How many combat encounters do you have per day & session

[Coranhann]

Hello everyone,

The rules recommend having a quite high number of encounters per day. Encounters include Combats, traps & environemental risks.

As DM or as a player, how many combat encounters do you usually plan or experience, per day ?

I would also like to ask "how many per game session" cause as fast as the combat gets, if I have 2 combats in a session (3h/3h30), they usually end up eating most of our gaming time.

What's your experience ?

[Drathmar]

I know in my Wednesday campaign, we usually get about 2-3 encounters before a long rest, usually 1 or maybe 2 short rests in there depending. We usually run 4-5 people. The reason it's so few is because some of the encounters tend to be large and take most of our resources and our party goes back and pays the outrageous 1 gold/night at the Inn nearby instead of pushing on and possibly dieing. However this is a dungeon crawl type campaign so we have the option of leaving anytime for the day.

My other campaign which is more narrative, it depends. It's a roleplay heavy (probably 40% RP/Social, 40% Combat, 20% Exploring) but we usually have 3 maybe 4 encounters between long rests and usually only 1 short rest in there.

The first one... there are only 2 (out of 6) players who have not had a character die yet, despite there being less encounters and more rests. Mostly because of the size of the encounters and some shady tactics at first. Such as knowing we had 10 skeleton archers in the next room (we were lvl 2-3), prepared to fight them, but then left only 1 person in their view after the combat started to take all 10 shots...

Or deciding on a day when we were short 2 that it was still better to try and fight five orcs in full plate with greataxes rather than run away or try and seperate them. Probably doesn't help that the four we had were a warlock who I don't think has ever used a spell other than EB, me a str dual wield battlemaster, an archer battlemaster, and an assassin rogue who never scouts ahead of the party or hides before battles...

[Regius]

Typically it's supposed to be something like 6 per day split between two short rests,

However most of the time this is pretty unrealistic and pretty silly, so I personally get about 4 if the players are going through a dungeon and 2 if they are outside. As I run an RP heavy game this isn't to bad, but the game is definitely designed around 6 encounters a day,

As for per session, I tend to only habe one combat encounter as they tend to last a long time, but an encounter can be a trap, a dungeon hazard, or a puzzle, so maybe up to three, especially if you time people's turns like in chess

[Drathmar]

As for per session, I tend to only habe one combat encounter as they tend to last a long time, but an encounter can be a trap, a dungeon hazard, or a puzzle, so maybe up to three, especially if you time people's turns like in chess

This is similar to something my Wednesday DM does that I like. Players get 60 seconds to decide on what they are doing during combat. If what you do takes a little longer fine, but you have to state what you are doing within 60 seconds. If you don't you automatically take whatever standard attack action you have (EB, Shoot an Arrow, Swing a weapon).

[JackPhoenix]

Depends on what the party is doing. And if by "day" you mean "between long rests".

Normally, they get about 0-2 encounters per day (counting only combat encounters), but if they do something interesting (last 3 instances: assassinating a gang/cult leader, escape through sewers/tunnels/ruins from a quarantined city, now it looks like they'll be stealing an airship), 5+ is the norm.

And as I play CaW, number of "encounters" may not mean much... in the last game, they got swarmed by about 3 encounters worth of enemies when they raised the alarm...

[Armored Walrus]

Running Sunless Citadel as a side quest, the last day stretched over three sessions. They managed to get in two short rests, but fought two "deadly" combats, five or six "easy" combats, 1 "hard" combat, and 2 "medium" combats. In addition, they spotted three traps and avoided them, triggered one trap, figured out two riddles, had three social encounters, one involving taming a beast that would otherwise have been another "hard" combat.

This is a party of four, all level 3, a land druid, a moon druid, an assassin rogue, and an open hand monk.

As a counterpoint, the session just prior to these three consisted of five social encounters and no combat. It all depends on what the party is trying to accomplish at the moment.

[Breashios]

In a five hour session I generally get in 4 to 5 encounters including puzzles, social challenges (meeting interesting or important NPCs), purchasing encounters (trying to find and then finagle a potion out of a non-adventuring NPC), and between 1 and 3 combat encounters. If I can I try to shoot for two battles: One right at the beginning of the session and one not too close to the end of the allotted time.

