D&D 5E last encounter was totally one-sided

[Flamestrike]

The 5MWD exists because the system rewards it. Players can try to take full advantage of it or exercise restraint for a variety of reasons, and DMs can try to block or compensate for it. If it were a wholly encounter-based system, for instance, there'd be no impetus towards the 5MWD (it could still happen, but it wouldn't make a difference).

The reason the system rewards it is because D and D is, at its heart, a resource management game. Mechanics im talking about here.

But yeah, otherwise I agree. They could have balanced encounters in isolation of the adventuring day, with the expectation that every group of characters hits every encounter at full strength. The current rules reflects the majority of play styles and campaigns, where on your average adventuring day most groups of characters will do several encounters in a row (ie your typical dungeon).

I hazard a guess that most campaigns feature single encounter adventuring days of Overland travel, and then 'zoomed in' action at dungeons and similar areas, where most groups would face half a dozen or more encounters in a single adventuring day.

Or to put it another way, I can't think of too many adventures or modules that feature a single encounter a day, followed by a rest, another encounter the following day, and so forth as it baseline. This might happen occasionally, but most of the action happens in zoomed in dungeons, ruins and other closely packed encounter areas.

The current maths of the game (and assumptions with encounter design and resource management) reflects this expectation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The reason the system rewards it is because D and D is, at its heart, a resource management game. Mechanics im talking about here. But yeah, otherwise I agree.

Same comments as a above.

They could have balanced encounters in isolation of the adventuring day, with the expectation that every group of characters hits every encounter at full strength.

Nod. But they never have. (Actually, one edition of Gamma World came very close to doing just that. It's perfectly workable, it's just not something D&D has ever tried.)

The current rules reflects the majority of play styles and campaigns, where on your average adventuring day most groups of characters will do several encounters in a row (ie your typical dungeon).

The current rules reflect the feel of the classic game. There's certainly some indication that a lot of campaigns don't feature many days with multiple encounters. There's certainly some guidance in this edition that they should feature 6-8. :shrug:
That's it, really.
Can't make the horse drink and all.

I hazard a guess that most campaigns feature single encounter adventuring days of Overland travel, and then 'zoomed in' action at dungeons and similar areas, where most groups would face half a dozen or more encounters in a single adventuring day.

Doesn't sound that implausible. But, then, neither do a preponderance of single-encounter days, especially when the style tends towards 'CaW,' and, oddly, at higher levels where meaningful encounters can feel hard to justify with any frequency.

The current maths of the game (and assumptions with encounter design and resource management) reflects this expectation.

I think the guidelines reflect the design. It's worth noting, for instance, that the guidelines came out after HotDQ & the PH were out, and have been further adjusted since then.

 

[matskralc]

I used to officiate high school football games. While there is a PHB/rulebook that tells me "this is what constitutes holding", there is also a DMG/case book/officiating mechanics manual/wisdom passed down from experienced officials that guides me on when and how to actually call and enforce a holding foul. If a player commits "textbook" holding when the ball is 40 yards away on the other side of the field, there is little point in calling it and nobody will have fun playing or watching a game in which that foul is always called. At the same time, it is an officiating failure to ignore a pulling guard who holds a linebacker at the point of attack and turns what would have been a two yard loss into an ill-gotten twenty yard gain. Nobody will have fun playing or watching a game in which that foul is constantly ignored.

It is not the rulebook's fault that high level guards are able to hold more often and more effectively. It is the official's fault for not enforcing the rules and guidelines in order to guide the player's behavior. If I don't want guards to hold, I better call holding when I see it. It is not the guard's fault for doing it and it is not the rulebook's fault that it happens.

It is not, and never will be, the PHB's or DMG's fault that DMs don't follow the guidelines. It is not the designers' fault that Celtavian hands out sentient spellcasting magic items like they're candy or that CapnZapp refuses to prep for a game or run his monsters with any tactical intelligence whatsoever. Choosing to do those things is well within "the rules", but they certainly run afoul of the guidelines that have been given on how to get the most out of this game.

