Bringing Back the Fighting Man

[Willie the Duck]

A very good question, and I think this is one of the common complaints about 5e. Even in tier 1, there's already enough HP inflation that it can get a bit sloggy. This is one reason I switched to the "a long rest is a week, a short rest is overnight" variant midway through the last 5E campaign I ran, because resource depletion was too little, especially for the random wilderness encounters I wanted to include.

With OSE I don't think this is usually an issue, because resources are more limited and fights normally resolve faster. So there's less slog and higher stakes inherently.

I would disagree a bit, here. In OSE (and OSR/TSR-era D&D in general, at least when in dungeon-mode), there are fewer slogs and higher stakes per fight, but there are still 'all over but the shouting (and figuring out the expended resources)' situations. Usually in terms of that last corridor of the dungeon, or the like. Instead of a 'we know how this fight is going' situation, it's the DM saying, 'and the last 3 rooms have enemies, but they don't put up any real resistance.'

.... great conversation, but it does feel weird posting in this thread.

Why, because OP is gone?

 

[Cruentus]

I would disagree a bit, here. In OSE (and OSR/TSR-era D&D in general, at least when in dungeon-mode), there are fewer slogs and higher stakes per fight, but there are still 'all over but the shouting (and figuring out the expended resources)' situations. Usually in terms of that last corridor of the dungeon, or the like. Instead of a 'we know how this fight is going' situation, it's the DM saying, 'and the last 3 rooms have enemies, but they don't put up any real resistance.'

Why, because OP is gone?

I think because @Mannahnin and I were in the "cost of elephants" thread.

Now that it got moved, I'll answer here: In OSE, I haven't had any "slogs" per se, where fighting was bogged down for hours. We can play through larger fights without too much trouble. We use weapons Specialization and Fighter Combat Talents (Cleave, or its equivalent is in there), and with less levers and buttons, turns go quick and the fights resolve. Doesn't mean it might not be a 10 or 20 round fight, but its quick. Morale also plays a part here, as does parties knowing not to engage the 100 orc random encounter. Discretion and valor something something.

I agree @Willie the Duck about the 'all done but the shouting'. When the party gets to the finale of the adventure or the dungeon, we didn't really drag it out by creeping our way back out. The rest of the enemies knew the bad guy had fallen, and took off or stayed quiet and out of sight.

I tried to use those Alt rest rules in 5e, but would have liked a few more examples of how it works in the DMG. I didn't have the guts to pull the trigger on that one. But even with Gritty Realism and Slow Healing, 5e didn't give us the gameplay we wanted, hence the move to OSE (Advanced), where those little tweaks and things can slot in, and not disrupt other elements.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm sure. That's even more of the same problem. Fumble mechanics punish people for doing the thing they're supposed to be good at.

"Good at" still doesn't mean "perfect at", particularly when under the rather high stress of having somone or something trying to rip your furry little eyes out.

My current crit and fumble house rules for B/X are: [...]

We have it that both crits and fumbles need a confirm roll, thus they happen far less often than 1-in-20 each way.

Right, I'm saying this is a mindset I've gotten away from. My players and I shouldn't be wasting precious table time slogging through a non-entertaining fight out of a misguided dedication to the 1% chance that it will turn out surprisingly and be fun. That's getting priorities backwards.

I disagree on the backwards priorities. When one's priority is at least a vague nod to simulation and consistency, then the rules apply equally across the board whether it's a big-boss fight or the taking out of a few nobodies.

Better to adjust the mechanics to make such fights more enjoyable the other 99% of the time, or to skip them.

A few sessions ago the party I DM came across some Gnoll lookouts in the forest. Three trivial Gnolls against that party (7th-8th level in a 1e-variant game) should be a complete pushover - and was; but it still had to be played out because had any of those Gnolls managed to flee and alert the many dozens more just over the hill (and by extension, alert the whole complex the party are there to explore) it would have made a rather big difference to how the rest of the adventure plays out.

The players didn't know this at the time, however; they just took out three Gnoll scouts and carried on.

All of which is to say that the characters - and thus players - can't tell a meaningful battle apart from a triviality until (sometimes well) after the fact, meaning they all need to be played out in full in order to not risk giving meta-info the players wouldn't otherwise have.

I've also had seemingly-trivial wandering monster encounters turn into unexpectedly big deals for another reason: the party start asking why that "monster" is where it is, backtrack it to its lair, and turn that into the adventure rather than whatever it was they were doing before. Bandits and brigands - every time.

 

[Mannahnin]

"Good at" still doesn't mean "perfect at", particularly when under the rather high stress of having someone or something trying to rip your furry little eyes out.

Non-responsive. Arguably straw man, but let's leave it there.

We have it that both crits and fumbles need a confirm roll, thus they happen far less often than 1-in-20 each way.

Ok, so like I said you've addressed the issue of fumbles mathematically punishing people for doing what they're good at, but at the cost of additional rolls/time. This is a preference issue. Speed of resolution over simulation detail. I've tried and enjoyed both of these at different times. In my B/X games I prefer simpler.