I also present 0-2 hand wave-able potential encounters (a mountain lion was stalking you for a bit, but you frightened it off with cantrips or you slaughter a group of mephitis that suicide attack you - when the party level makes it a sure thing). These amount to just a couple of sentences in the story, so they don't really count in my 4 to 5 number. They are used to establish the atmosphere of danger that would affect any level 0 persons/wildlife in the area and help keep the world consistent with what they had encountered when they were low level characters and those kind of things would have been real challenges.

Two game sessions ago, the group fought two pretty major fights. In the previous session they started with two social encounters, fought a random encounter, mapped out a dungeon with Arcane Eye, fought four one round fights (fireballs followed by concentrated attacks against the one or two opponents left standing; though two of sixteen escaped to warn the rest of the dungeon) and one decent fight (but not too tough). When they started the fights, they didn't mess around, going from one to the next in rapid succession, but with new initiative rolls for each.

Our next session will be the party against the rest of the dungeon - now ready and coordinated against them, so we'll start with a battle. After that they will rest up and go to the next location (assuming they win)! So I expect at least a couple more small encounters.

[Findulidas]

Latest campaign has been really low with only 1-2 fights per day. However its partly due to the fact that we have been actively avoiding battle situations in clever/silly ways the dm didnt foresee. The tomb we are in now clearly wont only have one encounter. And the way we went in is closed so we cant get out and figure ways to avoid them. (Fine by me at this point).

[swoop_ds]

So far I haven't really cooked in a specific number of encounters/day/rests when I prep for my players. In a lot of ways, it's up to them how many encounters they have between rests. I also don't generally worry about CR. If they get in over their head it's probably their fault.

Having said that, I adjust things on the fly as needed if they are getting creamed by something that I feel they shouldn't be getting creamed by. I try (and sometimes succeed) to have dramatic moments and tension. That's the goal anyways.

[xroads]

For my group, we tend to have 2 to 3 encounters a day. Not counting the seemingly numerous "random" encounters our DM seems to like springing on us at night. :smallannoyed:

Unfortunately, we are currently only playing through 1 encounter per session. But we tend to get started late and there usually about 6 players in a session. So our games tend to be slow.

[Dragonix]

My adventures run for around 6-8 hours so I normally have about 6-7 encounters. I run long term campaigns so it really depends on the current adventure but yeah the average is about 1 per hour.

[SiCK_Boy]

I'm surprised by how many people report only 2-3 encounters per day. I wonder if it's because those DM favor hard and deadly encounters over easy/average ones.

[Armored Walrus]

I'm surprised by how many people report only 2-3 encounters per day. I wonder if it's because those DM favor hard and deadly encounters over easy/average ones.

I feel like a lot of the more popular roleplaying streams tend to boil down to a couple hours of character-building with one climactic battle at the end of it against a boss and maybe a few mooks. DMs using Acquisitions Inc (the Pax games, not necessarily the podcast sessions) or Critical Role as a model for how to run their games are going to have far fewer combats than someone following the guidelines in the DMG or a game that is using "dungeons" ("dungeons" meaning any adventure path that involves several groups of enemies in close proximity that are meant to be fought in close succession, but not necessarily all at once)

[SiCK_Boy]

Agreed. As much as I love Critical Role, I don't think they are exactly the best model in that respect. But then, they have to contend with trying to satisfy a watching public.

I'd be curious to know if the game was structured the same way before they started on Twitch. Probably not, but then not only was there no public, but they were also playing much longer sessions (6 to 8 hours I believe).

In line with that, how many of those who stick with small numbers of encounters do so because of your session duration?

[Armored Walrus]

Personally, we go about 3 hours on average. We just don't necessarily reach the end of the day at the end of the session.

[Telwar]

In our Birthright 5e game, we tend to have fights every few months when we go adventuring during our off-seasons.

The last one I was in, my elf mystic, a human sorcerer/cleric, and an elf rogue (all 10th) wound up investigating reports of a troll interfering with a trade route.

The troll was actually a group of five fomorians and a troll awnshegh who looked significantly like a fomorian until he started making saves and growing extra legs, hips, heads, etc based on the made save. We lived because we had an NPC werebear tank two of them, two were making ranged attacks, and the other two I stunlocked with repeated Psychic Crushes until the sorcerer and rogue could finish them. The sor/cleric player ("the Stormcaller") later noted that was a CR25 fight assuming six fomorians.