Celtavian, CapnZapp, and others are standing there watching pulling guards hold linebackers at the point of attack. They're doing so with their arms crossed while screaming that the designers of football really ought to do something about this, all the while ignoring the little yellow hankies tucked into their belts and the discussion that was had at the officiating meeting earlier that week.

You don't get to go out to run a football game and complain that a rugby game broke out after you actively refused to follow the guidelines and enforce the rules as appropriate.

 

[Helldritch]

For me the 5mwd is an aberration reminescent of the videogames in which you save game before a tough battle/level/boss.

Resting should be, as Flamestrike pointed out, a tactical decision. More often than not, my players will push onward even if they're low on hit points and ressources. Why? Because they could get ambushed, the vilain might get away or zounds of other possible outcome they don't want to see happening.

If used sparingly, the 5mwd can be a nice change of pace. Something like, the dragon's cave's over there. Lets take a rest before we get in and slay the beast. That is even expected. But after storming the base of operation of a warlord, don't expect him to stay in the main keep's chamber and wait for the good will of the players to come to get him. He'll either get away or give chase. That is a certainty with me.

What I do give is that the more optional rules that are used at a table, the more work a DM will have to balance things out. Having 6 players at a table with most of the options in the PHB and DMG gives a lot of work to do. Believe me, that is what I am doing. And yet, it makes for great games.

Is the system at fault? Nope. It is entirely on my shoulders. But it is a burden that I happily bear with all the fun we have at our table.

 

[Flamestrike]

For me the 5mwd is an aberration reminescent of the videogames in which you save game before a tough battle/level/boss.

Resting should be, as Flamestrike pointed out, a tactical decision. More often than not, my players will push onward even if they're low on hit points and ressources. Why? Because they could get ambushed, the vilain might get away or zounds of other possible outcome they don't want to see happening.

If used sparingly, the 5mwd can be a nice change of pace. Something like, the dragon's cave's over there. Lets take a rest before we get in and slay the beast. That is even expected. But after storming the base of operation of a warlord, don't expect him to stay in the main keep's chamber and wait for the good will of the players to come to get him. He'll either get away or give chase. That is a certainty with me.

What I do give is that the more optional rules that are used at a table, the more work a DM will have to balance things out. Having 6 players at a table with most of the options in the PHB and DMG gives a lot of work to do. Believe me, that is what I am doing. And yet, it makes for great games.

Is the system at fault? Nope. It is entirely on my shoulders. But it is a burden that I happily bear with all the fun we have at our table.

To be fair to Celt and captain Zapp, the DMG isn't really explicit on these expectations, and they likely run their games very differently to the baseline default of Dungeons & Dragons at other tables.

The DMG doesn't exactly explain expressly what is the impact of different rests are for different classes for example. It's seeks to enshrine the 6 to 8 encounter adventuring day as a guideline, without really going into much detail about why it's so vital to the underlying mechanics, and without providing much guidance on how to enforce it, or what the ramifications are if you choose not to.

There is something to be said that the game doesn't balance that well with single encounter adventuring days being the norm unless you enforce rules variants such as the gritty realism variant. Obviously that was a design choice by the developers. They really could have expressed it and explained it better in the DMG however.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The more I read of this thread, the more I am convinced that many of the "problems" people have with the game are from a metagaming perspective, and could be alleviated with more immersion--funny enough in a role-playing game.

Here's what I mean by that. I see a lot of anguish around trying to mechanically find the balance of the game, and if balance doesn't happen automatically outside of in-game factors, then the game itself is broken somehow. I am convinced now more than ever that if the players played their PCs like actual people, and the DM played the game world as an actual living game world, most of these issues would resolve themselves. Players using metagame knowledge (I know we'll have X amount of encounters per day so I know I can spend Y amount of resources every encounter) and DMs catering to these players' expectations of rest, refusing to have the inhabitants react like a living creature would to what's going on, and treating monsters/NPCs as pawns on a gameboard with no other actions other than what's in a statblock is going to cause issues. D&D isn't expected to play that way, so if you're expecting the game to do something it isn't designed to do, you'll be disappointed.

