Expected Encounters per day vs. Random Encounters while travelling

[Estrillian]

It is pretty accepted wisdom that 5E's recommended number of encounters and rests per day (5-6 encounters with 1-2 short rests and a long rest) is important for maintaining balance short and long rest classes, providing the expected degree of challenge, and making some sense of the CR rules (if you can blow all your day's resources on an encounter then the defensive CR is completely changed).

This all works well for dungeons and similar encounter heavy settings (ruined villages of monsters, thief lairs, armies invading your town, fey laden woods etc.) but really badly for cross-country journeying.

All the published adventures I have looked at (so far this is all the official ones except the Rise of Tiamat) tell you to make 1 or 2 random encounter rolls per day. While these can give interesting results (monster spoor, ruins, non-combat encounters) they also have a large number of combat encounters, which seem totally pointless the more I think about them. Unless someone dies (which is almost certainly a terrible result for everyone unless you are doing a totally sandbox adventure with replacement characters) these encounters consume no resources (you get everything back at the end of the day), provide no real narrative tension (because nothing is on the line) and don't work mechanically, because they are almost always met with a Nova of freshly rested characters. The night-time random encounters don't even have the traditional effect of preventing rest, since you need to be fighting for an entire hour to lose your long rest benefits, and most 5E combats last about 20 seconds.

In my own games I mitigate this a bit by not having HP come back each day, but just allow spend / regeneration of Hit Dice, so a random encounter does consume a *little* bit of resources, and I also make people roll to avoid exhaustion if they are attacked in the middle of the night (or forced to flee), but it still doesn't feel like the 2 per day random encounter checks make sense.

How do other people handle this? Drop the random encounters? Assume some daily resources are already used?

[kaoskonfety]

I generally use a full spectrum random encounter table so in "hazardous wilderness" there is a tiny chance of the crazy encounters (5th level part runs into a frost giant - who has no interest in them and actually provided directions when they were adequately servile and offered decent tribute, 2 ancient chromatics sparing over turf while the level 7 PC's ran like hell).

Random encounters at my table are for free form improv role-play and unpredictable complications, if a fight breaks out so be it - but EXP mining being their purpose seems a waste?

Most NPC's DON'T want to fight you. Dumb monsters need a reason to attack (hunger, territory, "its mating season and the purple worms are aggressive". Smart monsters recognise adventures - and some of those guys are DANGEROUS - best to talk it out and make sure we don't have some sort of 'issue' that needs 'murder'.

[Mara]

It is pretty accepted wisdom that 5E's recommended number of encounters and rests per day (5-6 encounters with 1-2 short rests and a long rest) is important for maintaining balance short and long rest classes, providing the expected degree of challenge, and making some sense of the CR rules (if you can blow all your day's resources on an encounter then the defensive CR is completely changed).

It is known.

And like most internet consensus it's probably a combination of overstated and untrue. The exp budget is how much you can expect to throw at a party without killing them. It tells you nothing else. No balance is guaranteed. No challenge is necessarily at the fun level. For the most part, casters are action/concentration gated far more than resource limited. Martials biggest limitation in HP/HD, which causes the party to naturally short rest as a way to heal. 5-6 is the limit because that is when casters start being severely reduced in effectiveness and when martial HD is expected to be running out. If you want the party to actually have to run with diminished resources, you need to push the limit. Otherwise the difference between encounter 1 and encounter 6 is negligible unless your players are just being unwise in that first encounter. (Sorcerer twins firebolt, followed by quicken firebolt!)

I do make use of "random" encounters. As in, they seem random when they are actually planned out. I find that just throwing mobs at the party can be satisfying for awhile, but 5e gets old real quick if you depend solely on the crunch for the fun.

[Zejety]

Remember that the adventuring day is really "The time between two long rests, with about two short rests inbetween."
One of the most popular fixes for games that do not do much dungeoneering is therefore two stretch this time period over whatever time it is acceptable for you to have 5-6 encounters in (the DMG has some suggestions).

This becomes harder when your game is a mix of low- and high-intensity days but the impact can be lessened by placing the high-intensity day right after a long rest (and then give the group another chance at a long rest before another major thing happens).

[Estrillian]

This becomes harder when your game is a mix of low- and high-intensity days but the impact can be lessened by placing the high-intensity day right after a long rest (and then give the group another chance at a long rest before another major thing happens).

Do you think it would work to make a distinction between travel time rests and dungeon time ones?

