D&D 5E Easy Encounters? Don't take them for granted

[Sacrosanct]

I'm sorry, but I have no desire to debate realism in a fantasy setting with goblins, elves, fireballs, dragons and what have you. I'm not going to address this point again.

I never said the game has to model reality exactly. I said running the game world like a living world is more realistic than changing everything to cater to the players. There's a HUGE middle ground between running a fantasy game realistic, and modeling reality exactly.

I find your reasoning here extremely weak as well. By your logic, since the world has goblins, elves, and fireballs, anything should go right? The players shouldn't expect gravity to be present. Nor should they ever expect to eat and be hungry? Need sleep? And who needs clouds in order to rain. Don't expect breathable air either.

No? That means you yourself are enforcing some sort of realism. We all use realism in our games as a assumed baseline. Why should something as fundamental as basic world ecology suddenly be thrown out the window because "fireballs"?

I feel like this response is responding to someone else. I don't recall making any points that anything you wrote would address. I get the feeling that you're arguing with some kind of self-entitled player who is demanding you to run the game in a manner in which you usually do not. That was not the perspective I was writing from, nor were any of those things the points I was making. Perhaps you should re-read my post, consider that I was writing from my perspective as a DM, not a player and how I feel about my games.

Catering to the players gives them an entitled feeling. It sets the expectation that I mentioned above--that they will always be at full resources before a tough battle, and that they don't ever have to worry about risk assessment when exploring.

You also never answered by question. Why do you even play the game at all? Why not just do combat encounter after encounter and skip the entire exploration part? Or if you're going to wave your DM hand and all monsters that aren't a challenge any more suddenly cease to exist? If you mold your entire campaign world around what happens to be a tough encounter for whatever level the PCs happen to be at the time, and allow them to reset every time, why not just play "Arena D&D" instead?

The DM was originally called the "referee" for a reason. You create and/or control the game world, this is true. But the players should have the freedom to explore that game world how they see fit. Yes, sometimes that means a level 1 party might stumble upon a clan of ogres in the mountains because they decided to go up there anyway and not the way of the official plot path. The ogres were always there. They don't suddenly disappear because the PCs aren't high enough level. Just like the caves of goblins don't suddenly disappear because the PCs are high level. What you're doing by catering to the PCs is taking away their choice, in effect. A choice to make risk assessments. A choice to experience encounters that aren't all the same, "Well, here we go again. We know we'll win, and use X amount of resources doing so. Let's get it over with." You're creating a situation where players assume all encounters will fit a certain mold, and they won't experience the feeling of never knowing if that group of X shouldn't be tangled with, or are just doing their normal daily routine and you stumbled upon them, creating a potential for additional game plots to be revealed.

If I knew that I'd be at full resources before every tough battle? That would be incredibly boring to me. Some of the most memorable battles in my 30+ years of gaming were when you were down to almost nothing and still managed to emerge victorious, either by direct battle or coming up with a creative way to come out alive (desperation breeds creativity).

I am with shidaku on this point. How can the GM not be metagaming? What is the gameworld but a fictional creation designed precisely for the players to play their PCs in?

A DM running the game world as it would actually run logically, regardless of the level of PCs, is not metagaming. Changing the game world to suit the PCs is. See my referee comment above.

 

[Remathilis]

If the players are going to potentially fight for their lives, I will be darn sure to make it a life-risking fight at their full capabilities. Unless there is some over-arching reason that resources should be burnt before the "big fight", I really just don't see the point. Defeating the players with a moderately difficult fight because they were worn out and at half strength isn't an achievement. I just defeated an essentially helpless opponent, pretty soon I'll move on to stealing candy from babies and kicking puppies. It just seems dirty and dishonorable. I'd rather my players fight for their life with everything they've got than lose their lives because they ran out of special stuff mid-fight and the wizard had to run in and hit things with his staff for 1d2 and then take it in the face 'cause he's not armored, or worse, just sit out from the fight because he can't do anything useful.

You make it sound like the DM's job is to defeat/kill the players. That's no challenge: I have balors at my disposal. So my job isn't to win, but to provide a challenge to overcome. One of the greatest challenges in D&D is managing your resources and making sure you have enough gas in the tank to face that BBEG. Kicking down the door and meeting the main bad guy seems more comic book than fantasy, IMHO.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why not just toughen up the potentially harder encounter to burn those resources?

Oh, man, LOTS of reasons.

The biggest one is simple pacing. It's hard to get a sense of the ever-increasing stakes of an Act II if every. single. fight. is EPIC!!!!11!!! It is like a movie consisting entirely of trailers for Michael Bay films. It allows for no variation or distinction and it gets kind of numbing.