When we're doing the occasional Old School Dungeon Crawl (like a conversion of Palace of the Silver Princess*), we have a LOT of fights/day, but they're also a lot smaller individually.


* - The best part was the room full of orogs in plate mail. We collectively had dollar signs in our eyes on looting them.

[MaxWilson]

I'm surprised by how many people report only 2-3 encounters per day. I wonder if it's because those DM favor hard and deadly encounters over easy/average ones.

For me, the two factors are related, but not in a simplistic way. The way I see it, if there are too many completely distinct monster groups in a region, the region starts to lose credibility unless special circumstances are in play. If the illithids hate the purple worm which hates the goblins which hates the berserk Iron Golem which hates the Slaads which hates the young adult red dragon, and they're all packed into the same relatively small cave complex, then why haven't they taken each other out before the PCs come along? (Or at least moved to less crowded quarters.)

But if they like each other instead of hating each other (e.g. goblins serve the illithids as members of their brain cult, and the dragon collects bodies to eat from them as "tribute" once the brains are sucked out, plus some gold) then why would they divide themselves in detail and fight separately? Why wouldn't the dragon join the fight if the illithids and the goblins are fighting the PCs? Why would it wait until the PCs got to the dragon's cave, a hundred and fifty feet away?

So, when I set up an area, it tends to be set up as one big potential encounter with a number of elements that might or might not activate, based on what the PCs do. Maybe there are goblins here, with an illithid around the corner here, and reinforcements that will arrive after so many rounds; and some monsters might take actions to try to activate other monsters. In short, there's not a clear boundary between discrete "encounters" the way some people run it, but because all of the elements might potentially interact with each other, I consider it to be "an encounter" instead of a series of encounters.

And when you calculate the difficulty value of such encounters, it is unsurprisingly quite large. So that is one reason why my encounters often end up quadruple-Deadly or worse. The way I see it, it is up to the PCs to break such encounters into smaller pieces if they want an easier time (e.g. Longstrider'ed Shadow Monk can decoy away the dragon and some of the goblins so that everyone else can ambush the illithids, if there are no Intellect Devourers around to warn them in time). Depending on the players, they may or may not bother with such tactics--frequently they'll just bull right on through. And sometimes they win, and sometimes they get captured or die. :-) That's D&D.

[Scots Dragon]

I don't have separate combat encounters. Each day is fourteen thousand, four hundred rounds of unyielding carnage.

[Malifice]

This is similar to something my Wednesday DM does that I like. Players get 60 seconds to decide on what they are doing during combat. If what you do takes a little longer fine, but you have to state what you are doing within 60 seconds. If you don't you automatically take whatever standard attack action you have (EB, Shoot an Arrow, Swing a weapon).

60 seconds? You're generous!
Players IMG only get around 5 seconds. Nothing declared and they take the dodge action and their turn ends.

It's interesting to still see so many people conflating (adventuring day) with (game session). They aren't the same thing. If you get 2-3 encounters per session then I suggest short resting at the end of the session and long resting every third session (If you must tie rests into the session concluding).

I'm also blown away how many DMs still are not putting Pcs on the clock. 'Stop the BBEG by midnight or else bad thing X happens.' In addition to being a fantastic tool for the DM to police the adventuring day, playing in a quest without time pressure is simply a boring and pointless exercise, in addition to being totally unrealistic.

Seems like many DMs still haven't worked out that DND is a resource management game at its mechanical heart.

It's no surprise the 'caster supremacy' thread is up to 20 pages.

Once you play in a campaign where the DM polices the adventuring day, you'll never look back. Sad to see that so many DMs don't do it. Of course that also says something about the game itself. It's not immediately apparent that the game balances at the 6ish encounter adventuring day, and not enough guidance is given to the DM about the importance of policing it (or methods to do so). There are also legit criticisms at the decision to use this as the balance point and why the number was set at this figure other than 6ish encounters is the standard number of dungeon encounters per dungeon level.

I would have preferred a 3 encounter day with short rests after each encounter being the default (And the option to extend that day and refresh resources without a jarring overnight break in the story).

