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

[Uchawi]

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.

You can't remove the role playing from the rules or vice versa. No matter how you try to immerse yourself some of the idiosyncrasies will appear. You do have the choice to ignore or just accept it. A DM will have to decide how much effort you want to put into an adventure to address some of the gaps. It is not just a player problem.

Probably the biggest issue is the disparity of resource management between classes and monsters. Some are very arbitrary and you would question why they exist.

 

[Helldritch]

Yes there are some groups that will try meta game the DM by guessing and anticipating when they will rest if they are sure that all encounters are winnable. This is especially true with young DM where a TPK will occur only when a fight will have been underestimated by the DM.

One way to eleminate the meta gaming is the TPK.

TPK are not bad. They are part of the game and it shows that sometimes, evil can win. This raises the players' expectations and their awareness of the dangers they are facing. It also has the other effect that now the players know that they don't have a carebear DM in front of them.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not the kind of DM that is out there against his players. I am not the DM that will do a TPK just for the fun of it.

But I am the kind of DM that: Rolls dice in plain view. Plays monsters realistically. Challenges the players. Forces the players to constantly better themselves and makes sure that every players get the limelight during campaings.

Do I make some encounters that are unwinnable? Yes, but it is always blatantly evident that the players are no match. And yet sometimes, some player get cocky and says: Let's try it anyways. With enough persuasion from him/her, the others soon follow him/her to their death.

Sometimes they just push onward too far.
Sometimes its just carelessness from their part. (they let an enemy raise the alarm, just bad planning or simply not paying attention enough.)

I don't kill players. Players kill themselves.
That is how I don't get Metagamed.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Is there anything on the DM's Guild that the OP could buy to help him out? Anything at all?

Also, could [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] provide character sheets for his party, complete write ups for all the BBEGs, and record/upload his next major party fight? If we're discussing this encounter for 10+ pages, I want all the information made available.

 

[CapnZapp]

Is there anything on the DM's Guild that the OP could buy to help him out? Anything at all?

Also, could [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] provide character sheets for his party, complete write ups for all the BBEGs, and record/upload his next major party fight? If we're discussing this encounter for 10+ pages, I want all the information made available.

Actually, I am the OP, it's been 23 pages (to me), and no, I didn't start the thread because I needed third-party products. But thanks anyway!

 

[Hussar]

Look, at the end of the day, it just has to be recognized as a limitation of the system. Just like 3e did poorly if you wanted to pace it at 8 encounters per day. 5e is based on how earlier editions played. Since you had so few renewable resources anyway, there just wasn't really any point of stopping. And, relative to the PC's, monsters in AD&D were individually VERY weak. It was entirely possible in AD&D to go entire encounters without expending any resources at all. The PC's could achieve pretty decent AC's by very low levels (an AC in the low negatives was achievable at 1st, if not 2nd level - Banded, shield and a decent Dex gave you an AC of 0 in a game where monsters got no attack bonuses at all and had a THAC0 of around 17-19 at low levels).

THAT'S the play style that 5e is setting out to emulate. In 3e, each encounter (at baseline) was meant to eat 20% of your resources. In 5e, that number is halved. Has to be. If you're expecting 6-8 encounters per day, each encounter can only eat about 10-15% of party resources. If your 10th level party of 5 has 300 HP total, a standard encounter should only eat about 30 HP. That's IT. That's all she wrote. If you have two full casters in that group, they have, combined, about 28 daily spells (or so, I'm going from memory here). Which means in a standard encounter, they should only cast 3 spells. Again, that's the baseline expectation.

If you go against the baseline expectations, OF COURSE the system is going to fight you all the way. Trying to do single encounter days in AD&D would be ludicrous. It just doesn't work. The system is far too swingy. Trying to do extended 6-8 encounter days in 3e doesn't work. Each encounter would be boring as all heck. And, again, the system is very swingy with monsters being much more individually powerful, meaning that a couple of lucky die rolls ends that adventuring day. 4e, where the balancing was all done at the encounter level, actually does work for both ways, but, I'm going to assume that's not an option.

So, here's your choice. Either suck it up and accept that the system is not going to do what you want, or adjust your adventure design to take advantage of the system. That's your choices. Fighting the system and then blaming the system isn't going to get you anywhere. Make a choice and stick with it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Look, at the end of the day, it just has to be recognized as a limitation of the system. Just like 3e did poorly if you wanted to pace it at 8 encounters per day. In 3e, each encounter (at baseline) was meant to eat 20% of your resources. In 5e, that number is halved. Has to be. If you're expecting 6-8 encounters per day, each encounter can only eat about 10-15% of party resources. ...4e, where the balancing was all done at the encounter level, actually does work for both ways, but, I'm going to assume that's not an option.

So, here's your choice. Either suck it up and accept that the system is not going to do what you want, or adjust your adventure design to take advantage of the system. That's your choices.

Or adjust the system.