Do real life soldiers know how many contacts they'll get on every patrol, so they know exactly how much ammo to use up per contact? Of course not. In the same vein, players shouldn't know how many encounters they will have for certain. Every rest period, short or long, should be a risk v reward evaluation. It's on the players to initiate rests. It's on the DM to fairly determine how every other creature in the area will react. Some times this means PCs get a rest. Sometimes this means the dungeon inhabitants are alerted to the PCs and are out looking for them. There is no manipulation, or cheating, or whatever else has been implied earlier.

Play the game immersive, like a true role-playing game, and many of these issues won't even come up. Yes, this means there is prep time needed by the DM because the DM needs to know how each of these creatures will react and what they would do. That's the price to play when you're running the game. If you cannot, or will not prep for your games, then you have no right to complain the game isn't working for you.

Some days they might have 2 encounters. Some days 10. The average may come out to 6-8, but that doesn't mean you have to have 6-8 every adventuring day. Some days class X will run out of powers before the encounters are done for the day because there isn't a chance to rest, and some days class X will have left over powers because there was only one encounter. That's part of an organic game. The players have the choice in how to manage their resources, rather than have those choices dictated to them via metagaming expectations (which is what "I know I have X amount of encounters so I spend Y amount of resources per encounter" is). It's more player agency.

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] Excellent post. I agree 100%.

I think that when players know that each encounter is meant to be defeated, then that affects how they play their characters. It's a more subtle or passive form of metagaming. I think that surety on the players' part is what needs to be shifted. Once that happens, then the game will become more immersive, and the situation would improve.

 

[Flamestrike]

Some days they might have 2 encounters. Some days 10. The average may come out to 6-8, but that doesn't mean you have to have 6-8 every adventuring day. Some days class X will run out of powers before the encounters are done for the day because there isn't a chance to rest, and some days class X will have left over powers because there was only one encounter. That's part of an organic game.

This. A million times this.

Sometimes my players get the one deadly++ encounter. Sometimes they'll get several smaller ones in a row. Often they'll get 6-8 with enough time for 2-3 short rests. Sometimes they'll get the one or two easy encounters. Sometimes the encounters can be solved via social interaction or outside of simple combat. Many adventures they have a time constraint. On some they dont. Some they have all the time in the world to poke around and take things at their own pace.

The spotlight gets shared. Different classes shine at different times, and different players contribute during different types of encounter.

No advocate of 6-8 makes the claim that it is the one true way and you must never deviate from it. Its a useful guideline to base your adventuring days off; keep it in mind but stray from it. Use it as much as needed to make the system (and the players) self policing (so they dont get caught out of gas halfway into the dungeon).

One of my best adventures was a dungeon with teleportation portals keyed to other rooms (Lost Island of Castanamir revised to 5E). I set the PCs up to be stranded on an island with a warning that the boat would leave in 3 days (marooning them). They found the first portal, entered it and got trapped in the dungeon.

From there, they had 3 days to navigate the maze, locate the exit, and escape before getting marooned. I had 15 combat encounters designed for them (plus room for more if needed). I also had a few wandering monsters that patrolled the maze (including 2 halfling assasins that were stranded, stalking the PCs and looking for a way out).

Within that paradigm (we have enough time for 2 long rests, and as many short rests as we can afford AS LONG AS THESE DAMN HALFLINGS STOP TRYING TO KILL US!) they could take it as slow or as fast as they wanted. It took them about 6 sessions and about 20 pads of mapping paper to figure it out. They just made it in time.

Subject to random halfling assassin attacks of course

 

[Sacrosanct]

[MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] Excellent post. I agree 100%.

I think that when players know that each encounter is meant to be defeated, then that affects how they play their characters. It's a more subtle or passive form of metagaming. I think that surety on the players' part is what needs to be shifted. Once that happens, then the game will become more immersive, and the situation would improve.