Such a short adventuring day would have required them to cut savagely into long rest resource (spell slots and rages) amount and power though and would run the risk of falling into the same trap that hurt 4E.

Still. Interesting thread.

[Malifice]

Running Sunless Citadel as a side quest, the last day stretched over three sessions. They managed to get in two short rests, but fought two "deadly" combats, five or six "easy" combats, 1 "hard" combat, and 2 "medium" combats. In addition, they spotted three traps and avoided them, triggered one trap, figured out two riddles, had three social encounters, one involving taming a beast that would otherwise have been another "hard" combat.

This is a party of four, all level 3, a land druid, a moon druid, an assassin rogue, and an open hand monk.

As a counterpoint, the session just prior to these three consisted of five social encounters and no combat. It all depends on what the party is trying to accomplish at the moment.

It's a common misconception that 5e requires 6 encounters and 2 short rests per day every day.

That's just your expected median, not a magic figure you must hit each day 'or else'.

Some days my PCs only get the one encounter (And I can afford to dial up the difficulty on those days a bit). Some days they get waves of encounters with little chance to rest (defending a keep from an overnight siege for example). Some days they get more like the 6ish and 2 model. Some days they get multiple encounters and plenty of opportunity to short rest after each one.

On the shorter days the casters get the chance to shine. On the longer days the fighters do. As long as your median is 6 or so encounters and 2 or so short rests the game balances nicely and no one class or 'build' outstrips any other.

I can move the spotlight around different players and characters by simply adjusting the number of encounters and/or short rests, which is a pretty neat feature of 5E.

[Armored Walrus]

Yeah, I count 17 encounters in my post that you quoted ;) (if traps and puzzles are encounters)

@MaxWilson, I think what you describe is exactly the right way to put 6 encounters into a day, even if you personally are viewing it as 1 quadruple-deadly encounter. It is the model I try to follow when I put together my own adventures.

[Malifice]

Yeah, I count 17 encounters in my post that you quoted ;) (if traps and puzzles are encounters)

@MaxWilson, I think what you describe is exactly the right way to put 6 encounters into a day, even if you personally are viewing it as 1 quadruple-deadly encounter. It is the model I try to follow when I put together my own adventures.

The assumption should be half a dozen or so discrete encounters. Your standard dungeon kinda thing.

Single 'super deadly' encounters should be avoided as a rule. They come with a huge chance of a TPK and are swingy. If you run one encounter like this with a 50/50 chance of a TPK even as rare as only once every 2 levels, you create a 97 percent chance of your campaign ending in TPK before the Pcs hit 10th level.

Even a single super deadly 50/50 chance of TPK fight in a campaign is a bottleneck. That one encounter has an even chance of totally derailing the campaign.

Players should be challenged but not constantly getting chewed up by overwhelming forces and being forced to start all over again.

[lperkins2]

Depends a bit on the campaign. My gritty campaign would usually run 1 or 2 combats a day, and about the same per session. The fights were almost always extremely one sided, either the party got the drop on the enemies and would slaughter them in a couple rounds, or the party were the ones getting surprised and would have to beat a hasty retreat. In a stand up fight, about half the time a party member would go down, once in a while it would be fatal, since 5e is so forgiving. Note that we avoided rocket tag simply by use of advanced tactics and taking proper advantage of terrain, rather than upping the difficulty of encounters. Overall, it was a fairly brutal campaign.

In the current campaign, in which I am a player, not the DM, we only run 2-3 hours in a session. We usually have 1, sometimes only part of one, combat in a session. The combats tend to be long, with large numbers weak creatures to fight. There have been several spots where we could have taken more time and had 2-3 combat encounters; instead we rushed all of them at once. As for encounters per day, we're sitting at like a dozen or more, but they are all 'easy' encounters. The new players burned a bunch of resources in the first skirmish, so it has been a bit of a challenge just because the two warlocks are the only ones who have disposable spell slots left.


The assumption should be half a dozen or so discrete encounters. Your standard dungeon kinda thing.

Single 'super deadly' encounters should be avoided as a rule. They come with a huge chance of a TPK and are swingy. If you run one encounter like this with a 50/50 chance of a TPK even as rare as only once every 2 levels, you create a 97 percent chance of your campaign ending in TPK before the Pcs hit 10th level.