Like on cross-country travel you need a full day of rest to get a long rest, and your lunch and evening rests are short, while in a dungeon your nightly camp is a long rest? It might make sense for the mechanics but it seems counter-intuitive from a fictional sense that it is easier to rest in a dungeon than while in a wood :)

[Estrillian]

And like most internet consensus it's probably a combination of overstated and untrue. The exp budget is how much you can expect to throw at a party without killing them. It tells you nothing else. No balance is guaranteed. No challenge is necessarily at the fun level. snip
I do make use of "random" encounters. As in, they seem random when they are actually planned out. I find that just throwing mobs at the party can be satisfying for awhile, but 5e gets old real quick if you depend solely on the crunch for the fun.

I agree with that, and I'm happy transporting my players vast differences with no demand for random encounters, but I am trying to understand the mechanical intent in the published adventures. Is it just nostalgia for the way that older editions worked? Do the adventure writers actually see some narrative role for these encounter tables? I can sort of see where they have a place for low levels (any venture into the wilderness is dangerous), but in a game without slow healing, or long term wounds (and with magic items not even running out of charges as a rule) they seem like a holdover.

As an example the otherwise brilliant looking Out of Abyss still advises rolling for random encounters in chapter 15, when the characters are 15th+ level and at the head of an army.

[Mara]

I agree with that, and I'm happy transporting my players vast differences with no demand for random encounters, but I am trying to understand the mechanical intent in the published adventures. Is it just nostalgia for the way that older editions worked? Do the adventure writers actually see some narrative role for these encounter tables? I can sort of see where they have a place for low levels (any venture into the wilderness is dangerous), but in a game without slow healing, or long term wounds (and with magic items not even running out of charges as a rule) they seem like a holdover.

As an example the otherwise brilliant looking Out of Abyss still advises rolling for random encounters in chapter 15, when the characters are 15th+ level and at the head of an army.
I don't remember any Paizo adventure I've ran with truly random encounters. They all had a reason for happening even if then happening was decided by random chance.

It could just be that Wotc is still trying to figure out how to make APs the business model rather than endless crunch.

I remember Paizo releasing their technology guide to the PRD almost instantly just so people could buy and run iron gods without needing to buy another rule book.

[hymer]

How do other people handle this? Drop the random encounters? Assume some daily resources are already used?

I like random encounters to serve different purposes. Firstly, they are free of the usual expectations. The PCs can try something different with a random group of monsters. They can evade the encounter. They can try to turn it into a social episode. They can use it to try out a different tactic than they do when there's more at stake.
Secondly, they can introduce some improv for the DM. Where did these hobgoblins come from? What happens if they're approached peacefully? If they're captured and interrogated? Is there a schism in the group that the PCs can take advantage of?
Thirdly, they should say something about the area. If you mostly come across natural animals, this is a pristine and distant area. If there's a risk of goblin guerilla fighters, it's likely a poorly defended border area. Mindless undead for a cursed and blighted area. Etc. Sometimes this will merely confirm the expectations, but other times it should make the PCs stop and think.

[Malifice]

It is pretty accepted wisdom that 5E's recommended number of encounters and rests per day (5-6 encounters with 1-2 short rests and a long rest) is important for maintaining balance short and long rest classes, providing the expected degree of challenge, and making some sense of the CR rules (if you can blow all your day's resources on an encounter then the defensive CR is completely changed).

This all works well for dungeons and similar encounter heavy settings (ruined villages of monsters, thief lairs, armies invading your town, fey laden woods etc.) but really badly for cross-country journeying.

All the published adventures I have looked at (so far this is all the official ones except the Rise of Tiamat) tell you to make 1 or 2 random encounter rolls per day. While these can give interesting results (monster spoor, ruins, non-combat encounters) they also have a large number of combat encounters, which seem totally pointless the more I think about them. Unless someone dies (which is almost certainly a terrible result for everyone unless you are doing a totally sandbox adventure with replacement characters) these encounters consume no resources (you get everything back at the end of the day), provide no real narrative tension (because nothing is on the line) and don't work mechanically, because they are almost always met with a Nova of freshly rested characters. The night-time random encounters don't even have the traditional effect of preventing rest, since you need to be fighting for an entire hour to lose your long rest benefits, and most 5E combats last about 20 seconds.

