D&D 5E 6-8 Encounter Adventuring Day as the Key to Combat as Sport/War in 5e

OB1

Jedi Master
I was recently inspired by the thread discussion regarding the strategic failure of allowing enemy attacks and buried within that thread a link to an older discussion of combat as sport vs combat as war in D&D to consider the flexibility and power of the 5e adventuring day guidelines.

I believe 5e is built to encourage DMs to construct objectives around the 6-8 encounters and daily adjusted xp guidelines, which, when done with a thought as to how players can overcome those encounters without combat, allows the players to dictate where on the War vs Sport spectrum they wish to play any given scenario.

In this way, 5e is set up to play similarly to a game such as Metal Gear Solid 5, where the player is given a mission to, say, extract a prisoner, and then is given tremendous freedom as to how to accomplish that. A player can go in guns blazing, engaging in firefights along the way (combat as sport), or can carefully devise a plan so that they can extract the prisoner without firing a single shot (combat as war). In many cases, missions end up somewhere in between as the carefully laid plans go awry due to a failure along the way, leading to combat. Finally, some missions are simply too difficult to complete until a player is at a higher skill or level.

I recently ran the following set of encounters a a single adventuring day mission over two gaming sessions to great success. I put it now as an example of this type of Day building. Party was 6 PCs at 11th level with 1-2 Uncommon to rare magic items each. The session took 5 hours.

Objective: Infiltrate Nalfeshnee's Lair and prevent him from entering the natural world

Encounter 1: Patrols outside the Lair. Can be avoided by stealth DC 15 or magic 2nd level or better resource. Otherwise Mid Difficulty Combat Encounter (TOM)

Encounter 2: Reinforcements to Patrols. Only triggered if Encounter 1 triggered. Can be stopped if party prevents members of the patrol from escaping. Otherwise Hard Difficulty Encounter
Short Rest Possible (TOM)

Encounter 3: Inner lair Demon Workers. Can sneak by or talked past DC 15. Otherwise Mid Difficulty combat encounter. (TOM)

Encounter 4: Tunnels under the lair. Purple Worm. Players can try to escape (DC 20) or use 4th level magic to avoid. Otherwise Deadly Encounter (TOM)

Encounter 5: Guards outside throne room. Guards (who are flesh and stone golems) continue to file in from basement, forcing players upstairs. No direct way to win combat. Players could skip entirely simply by running upstairs. (Grid)

Encounter 6: Finding an alternate path to the Throne Room. In the halls of the Lair, a minion of Nalfeshnee tries to lure the players into a trap. If they follow, Hard Combat. If not, either Easy combat with minion or DC 10 Persuade/Intimidate or Level 1 spell to get him to show players the back way in.
Short Rest possible (Tom)

Encounter 7: Nalfeshnee's Throne room. Players can ignore everything and just take out the portal being opened, then escape the lair, or they can confront Nalfeshnee directly. Direct confrontation is Deadly Encounter. Taking out the portals requires the equivalent of 3 DC 20 skill checks or 3 Level 3+ spells. (Grid)

Encounter 8: Nalfeshnee's 3 henchmen. Hard Encounter. Established in earlier episodes, Nalfeshnee's henchmen now show up to avenge their boss either outside the Lair (if portal was destroyed) or inside the lair (if Nalfeshnee was destroyed). (Grid)

My players ended up in combat on encounters 1,3,4,7 and 8, defeating both Nalfeshnee and his henchmen by the skin of their teeth and nearly allowing a complication in that the Henchmen were attempting to take Nalfeshees blood into the natural world to start a zombie apocalypse.

But the point is, had they avoided some of those combats (especially the Purple Worm), they would have had a much easier time with 7 and 8, almost making them trivial even though they were Deadly and Hard encounters.

But that's exactly the point of the 6-8 encounter day. By setting yourself up for success towards your true objective, you tilt the game towards Combat as War, making it very likely that your party will have little difficulty in accomplishing your objective. If you want the sport of fighting, you could go in guns blazing and take every combat, but towards the end, may have to risk a TPK or decide to give up the objective. In the same way, the objective can be made much harder than is possible for the players to overcome, with the difficulty of early encounters reinforcing this point and allowing players to retreat before getting in too deep.

Using Theatre of the Mind, the smaller combats triggered off bad stealth checks go quickly, and if unused in this session, can be easily and quickly modified for another session down the road.