Even a single super deadly 50/50 chance of TPK fight in a campaign is a bottleneck. That one encounter has an even chance of totally derailing the campaign.

Players should be challenged but not constantly getting chewed up by overwhelming forces and being forced to start all over again.

If you are running a super deadly campaign, and you want to avoid TPKs, the solution is not to pursue a route. Of course, if you've always pursued routes before, convincing the party to run can be a bit of a challenge, so you might need to let your players know that you are playing the monsters smarter now. And it is smarter, on the part of the monsters, not to pursue the fleeing people, especially if they managed to kill a few. After all, assuming the enemies managed the route through sheer strength of numbers, the odds are good that if they force the fleeing PCs to stand and fight, several more of the monsters will be slain, meanwhile there are tasty corpses to eat right here.

Also, you need to make sure your players are up for a gritty, deadly, game, since rerolling characters for the downed ones can get old if you got attached to them. When I run this sort of campaign, I make sure that players have extra characters waiting in the wings, so that those who fall during the first encounter of the night aren't left sitting out the rest of the night.

[mephnick]

It's no surprise the 'caster supremacy' thread is up to 20 pages.

People use the system wrong and then seem offended that it has hiccups. "I didn't follow the rules or guidelines and something went wrong! Who could have possibly predicted this?!"

[coolAlias]

It's a common misconception that 5e requires 6 encounters and 2 short rests per day every day.

That's just your expected median, not a magic figure you must hit each day 'or else'.

Some days my PCs only get the one encounter (And I can afford to dial up the difficulty on those days a bit). Some days they get waves of encounters with little chance to rest (defending a keep from an overnight siege for example). Some days they get more like the 6ish and 2 model. Some days they get multiple encounters and plenty of opportunity to short rest after each one.

On the shorter days the casters get the chance to shine. On the longer days the fighters do. As long as your median is 6 or so encounters and 2 or so short rests the game balances nicely and no one class or 'build' outstrips any other.

I can move the spotlight around different players and characters by simply adjusting the number of encounters and/or short rests, which is a pretty neat feature of 5E.
^^^ Exactly this. Having a variable number of encounters each adventuring day is part of what helps different players' characters to shine, and it allows you as DM to more easily create believable scenarios rather than trying to force 6-8 encounters every single day.

For my own games, we run 4-5 hour sessions (5 players + DM) which typically covers at least one full day. Combats last anywhere from 2-5 rounds, with 3 being average, and these most often take less than 15 minutes to run at the table. In a dungeon environment, we can easily have 6-12 encounters (not all combats, but all potentially resource draining) in an adventuring day and can usually fit all of that into one session depending on how much time the players spend exploring/searching/thinking.

[Solusek]

Our DM runs with a style where he doesn't like doing too much combat. We have a big group (6-7 players) and aren't particularly fast at getting through tuns to begin with. Doing more than a couple fights in an evening would leave time for nothing else and would really start to bore the half of our gaming group who are less interested in the tactical combat side of play. Personally I love tactics and love D&D combat, but not everyone in our group is playing for that.

We tend to do 1-2 combats per session, which usually end up happening on the same day in-game. Sometimes we manage to take a short rest between fights, sometimes not.

[Laserlight]

The campaign I'm currently DMing is very heavy RP, by the players' choice, and half the sessions have had no combat at all, or only PvP (usually at the "fistfight" level, although one did see both PCs hit 0hp).

My previous campaign was more combat oriented and I'd usually get in 2-3 combat or trap encounters per 3.5- 4 hour session. My players have expressed an preference for very difficult fights. Sometimes I put 5-6 Medium or Hard encounters in a game day, more often it was 1 or 2 encounters that were Deadly or Double Deadly, and once in a while I'd throw in an Easy just for variety.

The players were struggling against the Hobgoblin Empire for most of the campaign, and the mobs had gone from 8 goblins to 8 hobgoblins to 20 hobgoblins and so forth. One day the PCs went into a pyramid, got beat to pieces, came staggering out the other side of the pyramid with perhaps 25HP left for the whole party. They found 80 hobgoblin veterans assembled in the plaza, waiting and ready. And then one of the hobs cried "What? It's them! " and the enemy fled in panic without even rolling for initiative.