In my own games I mitigate this a bit by not having HP come back each day, but just allow spend / regeneration of Hit Dice, so a random encounter does consume a *little* bit of resources, and I also make people roll to avoid exhaustion if they are attacked in the middle of the night (or forced to flee), but it still doesn't feel like the 2 per day random encounter checks make sense.

How do other people handle this? Drop the random encounters? Assume some daily resources are already used?

I find that making random encounters 'deadly' works OK... also - factor them into your dungeons from time to time (so encounter 1 of the AD is the first 'random' encounter the PC's bump). This will keep them on their toes (they wont nova the encounter as they assume that they'll need to conserve spells etc for a dungeon later that day).

[JoeJ]

First of all, the expected 5-6 encounter thing is an internet myth. There is an expected amount of experience per day. How many encounters that equals, however, depends on how tough they are; it can be anywhere from 2.6 (if they're all deadly) to 16 (if they're all easy).

As far as random encounters are concerned, their main function, as I see it, is adding verisimilitude. They reflect the idea of the world as a place that exists independently of the player characters. People, animals, monsters, and other creatures have lives (or unlives) of their own that sometimes intersect with the PCs for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the current quest. You see this a lot in fiction. So sometimes when you're on a quest to kill a dragon, you'll run into some trolls purely by chance. Or if you're sneaking in to burglarize the temple of the evil snake cult, you might run into another thief trying to do the same thing.

Also, within the BBEG's fortress, random encounters reflect the idea that this place doesn't exist simply for the PCs to invade. People work there. They go on and off duty, go to the supply room, move around, and basically do more than just wait in a room for some adventurers to come and kill them. Random encounters also represent guard patrols, which will be a part of the security plan for almost any intelligent BBEG.

If you're playing linear adventures, random encounters aren't strictly necessary, although IMO they make for a better play experience. If you're playing sandbox style, they're pretty much inescapable because it's really the players, not the DM, who decide how important the encounter is to the story.

[Sjappo]

Every encounter has to have a function in the grand scope of things. Otherwise it is just boring grind.

So don't do random random encounters. Overland travel is mostly used to get from interesting bit A to interesting bit B of an adventure. No use in prolonging the boring bit in between. Fast forward and narrate please.

There are reasons to have a planned random encounter. And because of these reasons they have a function.

Now there are lots of reasons to have an encounter outside the scope of the story of the campaign or adventure. It could be that you want to end the session with a nice combat session after lots of social interaction. Or vice versa. A easy curb stomp to make the pcs feel like heroes after a very hard fight. A lighthearted chat with a Nymph in a grimdark campaign. You name it. Or just because you and the players enjoy them.

If you can't find a reason for the encounter it is a pointless useless grind. And a waste of time for the entire table. Get to the interesting bits please.

[Vogonjeltz]

Some players and DMs view random encounters in an adventure as time-wasters, yet well-designed random encounters can serve a variety of useful purposes: Create urgency, Establish atmosphere, drain character resources, provide assistance, add interest, and reinforce campaign themes.

Random encounters should never be tiresome to you or your players. You don't want the players to feel as if they aren't making progress because another random encounter brings their progress to a halt whenever they try to move forward. Likewise, you don't want to spend time distracted by random encounters that add nothing to the narrative or that interfere with the overall pace you're trying to set.

Not every DM likes to use random encounters. You might find that they distract from your game or are otherwise causing more trouble than you want. If random encounters don't work for you, don't use them.

I'd also use this bit of advice: Think about a random encounter under any of the following circumstances: Players getting off track and slowing down the game, characters stopping for a short or long rest, characters undertaking a long uneventful journey, characters drawing attention to themselves when they should be keeping a low profile.

[Tanarii]

Every encounter has to have a function in the grand scope of things. Otherwise it is just boring grind.Thats absolutely not true. In sandbox play, the world doesn't have to have meaning other than it exists. The 'grand scope of things' could just be: hey there's a whole living breathing world here, and things other than your characters and the main 'plot' are part of it. That at sounds pretty grand to a lot of players.

You may only find the bits that directly pertain to what your character is doing interesting, and anything else a waste of time grind, but that's your personal preference.

Edit: Vogonjeltz said it better than me, including some of the other reasons for random encounters can be used beneficially.

[Freelance GM]

The 'grand scope of things' could just be: hey there's a whole living breathing world here, and things other than your characters and the main 'plot' are part of it. That at sounds pretty grand to a lot of players.


