal and prepare accordingly for next session. Most good DMs don't want to kill their party just 'cause, they'll adapt. Also, players will get way more creative in tabletop outside of nosediving into character sheets, because they can. Out of spell slots? Throw the chair, ask DM if you can try to intimidate the kobold to run away, etc.
Non-linear videogames don't have this luxury. You don't know where or when a player is gonna go, in what order, what angle they're going to approach an encounter, etc. It's a lot more static and rigid than tabletop. And if you approach a videogame as if a replacement for tabletop, you will always be disappointed. I advise reflecting on this a little.
Balancing encounters for a video game and balancing encounters for tabletop is fundamentally incomparable, because the games play very, very differently.
Example:. Descent into Avernus. Cultists. 1st fight.
If you're referring to the encounter in the inn, that's maybe the worst encounter design in any pre-written adventure imo.
Basically, while I want to make it very clear I'm not disagreeing with the intent and message, I could write another 10.000 words on why certain game designs need iteration in a complex layering of how narrative works out, the urgency with the tadpole, unlimited longrests and how it all breaks immersion a bit if you sit back to think of it; This argumentation isn't the way to go, and it's just flat incorrect. Unrealistic examples not based in reality, and completely missing the mark of how a video game and tabletop is fundamentally different yet arguing as if they're the same, actually does the messaging a disservice.
And there's no hill to die on or argument to win here, I hope I don't make you feel defensive because I believe at least I actually agree with what you're trying to say conceptually GM4Him, just not how the argument is presented and made. All of this totally disregarding that it's way off topic for the thread itself anyway 😸