Absolutely. One observation I have that I find to be a bit of cognitive dissonance is that many of the people push hard for player agency are also the same people who push hard for the expected encounter knowledge, or like you said, the expectation that every encounter should be beatable, and the players should know how many resources they will need to spend beforehand. I say cognitive dissonance, because that's what it seems to me because it's less player agency to advocate for the latter. Where is the player choice when you know how much of your resources you're going to spend, and you know you will win? There's no choice of "do we fight, or avoid, or flee?" There's no real choice of how many of your resources you're going to spend. Those things have been metagamed away from you.

When there are more unknowns, there are more decision points from the players. And when there are more decision points, there is more agency.

*Edit* IMO, however, too much agency is a bad thing, especially when it's used like players using metagaming out of character knowledge to resolve a conflict where their PC wouldn't have that knowledge. And too much player agency means the DM can't do anything the players don't approve of.

 

[Rhenny]

The more I read of this thread, the more I am convinced that many of the "problems" people have with the game are from a metagaming perspective, and could be alleviated with more immersion--funny enough in a role-playing game.

Here's what I mean by that. I see a lot of anguish around trying to mechanically find the balance of the game, and if balance doesn't happen automatically outside of in-game factors, then the game itself is broken somehow. I am convinced now more than ever that if the players played their PCs like actual people, and the DM played the game world as an actual living game world, most of these issues would resolve themselves. Players using metagame knowledge (I know we'll have X amount of encounters per day so I know I can spend Y amount of resources every encounter) and DMs catering to these players' expectations of rest, refusing to have the inhabitants react like a living creature would to what's going on, and treating monsters/NPCs as pawns on a gameboard with no other actions other than what's in a statblock is going to cause issues. D&D isn't expected to play that way, so if you're expecting the game to do something it isn't designed to do, you'll be disappointed.

Do real life soldiers know how many contacts they'll get on every patrol, so they know exactly how much ammo to use up per contact? Of course not. In the same vein, players shouldn't know how many encounters they will have for certain. Every rest period, short or long, should be a risk v reward evaluation. It's on the players to initiate rests. It's on the DM to fairly determine how every other creature in the area will react. Some times this means PCs get a rest. Sometimes this means the dungeon inhabitants are alerted to the PCs and are out looking for them. There is no manipulation, or cheating, or whatever else has been implied earlier.

Play the game immersive, like a true role-playing game, and many of these issues won't even come up. Yes, this means there is prep time needed by the DM because the DM needs to know how each of these creatures will react and what they would do. That's the price to play when you're running the game. If you cannot, or will not prep for your games, then you have no right to complain the game isn't working for you.

Some days they might have 2 encounters. Some days 10. The average may come out to 6-8, but that doesn't mean you have to have 6-8 every adventuring day. Some days class X will run out of powers before the encounters are done for the day because there isn't a chance to rest, and some days class X will have left over powers because there was only one encounter. That's part of an organic game. The players have the choice in how to manage their resources, rather than have those choices dictated to them via metagaming expectations (which is what "I know I have X amount of encounters so I spend Y amount of resources per encounter" is). It's more player agency.

This is spot on. We've never had an issue with resting or encounters per day because when we play, we don't "Game." We actually try to think like the PCs and immerse ourselves in the world. We rejoice when we get a chance to rest, and we never count or try to anticipate what the DM is going to "throw at us." Sometimes the short rests and long rests just line up so that we aren't completely exhausted. Sometimes we have to endure encounter after encounter before we get to a moment where we can short or long rest. It has never made an appreciable difference in the game experience over a number of gaming sessions.

Variety and chance is more realistic than formulaic adherence to a specific guideline. Of course, it is nice to know that the game is balanced on the assumption that a full day may included 6-8 encounters, but different days/situations require variation. If the PCs always knew that they would have to overcome 6-8 encounters per day, that would be pretty damn boring. Keeping players/PCs wondering what the future will bring is one of the most important jobs of the DM. It is another tool to create tension and excitement. We need to embrace it.