I just started using Random Encounters in my current campaign, and it's pretty fantastic. I've tailored an encounter table for each biome within the campaign region. The chances of an encounter give players an idea of how safe the region is, while the actual Random Encounters foreshadow the kinds of enemies they'll find during their adventures in the region. For example, they know that encounters are more likely to occur in the marshes, but less dangerous than the ones in the steppes.

Some of the encounters foreshadow plot elements, like Hobgoblin patrols, or a prowling White Dragon, but sometimes, a Hydra just erupts out of the swamp.

It's given my players a stronger sense of immersion, because the world feels dynamic and alive. Yes, they're an interruption from the plot, and they don't really contribute to game balance in any meaningful way, but some of the most awesome and funny moments of the campaign have occurred during them.

[Sjappo]

Thats absolutely not true. In sandbox play, the world doesn't have to have meaning other than it exists. The 'grand scope of things' could just be: hey there's a whole living breathing world here, and things other than your characters and the main 'plot' are part of it. That at sounds pretty grand to a lot of players.

I can see the attraction of sandbox play although I prefer a little more targeted campaign or adventure.

But I still hold that a random encounter, in the sense of roll d20 and see what happens, has no function except useless grind. Encounters from a random table are either a pushover or a TPK. There is a narrow margin in which the ECL falls within the scope of the PCs' levels.

You could fill your living breathing world with designed encounters and ditch the tables. Your game will be better for it.

[JoeJ]

I can see the attraction of sandbox play although I prefer a little more targeted campaign or adventure.

But I still hold that a random encounter, in the sense of roll d20 and see what happens, has no function except useless grind. Encounters from a random table are either a pushover or a TPK. There is a narrow margin in which the ECL falls within the scope of the PCs' levels.

You could fill your living breathing world with designed encounters and ditch the tables. You're game will be better for it.

The game itself has no function. If encountering a group of ogres while traveling is useless grind, then encountering them guarding the BBEG's throne room is useless grind too.

You could do without tables, but designing a set encounter that feels unplanned is a lot harder that way. Generally, the easiest way to simulate randomness is to use some sort of RNG. Instead of ditching the tables, ditch the ECL. In a world that doesn't revolve entirely around the PCs, some encounters should be pushovers. And some should be TPKs if the party chooses to fight (although make sure they have a reasonable way to know that before they commit themselves).

[Sjappo]

The game itself has no function.
I guess you meant this less extreme than it sounded. Still, if faffing about is your game, more power to you.

In practice tough most player groups will find something to do. Ruling the world or something like this. At which point the sandbox becomes regular campaign. At that point the 4 ogres in front of the Kings throneroom have a function, guarding said King. The ogres randomly encountered somewhere on the road are not tied into the story nor the goal of the players. And thus are useless grind. That game time could be used to get closer to the target: ruling the world.

[JoeJ]

I guess you meant this less extreme than it sounded. Still, if faffing about is your game, more power to you.

In practice tough most player groups will find something to do. Ruling the world or something like this. At which point the sandbox becomes regular campaign. At that point the 4 ogres in front of the Kings throneroom have a function, guarding said King. The ogres randomly encountered somewhere on the road are not tied into the story nor the goal of the players. And thus are useless grind. That game time could be used to get closer to the target: ruling the world.

You're conflating character goals with player goals. The players aren't trying to rule the world; they are there to have an enjoyable evening playing D&D. IME, one encounter is as good as another for that, as long as they're well handled. A boring, phone-it-in encounter with the king's guards is not inherently more enjoyable than a boring phone-it-in encounter with random travelers on the road.

Encountering nothing that doesn't tie in to the DMs story would be way too railroady for me. When I play, I want to be able to explore the world, interact with people that have nothing to do with the plot, pursue side goals, or even abandon the goal if something else more interesting comes along. And I like having the chance to take something that isn't related to the story and make it a part of the story in some creative way. (Yes, I fall completely into the CaW category.) When I DM, I want the players to have the same opportunities. I also want to create a world that feels like it exists independently of the player characters.

[Tanarii]

I can see the attraction of sandbox play although I prefer a little more targeted campaign or adventure.

But I still hold that a random encounter, in the sense of roll d20 and see what happens, has no function except useless grind. Encounters from a random table are either a pushover or a TPK. There is a narrow margin in which the ECL falls within the scope of the PCs' levels.

You could fill your living breathing world with designed encounters and ditch the tables. Your game will be better for it.your post shows that you miss the entire point of sandbox play. Targeted encounter difficulty is the very first thing you throw out the window. Edit: Typically the first thing you throw out the window. I hate when someone else's hard line "doing it wrong" stance makes me take a hard line on the opposite side.

