D&D 5E 6-8 Encounters?

[Charlaquin]

This boils down to the Ship of Theseus argument. I disagree with this notion; fundamentally altering the game mechanics of how they were intended to work is not 5e anymore.

It might seem like a non invasive change, since you are not altering the HP system, spell slots and resource economy directly but essentially you are doing just that. You alter the core mechanics of the game.

Granted many DMs and Players never cared about this in the first place, so I can see where you are coming from. I was once like that as well, until I ran the game it was designed to be. That's when I ran 5e, and not a homebrew combat system.

I see what you’re saying, and to an extent I agree. Game systems are usually designed to facilitate particular play experiences, and running them as designed usually leads to a better, more polished experience than trying to bend the system to do something it wasn’t designed to do. But I don’t think there’s any real value in trying to label games that run counter to the design “not [the system in question.]” At best it’s harmless pedantry, and at worst it can be a form of gatekeeping.

 

[miggyG777]

I see what you’re saying, and to an extent I agree. Game systems are usually designed to facilitate particular play experiences, and running them as designed usually leads to a better, more polished experience than trying to bend the system to do something it wasn’t designed to do. But I don’t think there’s any real value in trying to label games that run counter to the design “not [the system in question.]” At best it’s harmless pedantry, and at worst it can be a form of gatekeeping.

You can certainly label your game like you wish. If I am joining a 5e game, I expect certain components to work in a specific way.
Just as if I join a FATE CORE game I wouldn't expect there to be number crunchy combat, I don't expect a 5e game to significantly deviate from the way it was designed.
If you were to do that, you should at least give a disclaimer that you run a homebrew version.
But then again, I might just be a pedant.

 

[Charlaquin]

You can certainly label your game like you wish. If I am joining a 5e game, I expect certain components to work in a specific way.
Just as if I join a FATE CORE game I wouldn't expect there to be number crunchy combat, I don't expect a 5e game to significantly deviate from the way it was designed.
If you were to do that, you'd at least should give a disclaimer that you run a homebrew version.
But then again, I might just be a pedant.

No, no, I definitely agree. But I think that’s a very different assertion than “if you don’t do 6-8 encounters per adventuring day you’re not playing 5e.”

 

[miggyG777]

No, no, I definitely agree. But I think that’s a very different assertion than “if you don’t do 6-8 encounters per adventuring day you’re not playing 5e.”

To be fair, CapnZapp, that I referred to originally went from 5 to 9 encounters to 1 to 100 encounters in one sentence.
Which is intended to be a bait and switch, specifically to make my position sound pedantic.

Deviation from the guidelines is not a problem per se, and we can all agree upon, that it is the nature of the game that this will happen. It is however a different pair of shoes, if it is either permanently or in any other significant way.

If you run 100 encounter per long rest 5e D&D, to stay with the hyperbole, you may still call it 5e. To me that does not fall into the category that I would label 5e anymore.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Do they have to be combat encounters?

No. They should be encounters that consume resources (spells, hp, ability uses, etc.). It doesn't matter if there's combat or not.

The idea is to nickel and dime the PCs so that they're forced to short rest so that Fighters, Monks, and Warlocks don't feel put out because their primary class abilities that are quite awful unless they refresh at least once during the day.