Or, y'know, continue to complain, because solutions are boring, but problems make for interesting discussions....

 

[Hussar]

Or adjust the system.

Or, y'know, continue to complain, because solutions are boring, but problems make for interesting discussions....

Well, that's the thing though. Sure, you can adjust the system, but, at that point, you're pretty much left to starting from scratch. This is a basic, fundamental design paradigm. Changing 5e to a more 3e style, where each monster is far more individually powerful and dangerous means that you have to rewrite the entire Monster Manual. I can't really see how this is going to be a productive use of time.

I mean, if you're dead set on the idea that adventure days should be one or two encounters, there is a tailor made system right there with thousands of supplements for you to use. 3e. And it works very, very well. I'm not sure what you would be gaining by trying to rewrite 5e that you couldn't much more easily gain by simply playing 3e. Or Pathfinder if that tickles your fancy. Either one would work.

Otherwise, I can't see this as anything else but an exercise in constant frustration as the 5e system is going to fight you tooth and nail if you try to force it into that 1-2 encounter mould. The classes, the monsters, the magic system, pretty much everything is based on the idea of a longer adventuring day. You'd have to rewrite the monsters, then turn around and rewrite the classes to lessen their nova-powers, then rewrite the magic system to make it less flexible, in order to reduce the nova powers of the casting classes.

Heck, if you look at the complaints about 5e, I think a large number of them stem from this problem. "Sharpshooter and GWM are too powerful!" Why? "Because the PC's always have Bless up and other buffs". Wait a second, hang on. A 6 encounter day should be about 20 rounds of combat long (ish) If you run 6 encounters per day, that means that the cleric (or paladin) has to give up 6 actions out of 20 in order to bless every time. Suddenly, you've pretty much removed the cleric (or paladin) from a large chunk of each encounter. That character is spending 25-30% of his time casting a spell that doesn't actually do any direct effect to the enemy.

But, if you only have 1 big encounter (say 8 rounds long), then the cleric (or paladin) casts 1 bless spell, it lasts the entire encounter and only had to spend about 10% of his time casting a spell that doesn't have any direct effect on the enemy. Hrm, we've essentially granted that caster FIVE actions over the course of the adventuring day. It's no wonder that that character is having a much greater impact.

Granted they maybe should have had a lengthier discussion about why the longer encounter day is important in the 5e DMG. Fair enough. They possibly maybe should have spelled it out. But, sheesh, it's not exactly hard to figure out why you're having problems is it? Just how much hand holding do you expect WotC to do here. In any case, even if that's not in the DMG, it's HERE now. Spread the word. If you see some poor DM struggling with these issues in 5e, let that DM know that there is a really, really easy solution.

Beat the party like a piñata until juicy, juicy candy comes out.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Changing 5e to a more 3e style, where each monster is far more individually powerful and dangerous means that you have to rewrite the entire Monster Manual.

It just means re-writing (or adding to existing write-ups) of the ones you're actually going to use.

I mean, if you're dead set on the idea that adventure days should be one or two encounters, there is a tailor made system right there with thousands of supplements for you to use. 3e.

It's really kinda broken in 5MWD mode, 3e is. Moreso than 5e, really.

Besides, 5e is meant to work with /more/ styles, not fewer....

Otherwise, I can't see this as anything else but an exercise in constant frustration as the 5e system is going to fight you tooth and nail if you try to force it into that 1-2 encounter mould. The classes, the monsters, the magic system, pretty much everything is based on the idea of a longer adventuring day.

Monsters aren't so bad, they're not that complex, and you just have to dial up the challenge on the monster side to match what your party can do when they Nova.

More problematic, perhaps, is intra-party balance in that scenario. For one thing, what the party can do in that Nova you have to tune your encounters to will vary wildly with party composition and system mastery. But, mainly, if the party composition does include any classes meant to shine on particularly long days, they're going to languish. You need to find ways to compensate for that. Potent magic items with wild 1/day powers, for instance.

Heck, if you look at the complaints about 5e, I think a large number of them stem from this problem.

Quite possibly.

 

[Celtavian]

Or adjust the system.

Or, y'know, continue to complain, because solutions are boring, but problems make for interesting discussions....

If you look at my campaign thread, I've been adjusting the system by rebuilding tons of monsters up to my standards. I enjoy discussing what I view as a failure of the game mechanics. I don't know. I feel after this many editions of D&D and this much experience on the game design team that they could do a better job creating monsters capable of challenging higher level parties. They would understand action economy and tactical variety well enough to know how to build monsters, specifically solo monsters, capable of challenging an entire party in a straight up fight that doesn't require I empower the environment or add a number of specialized minions to shore up their weaknesses.

 

[MichaelSomething]

They would understand action economy and tactical variety well enough to know how to build monsters, specifically solo monsters, capable of challenging an entire party in a straight up fight that doesn't require I empower the environment or add a number of specialized minions to shore up their weaknesses.

They tried it with 4th Edition and lots of people didn't like it