[ad_hoc]

A long rest resets the tension. Think of the game as an action movie. There are plenty of examples where the characters escape and rest for a while at a secure location. This is usually the point in the movie for character growth.

An action movie wouldn't be very good if there was a 10 minute long rest sequence every time there is some action.

I would either skip overland travel entirely or limit the long rests by having them match the scale that you are using. Have them take 16 hours as the characters prepare meals, have a restful sleep, repair items, study and reflect, etc.

They also need to find a place that is appropriate for a long rest. An area that is defensible and a big enough clearing to set up camp. If this is something that is readily available in the area then that area is probably not very dangerous and it is better to skip the travel anyway.

[Pex]

The number of random encounters between adventure plot encounters is at most 1. If one exists it's filler to expunge boredom when there's a lull in real world play or needed to give the party XP to gain a level before some adventure plot point, not necessarily right after that encounter. Any random encounter more than one is tedium. Players become disinterested because it has nothing to do with the adventure. The DM is draining party resources for the sake of draining party resources. If the adventure plot doesn't happen soon after before a long rest it was a waste of real world play time. If the adventure plot point does happen it's being made harder through lack of party resources rather than CR. If the number of random encounters is 0 it's because no one wants to bother. It's enough to say "three weeks later you arrive" and get to the adventure encounters already. When it's one encounter it happens sometime during that three week traveling and no other events for the rest of the time until the party reaches their destination.

The exception is when random encounters are the whole point. The party goes somewhere to explore the area, just see what's there. Perhaps the party is forced into a place and meant to survive for a period time or find their way out.

[Tanarii]

Players become disinterested because it has nothing to do with the adventure. The DM is draining party resources for the sake of draining party resources.Your first statement is not going to be true for all players. In response to the second: so what? That's a valid style of play. In fact, it's pretty much an underlying assumption to *all* the default D&D styles of play. The bigger problem is when those random encounters drain renewable resources that are then immediately renewed. Draining resources that can't be immediately renewed is what D&D is all about, on one level or another.

[ad_hoc]

Any random encounter more than one is tedium. Players become disinterested because it has nothing to do with the adventure.

This is ridiculously wrong.

The random encounters can be the adventure.

I want the story to be made up by playing the game. I don't want to write the story and then tell it to the players. That is what a book or a movie is for.

I expect my next session to be only random encounters and it is going to be awesome.

[Sjappo]

I expect my next session to be only random encounters and it is going to be awesome.
How? I mean this in a good way, I'm not pulling your leg. I genuinely want to know. Since I've never encountered it before.

See, I've nothing against sandbox games. I can see the charm in just wandering about in a populated world and play monster of the week.

But I would honestly think that players would get bored of it after some time. Or have their characters develop goals. As a DM I would react to these players creating character goals. And the game world would react to the goals and actions of the characters.

And at some point the randomly generated encounters are less fun for the players because they detract from their character goals. Funny interludes aside.

Now, I am talking about "there are 4 ogres on the road because the table said to roll d20 and I got an 16" kind of random encounter. Not the "inserting interesting plot hook subplot here" kind of random encounter.

But I'm repeating myself.

But please enlighten me. Do you fill all you sessions with random encounters. And what do you mean when you say random encounter. Because I get the feeling that we have slightly different definitions of that one.

[Pex]

Your first statement is not going to be true for all players. In response to the second: so what? That's a valid style of play. In fact, it's pretty much an underlying assumption to *all* the default D&D styles of play. The bigger problem is when those random encounters drain renewable resources that are then immediately renewed. Draining resources that can't be immediately renewed is what D&D is all about, on one level or another.

Sew buttons. I didn't say it was an invalid way to play.


This is ridiculously wrong.

The random encounters can be the adventure.

I want the story to be made up by playing the game. I don't want to write the story and then tell it to the players. That is what a book or a movie is for.

I expect my next session to be only random encounters and it is going to be awesome.



The exception is when random encounters are the whole point. The party goes somewhere to explore the area, just see what's there. Perhaps the party is forced into a place and meant to survive for a period time or find their way out.

[ad_hoc]

How? I mean this in a good way, I'm not pulling your leg. I genuinely want to know.

But please enlighten me. Do you fill all you sessions with random encounters. And what do you mean when you say random encounter. Because I get the feeling that we have slightly different definitions of that one.