I disagree on the backwards priorities. When one's priority is at least a vague nod to simulation and consistency...

Sure, Lanefan, my prorities don't even include a vague NOD at simulation or consistency. Your preferred AD&D house rules have been clearly established as the bare minimum level of detail for anyone who even vaguely cares about those things. My mistake!

...then the rules apply equally across the board whether it's a big-boss fight or the taking out of a few nobodies.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this part, because I don't think it's applicable to anything I wrote.

A few sessions ago the party I DM came across some Gnoll lookouts in the forest. Three trivial Gnolls against that party (7th-8th level in a 1e-variant game) should be a complete pushover - and was; but it still had to be played out because had any of those Gnolls managed to flee and alert the many dozens more just over the hill (and by extension, alert the whole complex the party are there to explore) it would have made a rather big difference to how the rest of the adventure plays out.

The players didn't know this at the time, however; they just took out three Gnoll scouts and carried on.

All of which is to say that the characters - and thus players - can't tell a meaningful battle apart from a triviality until (sometimes well) after the fact, meaning they all need to be played out in full in order to not risk giving meta-info the players wouldn't otherwise have.

I've also had seemingly-trivial wandering monster encounters turn into unexpectedly big deals for another reason: the party start asking why that "monster" is where it is, backtrack it to its lair, and turn that into the adventure rather than whatever it was they were doing before. Bandits and brigands - every time.

I'm concerned that we're talking past each other, because I'm really perplexed as to how you got the idea that I would want to skip over these kinds of fights. They're not slogs.

 

[Mannahnin]

I would disagree a bit, here. In OSE (and OSR/TSR-era D&D in general, at least when in dungeon-mode), there are fewer slogs and higher stakes per fight, but there are still 'all over but the shouting (and figuring out the expended resources)' situations. Usually in terms of that last corridor of the dungeon, or the like. Instead of a 'we know how this fight is going' situation, it's the DM saying, 'and the last 3 rooms have enemies, but they don't put up any real resistance.'

Yeah, I think here is where DM judgement to manually override morale checks can be a good tool. Those last three rooms can clear out on their own, or surrender, or we can elide them if the chances of them actually being a threat are really nonexistent.

If the PCs are low enough on resources that it could actually matter, OTOH... Maybe you convert to an interesting, tense RP encounter as those last baddies negotiate for a truce and to leave with no more blood shed on either side.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm concerned that we're talking past each other, because I'm really perplexed as to how you got the idea that I would want to skip over these kinds of fights. They're not slogs.

I got the impression you wanted to hand-wave or skip over cakewalk-on-paper fights to save time. If it was someone else saying that, my mistake; and apologies.

As it happens, in my game they proceeded to find and take on the several dozen other Gnolls the next day. Of those Gnolls, only one (the commander) was an actual threat while the rest (all 50 of them) were pushovers; and the players got to feel like their characters were curb-stompin' badasses. That combat took a few hours to sort out, but it was well worth it and I was able to use it to set the table for other, later developments.

 

[Mannahnin]

I got the impression you wanted to hand-wave or skip over cakewalk-on-paper fights to save time. If it was someone else saying that, my mistake; and apologies.

As it happens, in my game they proceeded to find and take on the several dozen other Gnolls the next day. Of those Gnolls, only one (the commander) was an actual threat while the rest (all 50 of them) were pushovers; and the players got to feel like their characters were curb-stompin' badasses. That combat took a few hours to sort out, but it was well worth it and I was able to use it to set the table for other, later developments.

Yeah, I don't mind combats where the players are enjoying the feeling of being badass, but I suspect "a few hours" would be well past the point of diminishing returns.

I don't mind playing through cakewalks if they're quick, or there are some real stakes (like the lookouts giving warning) where the question isn't whether the PCs can beat a much weaker foe, but whether the actual challenge is to prevent them from doing something.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I don't mind combats where the players are enjoying the feeling of being badass, but I suspect "a few hours" would be well past the point of diminishing returns.

This is probably not the time to tell you the longest combat I ever ran* took almost three full sessions...

* - big, high-level party attacking a partly-underground stronghold of a very high-level Assassin and his many variable-level associates including numerous spellcasters. At its peak, each round took at least an hour to resolve.

I don't mind playing through cakewalks if they're quick, or there are some real stakes (like the lookouts giving warning) where the question isn't whether the PCs can beat a much weaker foe, but whether the actual challenge is to prevent them from doing something.

The Gnolls here were just the "crumple zone" guarding a complex containing much greater threats; they're already down a PC and they've only just got started.

 

[Theory of Games]

Great discussion here and thanks @Mannahnin for making many precise points while I was on vaca. I'll be adding the OD&D rule to any table of D&D I run, going forward. Fighters deserve to shine again

 

[Mannahnin]

This is probably not the time to tell you the longest combat I ever ran* took almost three full sessions...

* - big, high-level party attacking a partly-underground stronghold of a very high-level Assassin and his many variable-level associates including numerous spellcasters. At its peak, each round took at least an hour to resolve.

I've played similarly long ones, especially in 3.x, at higher levels. Speaking from a good deal of experience, hour long rounds suck.