D&D 5E 5E and Sense of Accomplishment

[exile]

As some of you may already know, I am a fan of both Pathfinder and 4E. Actually, I'm pretty much a fan of D&D and role-playing in general. After a session of Pathfinder or 4E, I usually feel a sense of accomplishment. I think the complexity (and even the much hated length) of the session's individual encounters contribute to this.

Word on the steet is that with 5E, encounters tend to run quicker, and groups can accomplish a-- for lack of a better word-- longer story in the same amount of time. For those of you who have done a lot of 5E playtesting, do you get a sense of accomplishment out of the game? Do you get the same sense of accomplishment (or more, or less) from an individual encounter? What about, say, a 4 hour session?

Am I even making any sense?

Chad

 

[Henry]

I guess the real question is: what do you feel represents a "sense of accomplishment" is a game session? What, to you, events would have happened in a typical session where you felt like your group accomplished something?

 

[exile]

Henry, very fair question. I played an excellent Pathfinder Society scneario last night.

Warning: Spoilers for PFS 5-13, Weapon in the Rift, follow.

In the scenarion, our group of hastily assembled characters found entrance to a fortress besieged by demons. Inside, we bypassed and/or triggered a couple of traps, solved a puzzle, and had three combat encouters. The first combat encounter, we squared off against a couple of corruped angels that mostly dealt melee damage, but who cold also be reasoned with (by saying the righthings and making good diplomacy rolls). In the second encounter, we fought an incorporeal undead with oracle levels that was resistant (not completely immune) to most of our melee attacks; obscured vision in the room; and had a lot of 'save or suck' attacks like fascination and confusion. In the third combat, we fought a couple of melee oriented demons who enjoyed sundering magical items and a larger demon who was stuck in place and was more like a trap for those who drew to near. While fighting these demons, we had to activate a divine weapon that was housed within the fortress.

Each fight probably took around an hour, with the other two or so hours of play time given over to exploration, exposition, traps, and puzzle-solving. I had a great time and thought the mix was about perfect. Further, by spending about an hour on each fight, I had a sense of accomplishment with each encounter as well as the adventuure as a whole.

So, I guess my question is really this-- with briefer 5E encounters, is there still a sense of accomplishment with each fight, or do you sacrifice that for a greater sense of accomplishment for the overall adventure?

 

[Blackwarder]

Back in 2012 I ran Kebold Press excellent adventure "Court of the Shadow Fey" to my 4e group, after three months of play my players forgot what the adventure was al about because the combat encounters took so much of our playing time that even playing once a week for 4-5 hours it was too much, couple that with the fact that the players felt that they haven't accomplished anything and the game just died out of boardroom .

My point is that your sense of accomplishment is dependant on what you value in your games, for use it was cool combats that move the game forward, it's obvious to me today that Courts in its 4e version isn't suited for that unless you play a house ruled version of 4e to speed up combats.

Playing 5e is like playing 2e, combats aren't the center of the edition, but they can be big and complex or small and fast as you wish.
I wouldn't call it better for accomplishing longer story, simply because in some games you don't have a story per say, what I would call it is being better at tailoring the game to your liking, you can have more exploration, interaction and combats in the same session, and you can change the ratios of those three to your liking.

I think the best example of this is MericB play report threads, Especialy the last one, in two hours his groups manage to accomplish a lot IMO.

Hope that helped.

Warder

 

[Blackwarder]

So, I guess my question is really this-- with briefer 5E encounters, is there still a sense of accomplishment with each fight, or do you sacrifice that for a greater sense of accomplishment for the overall adventure?

I just have to point something here, in 5e you can have this complex fights and they might take you an hour to finish, they might also take you 30 minutes, the question is do you count accomplishment by real world time spent on the encounter or by what you did in it? Another way to put it, would you have felt the same level of accomplishment doing the same things you did in each of this combats, only in half the time?

As I've said before I think that it's a matter of taste, but I'll wager that the answer will be yes.

