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

[Psikerlord#]

I like the OP's method of adventure writing well enough, reminds me of shadowrun a bit, but I don't think this is what is meant by 6-8 encounters in DMG.

DMG means 6-8 actual fought encounters as I understand it, which is why there are also expected to be 2 short rest breaks, to replenish party resources. If the party in fact only has 3 fights, and avoids 5, it's a 3 encounter day not 6-8. Which should be very doable.

Not that I am a big fan of the 6-8 per day guide. I think adventures should be written in a "realistic" (?) manner, using what makes sense. Then leave it to the players to figure out how they will achieve their objective. No such thing as a "balanced" encounter, there are just encounters, some easy, some hard, and some the party might have to flee from. So be it!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] - Yes, I think I agree in principal here, where I think we may differ is that I'm okay with the possibility of a boring encounter as long as it's resolved quickly (say 1 or 2 rounds of combat) as long as it has the possibility of being something more.

So in your Displacer Beast scenario above, I could see this being tough if the monk, while scouting, blows a check and has to face them without the rest of the party, or the Displacer Beasts win initative and score a crit on their first attack, or one sneaks away and alerts the Hobgoblins.

And the more of these types of encounters that you throw at a party, the more likely that the dice go against them and something unintended happens. The party thinks, "ah it's just a couple of guards, we can take them" and then something goes horribly wrong, making them wish they had snuck around the guards instead.

We may not differ as much as you think. Just because I find easy encounters boring doesn't mean I don't run them occasionally; it does mean that I try to keep them light (Theater of the Mind, don't roll initiative, offer the player the option to simply dictate the outcome at the cost of 2d10 HP, whatever).

If the monk blows a check she won't have any problem--she can just exfiltrate. If they pursue then she gets to hit them with her melee attacks and then (thanks to Mobile) retreat again out of range. In practice it's not quite this easy because I use an initiative variant which is specifically designed to make melee kiting less predictable and easy--but she's still not going to be worried about getting caught. (Rather, she'll be worrying about "What happens if I bypass these things and there's something behind them?" Then she'd be surrounded and possibly in danger. Yay for Shadow Jump! But it's only the threat of additional forces on top of the Displacer Beasts that make it a tense and interesting scenario.)

Lesson: it doesn't matter if there is a real chance of disaster. There just has to be uncertainty about the possibility of disaster. Even if 90% of the time, it's just two lone displacer beasts, it can still be a fun encounter as long as there's a threat of more.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I find it useful. I greatly prefer combat as war over combat as sport.

Not surprising, considering that the dichotomy was created by people who feel that way. I also almost always see it liked, and used by, people who feel exactly as you do, or who have some deep-set dislike for what they call "combat as sport."

 

[Pickles III]

Not surprising, considering that the dichotomy was created by people who feel that way. I also almost always see it liked, and used by, people who feel exactly as you do, or who have some deep-set dislike for what they call "combat as sport."

I like the idea & I definitely like combat as sport. I agree it is used by people who seem to be saying "my make believe toon risks his imaginary life every time I play while your just want to have fun".

Referring to your earlier post a lot of the problems come from noone really knowing what anyone else means when they use the terms.

For me sport is leaping into every fight because well it's fun. PC are tough & I spent most of my time figuring out my abilities etc with combat in mind so do it.

Combat as war however has combat being dangerous & more importantly not especially fun. Getting it over faster or avoiding it altogether or at least mitigating some of the danger is more entertaining than fighting.

4e epitomises the sport style & 5e is well suited to the war style. Oddly AL play (or LFR as was) seems to suit the sport style better as you have very little lattitude regarding combats in that format. One counter issue being the length of 4e combats.

Other people indubitably understand the terms differently

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).

Like OB1. I don't really see the choice as being all on the side of the players. And real risk does not need to be there. It can be more about doing cool things (spinning back fist KOs) rather than facing difficult challenges.

Combat in RPGs covers far more than just challenging players & fun comes from far more things than just surviving risky situations. For me measuring out resources is not especially fun so minor attritional encounters bore me. Showing off my cool power is fun especially if it can be done creatively.

 

[ThirdWizard]

For me sport is leaping into every fight because well it's fun. PC are tough & I spent most of my time figuring out my abilities etc with combat in mind so do it.

Combat as war however has combat being dangerous & more importantly not especially fun. Getting it over faster or avoiding it altogether or at least mitigating some of the danger is more entertaining than fighting.

That seems to be saying that Combat as Sport = Easy mode beer & pretzels, while Combat as War = Serious gaming with consequences. It's reminiscent of the whole rollplay vs. roleplay dichotomy that I really don't like.

As I originally understood it that's not it. Combat as Sport is approaching the situation as it exists, accepting the world's parameters, and adjusting yourself to be ready for encounters as they exist. Combat as War is all about changing the parameters of the world to suit you, avoiding any unnecessary danger, and forcing your enemies to alter their plans to accommodate you. They have nothing to do with game difficulty.

These aren't mutually exclusive, of course! You can totally bend the rules a little to get an advantage where it's easily obtained while still working within the parameters of the world around you where you want.

War is about changing encounters before they happen so that they are in your own favor, and Sport is about accepting the parameters of the world and trying to figure out how you can best adapt yourself to those parameters. It isn't about rushing headlong and kicking in doors. The difference is one of metagame expectations.

 

[mflayermonk]

You could try adding xp multipliers similar to video game "combos" where each additional encounter before a long rest adds some additional xp.