The most practical one is table-time. If every fight needs to be MASSIVE and thus every fight needs to take up a huge chunk of table time (because what's the point in a fight that only takes a few minutes?!), there's less time for doing interesting things outside of the fight. 1-hour-plus combats can eat up a lot of time we could be doing other things.

Related is the idea of the dungeon itself as an antagonist. If the only things you encounter are massive setpiece fights against critters that might kill everyone, exploring the location and enduring its traits become basically just set-dressing for that fight. It's not the location that might kill you, it's the big thing sitting in its center. Draining resources over time leads to a more generalized threat coming from constant danger rather than a localized threat coming from one room full of tough beasts.

There's plenty more where those came from.

Which isn't to say that epic setpiece battles are a waste, just that having a variety is really useful. There's a lot of stuff you can't do with just big epic setpiece battles.

 

[drjones]

I think the problem here is some people think Easy Encounter means you announce to the party "Ok, easy encounter time, half of you can take turns smoking while I waste your time and resources". In my experience running 5e the players don't know how easy an encounter is and because the offence/defense balance leans towards offence if the encounter is easy vs. hard might mean it takes 2 rounds instead of 3.

There is no rule that the Easy can't be meaningful, interesting or fun. Just like any other encounter it is up to the designer and the DM to make it so. My PCs whomped the <redacted> standing outside the <redacted> bar in phandalandalaelever in less than one round and they did it in a fun, interesting way. That encounter was a success even if it did not drain a single resource AND it was a great for pacing because it broke up a long series of RP and shopping interactions with a bit of combat. If it had been a super hard encounter the PCs would have just rested afterwards anyway and it would have taken longer to play out so I'm not sure anything at all was lost.

But mostly I think it is important to add in a few easy encounters so that PCs can feel like they kick ass. What's the point in leveling up if you can't wipe out a crowd of the guys who almost killed you when you were a newb? Combat is fast in 5e, enjoy it.

 

[Andor]

I am with shidaku on this point. How can the GM not be metagaming? What is the gameworld but a fictional creation designed precisely for the players to play their PCs in?

That is exactly what a lot of game worlds are. It's what the worlds in a lot of fictional worlds are too, places to show off the characters.

Better game worlds however are works in their own right. Art if you will, or a character whose statistics are writ in coastlines and demographics. In a great book the setting is as much a star of the novel as the characters. The 9 walkers spend so much time of foot because the central character is actually middle earth and JRR wanted to show her off.

Likewise a competant GM will create a balanced encounter appropriate to the partys level and accomplishing the goal of delivering a tactical challange and level appropriate loot.

A better GM will design an encounter that makes sense in terms of the world already portrayed. The partys foe will not be guarding his keep with random Hobgoblins but with the Blacktusk Orcs the party has encountered before. The foes will respond appropriately (which may mean cleverly, or may not) and any given encounter may be easy or hard depending not on level guidelines but on the previous actions of the PCs and NPCs. If the PCs previously spared the daughter of the chief of the Blacktusk Orcs then perhaps they can talk them into letting them by. If they've been exterminating them wherever they are found then they will be recognized and attacked with prejudice.

Verisimilitude is a word that gets tossed around on these boards. Some people don't even see how it applies to a world with Dragons and Gnomes. Some of us think it's the difference between a decent game and a great one.

Yes, there is always some level of metagaming, but it may be no more intrusive than starting the party off shipwrecked on the island of warring lizardmen and gnolls rather than the island of warring giants and dragons.

 

[Remathilis]

The biggest one is simple pacing. It's hard to get a sense of the ever-increasing stakes of an Act II if every. single. fight. is EPIC!!!!11!!! It is like a movie consisting entirely of trailers for Michael Bay films. It allows for no variation or distinction and it gets kind of numbing.

So basically, a Michael Bay film.

 

[pemerton]

Catering to the players gives them an entitled feeling.

Correct. My players are turning up to play a game. They are entitled to enjoy themselves! A key part of world design, and encounter design, is facilitating that enjoyment.

If I knew that I'd be at full resources before every tough battle? That would be incredibly boring to me.

I'm sure this is a true biographical fact about you, but I don't see how it is relevant to anyone else's play experience.

Why do you even play the game at all? Why not just do combat encounter after encounter and skip the entire exploration part?

This is a complete non-sequitur.

First, it assumes that there is no mode of conflict other than combat. Which is obviously false - for instance, there can be social conflict. Or "man vs wild" conflict.

Second, it assumes a contrast between "playing the game" and "encounter after encounter". Encounter after encounter is playing the game.