I'm working on a set of expanded guidelines for this process and will publish here as soon as I have done. In the meantime, just wanted to throw this out for discussion.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Rhenny

Adventurer
Very interesting. I love seeing how the adventure you ran is basically a matrix of decisions and possibilities played out in one particular way. (I guess that seems pretty obvious to computer programmers or other hard core gamers, but for some reason your example just revealed it to me with more clarity)

To me, your post emphasizes how combat as war is more interesting than combat as sport. Great post! I look forward to any updates you post.
 

Whirlingdervish

First Post
I tend to make greater use of traps, tricks, and noncombat obstacles in addition to combat encounters in conjunction with random encounters which tends to increase my encounter metric from 6-8 to 12-15.
 

bedir than

Full Moon Storyteller
I like how this is laid out. I do thinks quite differently at the table, but this example of the 6-8 system is wonderful. [MENTION=6796241]OB1[/MENTION] how many hours at table did the 8 encounters take?
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
But that's exactly the point of the 6-8 encounter day. By setting yourself up for success towards your true objective, you tilt the game towards Combat as War, making it very likely that your party will have little difficulty in accomplishing your objective. If you want the sport of fighting, you could go in guns blazing and take every combat, but towards the end, may have to risk a TPK or decide to give up the objective. In the same way, the objective can be made much harder than is possible for the players to overcome, with the difficulty of early encounters reinforcing this point and allowing players to retreat before getting in too deep.

Only two real comments: First, is it really wise or even useful to bring up the "war vs. sport" dichotomy again? Everywhere I've seen it discussed, it has ended up doing a lot more harm than good.

Second, on the specific quoted passage: it really sounds to me like this thing is in fact not doing what you're saying it does. Going in "guns blazing every fight" (which...sounds like a combat-as-war person ascribing a position to "combat as sport" without engaging in it much themselves...) results in Seriously Bad Consequences, whereas combat-as-war is smarter, more efficient, and dramatically safer. In other words, playing the way you describe as "combat as sport" is distinctly unwise, and the system seems to make it a serious, TPK-risking threat. If that's not specifically discouraging that kind of approach, I don't really know what is!
 

I believe 5e is built to encourage DMs to construct objectives around the 6-8 encounters and daily adjusted xp guidelines, which, when done with a thought as to how players can overcome those encounters without combat, allows the players to dictate where on the War vs Sport spectrum they wish to play any given scenario.

Those are very much not the same thing. The daily guidelines are more commonly adhered-to than the 6-8 number, partly because if you try to adhere to both you wind up with boringly easy combats.
 

pming

Legend
Hiya!
[MENTION=6796241]OB1[/MENTION], I have got to say...you and I have virtually opposite views on how to write up an adventure for our game. To me, pretty much everything you did was "backwards". I'm not picking a fight, just pointing out something I think a lot of folks miss: The 5e rules systems are frickin' awesome in that they can handle both 'styles' of DM'ing! :D

Me? I pretty much ignore the PC's completely when writing up my adventures. The only thing I keep in mind is a VERY rough idea of their levels. Not classes, races, magic items, equipment, skills, etc. Just the 'rough levels' (e.g., if characters are levels 9,9,10,11,12...I think '10th or 11th'). This rough-level is used as a base starting point. After that, however, it's ignored. I would go about thinking how a Nalfeshnee would have his lair set up, it's capabilities to maintain it through power and fear, and what it thinks it can get away with without attracting the attention of things more powerful than it who would want to take it from him. Then I get to 'designing' the dungeon around that. If a cool idea for an acid-pit trap room comes up, I'll toss it in. Then figure out why/how it 'works' and is 'maintained' by the bad guys. Do I worry about the PC's having means of protecting themselves from acid? Nope. Do I worry about them having means to recover/restore/create destroyed equipment? Nope. Do I worry about 'What if?' scenarios? (like the wizard decides to bring his spell book with him). Nope again. None of that is my concern.

So...I may end up with a 'dungeon' with a half-dozen 'encounter areas', or three dozen ones. Again, I don't concern myself with any "design limits" or much in the way of "PC's".

Now, this all assumes I'm actually trying to "design an adventure". ;) I usually don't do much of that of late. I'm much more of a "here are some point form notes, a couple cool maps that caught my eye, and a few reminders of what the PC's last actions have caused to happen...or not...over the last month". I do a lot of "sandbox with wings" style DM'ing (re: a sandbox that I do a LOT of 'winging' in). I enjoy the on-the-spot creation challenges that crop up during the session, so planing out a "6-8 encounter with an XP budget" session is...completely opposite from how I like to do things.