You don't really want 6 Medium encounters per day, every day. Vary the difficulty level.

[SiCK_Boy]

It's a common misconception that 5e requires 6 encounters and 2 short rests per day every day.

That's just your expected median, not a magic figure you must hit each day 'or else'.

I understand the notion of a median or average number of encounters, but it has to be said that there is a "or else", especially the further away from that 6 to 8 encounters you move: or else you will end up with a TPK, or else you will end up with the party just going nova all the time and doing 5 minutes work days (no challenge).

[Regius]

People use the system wrong and then seem offended that it has hiccups. "I didn't follow the rules or guidelines and something went wrong! Who could have possibly predicted this?!"

I'm not really offended, I just find it fustrating when grognards tell me I'm wrong when I ask for ways to adjust the system to the "incorrect" mode of play

[Kryx]

D&D 5e is balanced around the whole concept of an adventuring day. The classes alone are rather woefully unbalanced if you do no adhere to that concept. You'd have to significantly nerf spellcasters or buff non-spellcasters and short-rest based classes.


=======================


I run Pathfinder APs which do quite a good job of stringing together encounters in an adventuring day. For example I just started converting Curse of the Crimson Throne and in the first big adventuring day there are 6 combat encounters that occurs in an old warehouse:

A lower level gang leader + some low CR thieves
A lower level gang leader + some low CR thieves + a dog
A lower level gang leader + some low CR thieves
Some lower CR spiders
A shark
Boss + pet


There are only a few enemies in each encounter, but each offers an opportunity for the PC to use resources.

[Coranhann]

Thanks to all of you for answering, your answers are awesomely interesting.

The way I see it, there is two aspects to the game balance:

1- For one battle to be meaningfull, you'd better have put players through a full day of encounters before, slowly chipping away at their abilities, so they come to the last one with just enough spell slots / once a day abilities / hit points left that it feels dangerous.

2 - To allow non casters characters to shine a bit more compared, not because they have more HP, more utility (casters ARE the utility if they don't need to save spell slots for combat), but because they can use short rest ressources more steadily as more encounters happened.

But I'm under the impression there is DEFINITIVELY a dychotomy between the way the game is balanced / designed & recommended to be played on one hand, and the way playing groups feel is the smoother / natural flow for their game to go.

Right ?

[Kryx]

because they can use short rest ressources more steadily as more encounters happened.
If you're interested in empowering short rest classes I'd suggest using a 5 minute short rest and limiting it to 2 a day. By my numbers that is the ideal balance point.

With this change my game encourages fighter, monk, and warlock to not fall behind the full casters and it works quite well.

[coolAlias]

But I'm under the impression there is DEFINITIVELY a dychotomy between the way the game is balanced / designed & recommended to be played on one hand, and the way playing groups feel is the smoother / natural flow for their game to go.
I find it is easiest to follow the recommended 6-8 encounters per day when in dungeons (which encompasses any adventuring site where it is plausible to have multiple distinct encounters spaced not too far apart), and in these cases it feels just about right.

Other times, such as traveling through wilderness, it doesn't feel right to have 6-8 per day, so I don't. And the game still works fine as long as, on average over the course of the entire adventure/campaign, most days fall within the 6-8 range.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't have separate combat encounters. Each day is fourteen thousand, four hundred rounds of unyielding carnage. We love us some old school D&D, eh?
our last session started late, and we ran into an impasse. We reconned the fortress we had just snuck into, and had some trouble with figuring out how to get past the watch dogs/hounds in the courtyard. This led to the rogue/scout wandering off to find another way in since we didn't want to engage the hounds and spoil the surprise.

We eventually did, and then the fighting began. Two short fights with another one looming, and a possible huge group to reinforce that fight if we don't make it quick based on our recon. The session ended but the adventure day is alive and well. So when we pick back up, we expect a big (hard to harder) fight with a potential deadly if we don't figure out a way to split up the opposition or force them through a choke point.
(I love the way our group is doing recon and scouting rather than door busting to find out what's in there ...)

For another look at difficulty, check out the Dunwater/Salt Marsh series of modules form AD&D 1e. They do a nice job of setting up a potential TPK if the party tries to overpower it, but a very achievable victory if the party does some scouting and gets some allies to help. U1-U3. I am working on adapting that module set into our 5e shared world campaign for the fall.