A DM running the game world as it would actually run logically, regardless of the level of PCs, is not metagaming. Changing the game world to suit the PCs is.

The most traditional element of D&D world design is the dungeon, divided into levels with monsters of increasing toughness at greater depth; with doors that the PCs have trouble opening and closing but that monsters can open and close at will; with loot and magic item distributed throughout the labyrinth in at least a rough proportion to the difficulty of extracting it.

I'm not entirely sure what is even involved in running such a world "logically", but you can't seriously be telling me that that gameworld has not been changed to suit the needs of play. It has no other rationale at all!

A better GM will design an encounter that makes sense in terms of the world already portrayed.

Consistency of backstory isn't in contrast with metagaming. It is itself driven by metagaming! For instance, how does a GM choose which parts of the backstory to emphasise and which to ignore or downplay? The sort of GM I want to play with follows the cues of the players. If they are interested in the cultists but not in the miners, then the next group of assassins rolled up on the random encounter table will be working for the cult and not for the minerals magntaes.

Better game worlds however are works in their own right. Art if you will, or a character whose statistics are writ in coastlines and demographics. In a great book the setting is as much a star of the novel as the characters. The 9 walkers spend so much time of foot because the central character is actually middle earth and JRR wanted to show her off.

I don't agree with your analysis of Tolkien or Middle-Earth. There were things that he wanted to show off, but an imaginary creation wasn't one of them. As per his essay On Fairy Stories, Tolkien is interested in conveying truth, not fiction.

I also don't share your conception of "better". The function of a gameworld, in my view, is not to impress the players with the GM's creative genius. That is presenting what I regard as the desirable output of play as if it were an input.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Some things just aren't worth fighting. Like kobolds.

Right? I mean, the party should just surrender already and save themselves the inevitable defeat.

< Break >

The game is designed around ablative encounters to burn down resources, rather than nova encounters when the players blow everything at once. I suspect "skipping easy encounters" is going to cause some long term problems with campaign play as a result.

 

[practicalm]

There is no rule that the Easy can't be meaningful, interesting or fun. Just like any other encounter it is up to the designer and the DM to make it so.

This. When the party recently bypassed a couple of monsters and then had those same monsters attack them later after another encounter, it caused on player to believe something was tracking them from behind. (Correctly) And caused them to figure out how to lay a trap for their shadow.

The encounter was easy but the implications furthered the development of their adventure.

 

[Sunseeker]

This. When the party recently bypassed a couple of monsters and then had those same monsters attack them later after another encounter, it caused on player to believe something was tracking them from behind. (Correctly) And caused them to figure out how to lay a trap for their shadow.

The encounter was easy but the implications furthered the development of their adventure.

Which was precisely my point. I don't understand why it was difficult to grasp, but I do tend to ramble.

"Light", "weak", "quick", "short", "fast", "easy" or whatever you want to call encounters that aren't "full blown" are fine when they are used to serve a purpose such as to further the story (you're attacked by a few low-rate assassins hired by the local warlord you pissed off when you saved the princess), or when they're used for pacing (your travels are slow and dangerous because you are deep in the goblin woods). Those are fine purposes for "easy" encounters. While a side-result of them is potentially burning resources that is not the goal. The goal is to achieve something, to move the game forward, to present a certain feeling.

My perhaps poorly worded objection was to burning player resources for NO REASON. While resource management is important, it's different in every game and the players will learn in time how their resources should be managed to best serve their adventuring experience. Burning resources for NO REASON is simply the DM's way of saying he doesn't like how powerful the players are, doesn't want them to have what they've earned, and is unable to present otherwise meaningful content.

In an MMO we often call this stuff "trash". Trash doesn't need to be meaningful (though it is always better when it is), it can serve many purposes, provide a variety of rewards and yes, without it you often get a very strange world that is somehow only full of big-bads. The thing is, trash ought to be meaningful, it out to be useful, and should serve to present a specific world-imagery, a specific feeling to the game, or bring about specific plot advancement.

What I dislike in any game are things that serve no purpose. Burning resources for the sake of burning resources is IMO poor DMing. Things with purpose WILL burn resources, but they will also achieve other more interesting things. It is that achievement of interesting/important things that matters, not the specific amount of available resources.

If you're going to just burn resources with no rhyme or reason, you might as well just strip any plot you pretended to have out of the game and do it Gygaxian-dungeon style where the only motivation is loot and the combats just facilitate or gate more loot. And hey if that's your kick, have fun with it. But don't try to tell me that's a living world or an epic story-telling adventure.