Warder

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Quantity of things accomplished in a session definitely increases my sense of accomplishment. Even to the extent that, to a degree, quantity can take a place right alongside quality. I don't mean that the game can be crap, but I do mean that I've played in games with great immersion and atmosphere, but where we only played 2 hour sessions, and could go 2 sessions that were mostly a continuance of the same conversation. That might be okay occasionally, but I really don't feel I'm accomplishing much after a while if the timeline in the world isn't advancing and a certain number of adventure events (whether combat, exploration, interaction or other) aren't taking place. I'm also a fan of sessions running at least 4 hours in length, and unfortunately the only way I can get that is to run them myself, and it seems hard to find players that are able to play for that long--and I'm talking about players who really enjoy my DMing.

For D&D Next specifically, I definitely feel like I get more accomplished than with 3.5e. While individual brief blips of a combat aren't terribly satisfying, neither are they a drag. If I can intersperse some 10 to 20 minute combats that serve primarily as flavor rather than challenge, that in and of itself makes a session more satisfying. And it is definitely possible to have combats that are just as satisfying as prior editions in less time.

 

[Rhenny]

Throughout the playtest in the many games I've run and played, one of the best things about 5e has been the sense of accomplishment we've felt after each session.

I've run 1 hour, 1 1/2 hour, 2 hour, 3 hour, 4 hour sessions and no matter how long we play for there is a sense that life in the game world moves on and the story develops.

Combat also yields a sense of accomplishment even when it is quick. Varied encounters of easy, moderate and difficult levels focusing on adventure development rather than just encounter development helps DM and players to play through adventures rather than play through encounters. I think this helps to make players and DM feel as if more is accomplished per session.

Also, a Blackwarder mentioned, if players like to spend more time in combat, DM can easily create encounters that really test PCs. I've been experimenting with Legendary creatures and I have to say that having one of those in a fight really makes the PCs sweat.

Although most combats will run from 2-4 rounds, it doesn't preclude DM from developing a huge set piece encounter that can take 8-12 rounds or more.

Also, sometimes it is just the luck of the dice that will turn a moderate encounter into a difficult one, or a difficult one into a moderate one. I for one, like that there is still a random chance that things will go exceedingly well or horribly wrong. I think that adds to the excitement and the feeling of accomplishment.

My opinions are just personal feelings/observations based on my own playtest experience. Mileage may vary.

 

[Rhenny]

Quantity of things accomplished in a session definitely increases my sense of accomplishment. Even to the extent that, to a degree, quantity can take a place right alongside quality. I don't mean that the game can be crap, but I do mean that I've played in games with great immersion and atmosphere, but where we only played 2 hour sessions, and could go 2 sessions that were mostly a continuance of the same conversation. That might be okay occasionally, but I really don't feel I'm accomplishing much after a while if the timeline in the world isn't advancing and a certain number of adventure events (whether combat, exploration, interaction or other) aren't taking place. I'm also a fan of sessions running at least 4 hours in length, and unfortunately the only way I can get that is to run them myself, and it seems hard to find players that are able to play for that long--and I'm talking about players who really enjoy my DMing.

For D&D Next specifically, I definitely feel like I get more accomplished than with 3.5e. While individual brief blips of a combat aren't terribly satisfying, neither are they a drag. If I can intersperse some 10 to 20 minute combats that serve primarily as flavor rather than challenge, that in and of itself makes a session more satisfying. And it is definitely possible to have combats that are just as satisfying as prior editions in less time.

I agree. We have been able to finish small adventures in 2 or 3 hours, and man that has felt satisfying. Of course, if we want to, we can slow the game down and fight against very difficult encounters that require more planning and maneuvering, waves of monsters, alternative goals, etc.

 

[Mistwell]

For our playtests, yes.

My group likes combat - not to the exclusion of non-combat, but enough that they want it to play a role most sessions.

When we were playing both 4e and 3e, combat could take up to 2 hours. We only play for 2-3 hours each session. So if combat was to play a role, it would sometimes mean it was the only thing we did for a session.

Now, with combat taking 10-30 minutes, there is time enough to choose to do both combat and non-combat things in each session. And that seems to give my players more of a sense of accomplishment.

 

[exile]

I can see shorter combats being a huge advantage in a session that only lasts for 2 hours or so.

Overall, I am heartened by what you guys have had to say. I am intrigued to see what effects this will have on 5e OP adventures. As much as I really liked 4e and LFR, it felt like most of the adventures followed a very similar pattern: 3 combats broken up by 1-2 skill challenges. I hope we get some really innovative adventures for the new system.