Well in this case we are playing OoTA.

Right now the goal of the characters is to survive and reach some kind of safety. Along the way they are going to have random encounters from tables in the book.

This is not the same as random fights. Some will be, some won't. It will just be stuff that happens and they can handle it however they want. I expect us to spend an even amount of time amongst the 3 pillars of play.

In this case 'random encounter' is one where I roll a die and if it lands on a certain number an encounter happens. What that encounter is depends on the result of other dice rolls. I don't do repeat encounters though, I am coming up with my own that I will be slotting in if I get a doubled result.

And yeah, we have random encounters often. Having an entire session of random encounters is rare though.

[mephnick]

Longer Rest variant is your friend for a campaign full of overland travel, although it means dungeons are quite difficult to pull off when you do want one. As pointed out before, I've started counting a couple of random encounters while traveling as part of the dungeon design so the players at least have a short rest somewhere, but this leads to very small dungeons (which is more my style anyway). We've discussed switching up the resting hours depending on what the characters are doing, but this may be a bit too gamist for us. I'm not sure there's really a solution for tables that don't do lots of dungeon crawling, I mean, that's what the system is designed for. It says role-play and exploration are "pillars" of the game, but it's entirely balanced around combat.

[Tanarii]

Sew buttons. I didn't say it was an invalid way to play.Yeah I jumped down your statement "Players become disinterested" and let it imply you were saying so in my mind. Rereading I ended up saying the exact same thing as you ... random encounters are only pointless when they only drain a renewable resource, then it's immediately renewed. The DM might as well storytell summarize those encounters in the average campaign. "After a trek through the dark forest, dispatching a few goblin patrols and spider nests, you arrive at Darkhold Ruins."

[Estrillian]

Longer Rest variant is your friend for a campaign full of overland travel, although it means dungeons are quite difficult to pull off when you do want one. As pointed out before, I've started counting a couple of random encounters while traveling as part of the dungeon design so the players at least have a short rest somewhere, but this leads to very small dungeons (which is more my style anyway). We've discussed switching up the resting hours depending on what the characters are doing, but this may be a bit too gamist for us. I'm not sure there's really a solution for tables that don't do lots of dungeon crawling, I mean, that's what the system is designed for. It says role-play and exploration are "pillars" of the game, but it's entirely balanced around combat.

For the sake of illustration my players have finished Phandelver and are trekking overland to Desarin to start Princes of the Apocalypse. So they are moving from a setting with a fair bit of dungeoning to one with even more. If I move to longer long rests now then it will make a real mess later. I'm inclined to say that the solution is something I touched on further up, adjusting the length of a long rest to fit the phase of the game, so maybe 8 hours in a dungeon, and 16-24 hours in overland travel. The problem is that it is pretty immersion / reality breaking, so I don't know if it would fly.

[ad_hoc]

The problem is that it is pretty immersion / reality breaking, so I don't know if it would fly.

I don't think it is.

It happens in movies all the time.

8 hours to become fully healed doesn't make sense anyway. It's all a narrative device.

Own it as one.

The main thing to do is to have a conversation with the players. Explain the situation to them and get their feedback. I am sure you will all agree on something that will make for a good story.

[MaxWilson]

I don't think it is.

It happens in movies all the time.

8 hours to become fully healed doesn't make sense anyway. It's all a narrative device.

It doesn't have to be. You can just play D&D characters as having different biology than humans. For example, their bodies don't seem to degrade with age.

[ad_hoc]

It doesn't have to be. You can just play D&D characters as having different biology than humans. For example, their bodies don't seem to degrade with age.

But then you need to change the way the entire world works.

Societies would be a lot different.

It is much easier and more immersive I think to simply say that these are the stars of the show and it is their heart and perserverence that allows them to keep going.

[shadow_archmagi]

Personally, I prefer 13th age's solution of just making "days" an abstract term. Players get to take long rests at appropriate moments in the story, which tend to be 4-6 fights apart. Maybe the six fights are over the course of a month-long journey, maybe they're in the same day. It's not that they need eight hours of SLEEP, they need eight hours of REST, and that means dealing with a meaningful chunk of the story arc.

Like admittedly, it's a little janky to be like "Sorry, the wizard JUST CAN'T GET COMFY knowing that there's still 105 miles to go" but it's way less jarring than trying to cram four fights into one day like that's one before and after every meal.