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

[Tormyr]

I generally don't run too many "easy" encounters (easy based on XP budget). Most of my encounters start at the high end of moderate difficulty on the XP budget and go up from there. Part of the reason for that is that I am running the Age of Worms adventure path and using the EL of the encounters to calculate the XP budget for the encounter. Most every encounter is moderate or higher for the party. That being said, there have been plenty of encounters my party has wrapped up in two rounds and plenty that someone has been face down in the dirt, bleeding out. When I do run an easy encounter, there is usually some plot element to go with it to make it worth everyone's time to roll initiative.

My favorite encounters are the ones where one or more characters have gone unconscious, things are starting to look like a TPK, but the characters rally and turn the tide. We have had quite a few of those in the last 8 months.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

This is a pretty big assumption. I don't know why there's this constant assumption that if the DM does somethign you don't like/understand, that it's the DM being out to get you in some way. I'm not out to get the players at all. But I run the game world like it would naturally flow regardless of the PCs

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.

Sorry, but it's not bad DMing on how the players decide what to do, where to go, and how to do it. In fact, it's good DMing to not force players to take one particular path or not (AKA railroading). The game world is there, all of it. The players should have the choice to go and do whatever they want, within the power of their PCs. A group of 8th level PCs stumble upon a small goblin tribe? The tribe was there all the time, regardless of PC level. They exist as part of that world. If the players decide to burn some resources during that encounter because of something they chose to do, that's not on the DM at all.

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.

If you think Gygaxian style of play was nothing but dungeon romp from one encounter to the next with the only motivation being loot, all I gotta say is you're way off base there. Also, just because something might not have a clearly pre-defined plot impact doesn't mean it's there with no reason or that it won't have an impact. I would even posit that's one of the biggest points of the game: to role-play out the game and see what happens.

Remote goblin tribe you stumble across as 8th level PCs that have no direct impact to the plot? You seem to be saying it's useless and bad DMing because you're assuming the PCs will use some resources to defeat them. Why doesn't the party try to talk/bribe them and find out more about the area? What if the party makes allies with them and the goblins help them in the plot? What if the party does wipe them out only to have a survivor rally other monsters to track down and hunt the party? Just because none of that is mentioned in the official game adventure doesn't mean it can't happen.

The funny thing about rpgs is that you're truly only limited by your imagination, and every single interaction in a game world is an opportunity if you want it to be. You used an MMO analogy. Well, I'd say get your mind out of the MMO mindset, because tabletop RPGs offer sooooo much more once you do.

 

[Tormyr]

Remote goblin tribe you stumble across as 8th level PCs that have no direct impact to the plot? You seem to be saying it's useless and bad DMing because you're assuming the PCs will use some resources to defeat them. Why doesn't the party try to talk/bribe them and find out more about the area? What if the party makes allies with them and the goblins help them in the plot? What if the party does wipe them out only to have a survivor rally other monsters to track down and hunt the party? Just because none of that is mentioned in the official game adventure doesn't mean it can't happen.

Maybe those poor goblins are just trying to stay out of the way.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0210.html

 

[Plane Sailing]

And for me, it feels like a living world more conducive to supporting verisimilitude. Weaker monsters don't suddenly disappear from campaign worlds just because PCs level up. If it makes logical sense for a goblin tribe to be in an area where higher level PCs happen to be adventuring (like a tribe worshiping a dragon overloard), they should be there.
.

I agree, this has always been my view too.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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 occasionally see people throw this statement out to 'shut down' other people, but do you really believe that there is no level of realism possible in fantasy settings?

Tolkien wrote fantasy, but you don't see hobbits flying around willy-nilly. Conan wrote fantasy, but he wrote it in a realistic setting.

You expect to play via rules that make bigger stronger creatures harder to kill than mice. I'd bet that you'd expect that level of realism.

So I really don't understand where you are coming from here.

 

[Sunseeker]

This is a pretty big assumption. I don't know why there's this constant assumption that if the DM does somethign you don't like/understand, that it's the DM being out to get you in some way. I'm not out to get the players at all. But I run the game world like it would naturally flow regardless of the PCs.

I feel like you're taking this awfully personal. And I'm still not talking about the perception of things from the player's POV, but from my own as the DM. I don't like to do things without a good reason. Burning resources alone is not IMO, a good reason. Good reasons may burn resources, but that is an effect of the encounter, not the reason for it.

Sorry, but it's not bad DMing on how the players decide what to do, where to go, and how to do it. In fact, it's good DMing to not force players to take one particular path or not (AKA railroading). The game world is there, all of it.

To the bolded portion in particular: no it isn't. This isn't the real-world universe which exists independent of player participation. Humans or no humans, the earth is still here. Fictional settings with fictional events in fictional universes DONT EXIST.

The players should have the choice to go and do whatever they want, within the power of their PCs.

And you're calling me out on catering to the players?

A group of 8th level PCs stumble upon a small goblin tribe? The tribe was there all the time, regardless of PC level. They exist as part of that world.

