D&D General 6-8 encounters (combat?)

[Minigiant]

This is why I typically use the term "time pressure" rather than "doom clock." Most everyone in my experience agrees time pressure is good. But add "doom" to it and suddenly it's contrived, ham-fisted garbage.

Doom cloth implies a known doom.

Time pressure implies unknown actions, major and minor, by minor and major NPCs.

Again the whole discussion is about draining resources with 6-8 encounters.

The Doom Clock is the pressure to make the PCs press forward to to Henchmen Patrol #4, Henchman Patrol #5, Henchman Lunchroom Squad, and the Boss instead of heading home since that are down to 40% resources.

Reverend Myrtle the Life Cleric: Oh my Lord of the Sun. Answer my cry. How come anytime we head home when I have half my spells, we get attacked by monsters but if we head back and I am out of spells?... no bandits. No malicious fey. No wild animal. Just a peaceful trek home

 

[Mort]

Reverend Myrtle the Life Cleric: Oh my Lord of the Sun. Answer my cry. How come anytime we head home when I have half my spells, we get attacked by monsters but if we head back and I am out of spells?... no bandits. No malicious fey. No wild animal. Just a peaceful trek home

Why would that be true?

Heck if the PCs anger someone that can scry (not exactly rare in a world of magic) that's exactly when they WOULD send goons to attack the party.

I mean, if the DM is only sending stuff at the party based on their ability to handle it at the time? I can certainly see how that would seem extremely contrived.

 

[Minigiant]

Why would that be true?

Heck if the PCs anger someone that can scry (not exactly rare in a world of magic) that's exactly when they WOULD send goons to attack the party.

I mean, if the DM is only sending stuff at the party based on their ability to handle it at the time? I can certainly see how that would seem extremely contrived.

If you attack PCs after 8 encounters, they will want to end the day earlier to have resources to fight sudden late day ambushes.

There is an understanding that DM will never arbitrarily and purposely gank you when you are weak. Or you'll never press on.

 

[Campbell]

6-8 is way way too many encounters in a day. There might be 8 fights over the course of 5-6 month campaign in a typical game I run.

 

[Mort]

Doom cloth implies a known doom.

Time pressure implies unknown actions, major and minor, by minor and major NPCs.

Again the whole discussion is about draining resources with 6-8 encounters.

The Doom Clock is the pressure to make the PCs press forward to to Henchmen Patrol #4, Henchman Patrol #5, Henchman Lunchroom Squad, and the Boss instead of heading home since that are down to 40% resources.

But actions, known and unknown have consequences that impact the PCs. Many of these have a direct impact on the 6-8 encounters.

Did the PCs head home before finishing off the boss? Maybe he sent thugs, or followed himself. If not, he likely fortified and they encounter a deadly+ encounter when the come back instead of a medium/hard one.

Did the PCs decide to rest right after a big fight but before accomplishing their goal? That might change the way things happen going forward and the trek gets harder.

Did the PCs decide they don't want to continue exploring after expending 50% of their resources. Ok, when the come back rested and ready - the place has been looted of much of the big stuff (not the least contrived if long rests are a week and not even that contrived after 8 hours + travel time).

Can you have adventures with no time pressure, where the PCs dictate the pace and therefore only expend resources at the rate they want?

Sure, I suppose. But I'm having a hard time seeing how that's LESS contrived than time pressure and consequences.

 

[Mort]

If you attack PCs after 8 encounters, they will want to end the day earlier to have resources to fight sudden late day ambushes.

There is an understanding that DM will never arbitrarily and purposely gank you when you are weak. Or you'll never press on.

The key word there is arbitrarily. If the DM responds to something the PCs did (or knowingly refused or failed to do)- it's not arbitrary.

It's just odd to me that there would be some kind of "agreement" that the DM only challenges the PCs when they are at an "acceptable" level of strength.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I can't speak to how you handle stress, but I find it enhances play by creating more opportunities for meaningful decisions by the players. The more of those they get to make per unit of game time increases engagement in my experience.

~Plays Sonic drowning music on loop~

Yeah... 'enjoyment.'.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's just odd to me that there would be some kind of "agreement" that the DM only challenges the PCs when they are at an "acceptable" level of strength.

The DM, as another player at the table, is supposed to play fair and for the enjoyment of the table. Ganking the party when they know they would be screwed is going against that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

6-8 is way way too many encounters in a day. There might be 8 fights over the course of 5-6 month campaign in a typical game I run.

D&D 5e probably isn't a good system for such a game in the first place, but a fun solution would be to use ultra hardcore gritty rests for such. Short rests of a week or even a month, and no long rests at all! That's right, every long rest resource you use is gone forever! You can gain new ones by levelling up, but that's it!

 

[Mort]

The DM, as another player at the table, is supposed to play fair and for the enjoyment of the table. Ganking the party when they know they would be screwed is going against that.

If the PCs are long resting after every difficult encounter, expecting (or knowing) no consequences will result- I'd argue THEY are the ones not playing fair.

The DM is expected to challenge the party, there are rules and expectations for that - sure - The DM shouldn't be a jerk about it. But saying the DM can't throw curve balls and the occasional knuckleball? That just seems really strange.