[Armored Walrus]

I find it is easiest to follow the recommended 6-8 encounters per day when in dungeons (which encompasses any adventuring site where it is plausible to have multiple distinct encounters spaced not too far apart), and in these cases it feels just about right.

Other times, such as traveling through wilderness, it doesn't feel right to have 6-8 per day, so I don't. And the game still works fine as long as, on average over the course of the entire adventure/campaign, most days fall within the 6-8 range.

Yep, I think the 6-8/day is a moving target. DMs should remain fluid on this and do what makes sense in the campaign at the time.

It's not hard to get away with only throwing one challenge at a group and not have the casters completely dump all their spells on it if they have, at least a few times in the past, been confronted with days where they've had half a dozen or more challenges. They will horde their spells instinctively, not knowing what might be coming next.

[CaptainSarathai]

IMG, I made it very easy: I use an adjusted "Longer Rest" variant.
A short rest is 8hrs (current Long Rest)
A long rest is 24hrs without combat, in a "safe area" like a town or castle.

During that 24hrs they can still cast spells and use short rest abilities that they have left over, and then everything resets when they wake up the next day.

It took a while for the players to get used to this, because they were thinking, "it's okay to burn up spell slots, I'll just go and sleep it off tonight," and not realizing that really they only had X spell slots per week.

Now that they have it figured out, though, they love it.
We run 4hr sessions, with 5 players. We see about 1-2 sunrises per session. Each sunup to sundown has 2-3 fights, as per the DMG advice of 2-3 per Short Rest. The campaign is mostly "above ground" and has few dungeons. So it feels more realistic that they might only face an ambush, battle, or obstacle 2-3 times in a day, rather than 6-8.

It also gives players a lot more down-time, which has led to interesting RP scenarios. That 24hr long rest can be as detailed or as quick as I like; I can ask them what they're doing with the time. Our blacksmith character might go work on a weapon or some armor, the Lore Bard goes and performs for an audience, etc. Or, they can decide to go and talk with a diplomat and do some of the social aspects of the campaign. If they do find themselves in combat, they'll usually stay in town an extra day, which is what I feel makes my system better than the official variant of 3-day rests.

The campaign feels far more realistic and also a bit more epic this way, as it is a low-magic Arthurian campaign. The Wizard can only throw his biggest spell once per week, so when they do, it feels appropriately huge and important. They adventure for about a week, and then return to civilization for a "weekend." More like:
1. Wake up and set off from town
Day spent traveling, maybe easy Encounter
Short Rest night sleeping
2. Wake up, break camp
2-3 Encounters
Night spent Short Resting
3. Wake up, break camp
2-3 Encounters
Night spent Short Resting
4. Wake up, break camp
2-3 Encounters
Night spent Short Resting
5. Wake up, break camp
Spend day traveling back to town.
Arrive in town, sleep for night
6. 24hrs spent in town, downtime activities and social encounters.

Normally they'll spend an extra day in town.
Also, I rule that Exhaustion is going a day without sleep, not necessarily a Long Rest (can't remember if that's standard). So if the group chooses to press on through the night (or gets ambushed) it has far more serious consequences.

[Breashios]

I focus my effort on the fun and story aspects of the game. If my party chooses to kite the enemy into an aoe trap (Sorcerer and 2 Wizards of 6 characters), that is their choice. I don't try to make the fight harder or easier. I don't shoot for a certain type of encounter level or number of easy encounters between challenging ones. I just set up the circumstances in the land and let the party decide how they want to solve it. (I do try to make the overall circumstances and degree of opposition level appropriate.)

The arcane trickster and paladin have never complained that the fights are too easy. One wizard and the druid in fact said their least favorite encounter was when they were trapped deep in a dungeon and I kept describing the situation in a way that fighting their way out successfully was a 50/50 proposition. (In fact I knew they would succeed. Though it would burn some resources, I didn't believe it could even drop one of them. It didn't.)

The players, even the ones that like to ROLL dice, always comment on how good the story is, so I believe if I focus on that (and don't make the fights too ridiculous) everyone will get the most out of the campaign (including myself as a story writer).