(for example)
Encounters before long rest
1-2 x0.8 xp
3-4 x1 xp
5 x1.2 xp
6 x1.4xp or x1.2xp and 1d4 Magic Items from Treasure Table A
7 x1.5 xp and 1d4 Magic Items from Treasure Table A
8 x1.75xp or x1.5xp and a Magic Item from Table C

 

[OB1]

I like the OP's method of adventure writing well enough, reminds me of shadowrun a bit, but I don't think this is what is meant by 6-8 encounters in DMG.

DMG means 6-8 actual fought encounters as I understand it, which is why there are also expected to be 2 short rest breaks, to replenish party resources. If the party in fact only has 3 fights, and avoids 5, it's a 3 encounter day not 6-8. Which should be very doable.

Not that I am a big fan of the 6-8 per day guide. I think adventures should be written in a "realistic" (?) manner, using what makes sense. Then leave it to the players to figure out how they will achieve their objective. No such thing as a "balanced" encounter, there are just encounters, some easy, some hard, and some the party might have to flee from. So be it!

Yes, this is precisely the point. Players who attack and adventure day with the Combat as War mentality will be in fewer combats and won't be as challenged in them. The consequence of that is that they won't level up as quickly as if they played combat as sport. So Sport players may level to 20 in the course of say 30-40 sessions (if they aren't TPK'd first) where War players may take 70-100.

My players like a little bit of war and a little bit of sport, so setting up adventuring days like this allows them to decide on a session by session basis how they want to play it. That it turn also depends on how big the threat feels and how high the stakes are.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I'd like advice on dealing with players who don't believe in "6-8 encounters per day" please.

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)

After the players defeat the patrol, they go many hours back to their camp (taking care to cover their tracks) and have a night's rest. The next day, they travel back to the lair. Repeat for every encounter.


I do know some tactics for dealing with this. For example, in the example above, the guards could track the party back to their camp. Or perhaps the next day, there's a new patrol, twice as strong as the previous one. Or perhaps the bad guys abandon the lair overnight? What other ideas are there?

As a player, would you consider it cheesy or unfair if the guards tracked characters back to camp? Would you consider it unfair if the bad guys abandoned the lair overnight, so characters got no xp or loot?

 

[Rhenny]

I'd like advice on dealing with players who don't believe in "6-8 encounters per day" please.



After the players defeat the patrol, they go many hours back to their camp (taking care to cover their tracks) and have a night's rest. The next day, they travel back to the lair. Repeat for every encounter.


I do know some tactics for dealing with this. For example, in the example above, the guards could track the party back to their camp. Or perhaps the next day, there's a new patrol, twice as strong as the previous one. Or perhaps the bad guys abandon the lair overnight? What other ideas are there?

As a player, would you consider it cheesy or unfair if the guards tracked characters back to camp? Would you consider it unfair if the bad guys abandoned the lair overnight, so characters got no xp or loot?

Not cheesy at all. Let the foes do what makes sense. If they are concerned that a group of adventurers got close and killed some of their men, I think they would send out a search party (if they were confident enough). If they decide to pack up and move that's fine too. Maybe they'll even have enough time to set up a trap and then leave...or they can just set up traps and set up an ambush waiting for the party to return.

Once the players realize there are consequences for taking too much time, they will begin to change their method of exploration/investigation.

In some cases, you can have the bad guys take hostages sometimes as slaves, sometimes to torture for information, sometimes to sacrifice in a ritual or to appease another entity. This will force PCs to keep moving or they will imperil the hostages.

The key is to vary the way the foes act so that nobody is ever truly certain if they can spare even 1 hour resting, let alone 8 hours.

Also, the 6-8 encounter day assumes easy and medium encounters most of the time. If your group doesn't like that as much, 2-4 tougher encounters per day might suffice. As the Op and others have mentioned, as long as there are lots of attacks vs. PCs (over different encounters or even in 1 longer combat encounter) you increase the chances of crits against and bad luck playing a role. Two deadly combats in a row will most likely be pretty deadly, even if one of the two goes more easily for the PCs.

 

[OB1]

I'd like advice on dealing with players who don't believe in "6-8 encounters per day" please.



After the players defeat the patrol, they go many hours back to their camp (taking care to cover their tracks) and have a night's rest. The next day, they travel back to the lair. Repeat for every encounter.


I do know some tactics for dealing with this. For example, in the example above, the guards could track the party back to their camp. Or perhaps the next day, there's a new patrol, twice as strong as the previous one. Or perhaps the bad guys abandon the lair overnight? What other ideas are there?

As a player, would you consider it cheesy or unfair if the guards tracked characters back to camp? Would you consider it unfair if the bad guys abandoned the lair overnight, so characters got no xp or loot?

Don't see this as cheesy at all. Again, taking MSG5 as an example, if you tried that tactic attacking a base a new set of guards would be there the next day. And if you took out the first set all with head shots, the guards the next day will be wearing helmets.

Or say my party had tried to use Leomand's Hut at any part of the session I described. They would have awoken to the bad guy having accomplished his goal and them surrounded by a force impossible for them to defeat. That's not to say that there is never a situation where using the hut would work, but when I've already described to the party the hundreds and hundreds of demons flying around the top of the castle, it's on them to take that into their considerations as to how to proceed.

As for tracking them back to camp, I love that idea! I would just steal from one of the other encounters I had to do something on the fly. Perhaps the bad guys were thinking of Combat as War and led the Purple Worm to attack the camp in the middle of the night! The key about planning the 6-8 encounters for a session is that many of them can be quickly repurposed to whatever tactics the players decide to use. Or even for the next adventuring session, though it's difficulty might have gone down a step if the party leveled up, it's still useful thanks to bounded accuracy.