Am I alone in this? Or are there others who enjoy this sort of "improve DM'ing" and "logical campaign world-based adventure locale design"?

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 


Azurewraith

Explorer
Hiya!

[MENTION=6796241]OB1[/MENTION], I have got to say...you and I have virtually opposite views on how to write up an adventure for our game. To me, pretty much everything you did was "backwards". I'm not picking a fight, just pointing out something I think a lot of folks miss: The 5e rules systems are frickin' awesome in that they can handle both 'styles' of DM'ing! :D

Me? I pretty much ignore the PC's completely when writing up my adventures. The only thing I keep in mind is a VERY rough idea of their levels. Not classes, races, magic items, equipment, skills, etc. Just the 'rough levels' (e.g., if characters are levels 9,9,10,11,12...I think '10th or 11th'). This rough-level is used as a base starting point. After that, however, it's ignored. I would go about thinking how a Nalfeshnee would have his lair set up, it's capabilities to maintain it through power and fear, and what it thinks it can get away with without attracting the attention of things more powerful than it who would want to take it from him. Then I get to 'designing' the dungeon around that. If a cool idea for an acid-pit trap room comes up, I'll toss it in. Then figure out why/how it 'works' and is 'maintained' by the bad guys. Do I worry about the PC's having means of protecting themselves from acid? Nope. Do I worry about them having means to recover/restore/create destroyed equipment? Nope. Do I worry about 'What if?' scenarios? (like the wizard decides to bring his spell book with him). Nope again. None of that is my concern.

So...I may end up with a 'dungeon' with a half-dozen 'encounter areas', or three dozen ones. Again, I don't concern myself with any "design limits" or much in the way of "PC's".

Now, this all assumes I'm actually trying to "design an adventure". ;) I usually don't do much of that of late. I'm much more of a "here are some point form notes, a couple cool maps that caught my eye, and a few reminders of what the PC's last actions have caused to happen...or not...over the last month". I do a lot of "sandbox with wings" style DM'ing (re: a sandbox that I do a LOT of 'winging' in). I enjoy the on-the-spot creation challenges that crop up during the session, so planing out a "6-8 encounter with an XP budget" session is...completely opposite from how I like to do things.

Am I alone in this? Or are there others who enjoy this sort of "improve DM'ing" and "logical campaign world-based adventure locale design"?

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I tend to do something similar just some simple lists with what i want to happen, a quick reminder of how the PCS have messed up, a few encounters/traps etc but the difference arises in a try to plop in something specific to allow a pc to shine.
 

OB1

Jedi Master
Second, on the specific quoted passage: it really sounds to me like this thing is in fact not doing what you're saying it does. Going in "guns blazing every fight" (which...sounds like a combat-as-war person ascribing a position to "combat as sport" without engaging in it much themselves...) results in Seriously Bad Consequences, whereas combat-as-war is smarter, more efficient, and dramatically safer. In other words, playing the way you describe as "combat as sport" is distinctly unwise, and the system seems to make it a serious, TPK-risking threat. If that's not specifically discouraging that kind of approach, I don't really know what is!

For me, combat as sport is really only sport if there is a real chance for failure (either not accomplishing objective or TPK). So if someone wants to play this as sport, they would be purposefully putting themselves at higher risk than necessary in order to challenge themselves in that type of gameplay (again, think MSG5, it's much easier to accomplish missions with careful thought and planning, but if you like and are skilled at FPS gameplay, you can also go in hot and have fun doing so).

That said, if they go in guns blazing and have some bad luck in early encounters, they can still decide later to change tactics in order to accomplish their objective. Conversely, a party trying to set everything up in their favor may have a bad skill roll and face real consequences (think Han failing his stealth check in Return of the Jedi, leading to the entire speeder bike chase).
[MENTION=6789971]bedir than[/MENTION] - Entire session took just over 5 hours.
[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] - I'm fine with a few easy combats and always use TOM when I suspect one will be too easy for the party to allow it to be resolved quickly. I had two combats that took less than 15 minutes each to resolve in the above scenario. Importantly, as easy as they were to resolve they still caused the party to expend resources, which changes how the party can deal with other encounters in the day. And of course there is always the chance that the DM crits on a hit or two, or the party misses an important save, and suddenly an 'easy' encounter can really mess with the party's plans for the day.
 

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Top