Once again, no they don't. They exist there because someone designed them to exist there. They are able to be encountered and fought (or not) because someone designed them to be. They are not "really there". They are there because D&D worlds are essentially "intelligently designed" to contain certain parts, to react in certain ways and so on and so forth. They don't exist AT ALL independent of the game and I honestly am starting to question your sanity at this point.

If the players decide to burn some resources during that encounter because of something they chose to do, that's not on the DM at all.

God cut the smoke already. Every single turn you're been blaming the players. The players feel entitled, the players this, the players that, oh and now it's the player's fault they're burning their resources by choosing to fight some low-level goblins that apparently exist of their own accord in a world that is every bit as real as reality. This sounds literally insane.

If you think Gygaxian style of play was nothing but dungeon romp from one encounter to the next with the only motivation being loot, all I gotta say is you're way off base there.

I disagree. Old-school systems had a heavy dungeon emphasis and treasure gaining was often the only way to gain XP. This is one reason we still have bloodthirsty parties and non-cohesive groups since level-advancement was long ago tied to loot. More loot, more advancement.

Also, just because something might not have a clearly pre-defined plot impact doesn't mean it's there with no reason or that it won't have an impact. I would even posit that's one of the biggest points of the game: to role-play out the game and see what happens.

Again with addressing me as though I'm speaking from a player perspective. I'm NOT. I'm speaking as a DM. Please keep this in mind for any future responses.

Remote goblin tribe you stumble across as 8th level PCs that have no direct impact to the plot? You seem to be saying it's useless and bad DMing because you're assuming the PCs will use some resources to defeat them. Why doesn't the party try to talk/bribe them and find out more about the area? What if the party makes allies with them and the goblins help them in the plot? What if the party does wipe them out only to have a survivor rally other monsters to track down and hunt the party? Just because none of that is mentioned in the official game adventure doesn't mean it can't happen.

Now you're confusing existence and encounters and a whole bunch of other things. You seem to really enjoy going off on completely unrelated tangents. Bribing the goblins, allying with the goblins, these are all great plot thingies that can be used to create an interesting story. Those are REASONS behind running into that goblin tribe and that is EXACTLY WHAT I WANT.

I swear I'm talking about one thing and you're talking about something else.

The funny thing about rpgs is that you're truly only limited by your imagination, and every single interaction in a game world is an opportunity if you want it to be. You used an MMO analogy. Well, I'd say get your mind out of the MMO mindset, because tabletop RPGs offer sooooo much more once you do.

*I say the following as a DM and as a player:

I don't like sandboxes. I don't like the MMO v. TTRPG war. I like to give my players a world that doesn't simply exist and tell them to interact with it. I like to give my players a world that has interesting events and stories. Oh sure, they can wander the Dark Marshes all they want, but I'm going to be up-front with them that there's really nothing of interest there. Some parts of the world are BORING. If you were looking for adventure and excitement, would you rather wander the Sahara, or the streets of Constantinople?

I'd rather be in Constantinople where there are potentially quests, allies, enemies, politics, wars, disease and all sorts of other things than some big empty canvas where I'm expected to just make up my own adventure. If I have to make it all up myself, why am I at your table having you DM?

I occasionally see people throw this statement out to 'shut down' other people, but do you really believe that there is no level of realism possible in fantasy settings?

...

So I really don't understand where you are coming from here.

Realism in the sense of the word that the fantasy game-world is "real", that it exists independent of the game in some manner, that it lives and breathes without a puppet-master to pull it's strings, that it grows, evolves and advances without interaction from DM's and players. If you cannot understand that, then I cannot help you.

 

[Plane Sailing]

If you cannot understand that, then I cannot help you.

If you can't reply without snark, you're going to be taking a short holiday from ENworld. Be warned!

 

[I'm A Banana]

"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.

Simply burning resources can serve the goal of a "survival"-style game really well, where the resources represent your ability to stay alive in a harsh and unforgiving place. That slow tension burn and focus on pre-planning is really useful to serve that goal. Which is just to say that burning resources can be the goal (not ultimate goal, but proximate goal).

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.

There's always some reason. It's not always DM clawback. It can be, but it's generally more productive if we start with the assumption that everyone wants everyone else to have a fun time and is trying their best to do that, rather than with the assumption that someone is setting out to be a jerk.

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.

A world full of big bads can kind of work sometimes (monster hunter!, shadow of the colossus!), but only if there's variety and pacing within the big bads. Heck, a game where every dungeon is a huge, life-ending adventure is a lot like plenty of versions of D&D.

I don't know much about MMO stuff, but my limited XP is that "trash" is there to enhance the inventory management minigame, because you don't usually need the 20 bear bottoms, they're usually just taking up space, but then you have That One Quest and now you have to harvest another 20 because you dumped them out to make room for some other trinket or something. Also makes microtransactions for additional storage space quite an attractive option.

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.

I don't understand the concept of "no purpose" as it applies to combat encounters. At the very least, you watch some numbers go 'round, roll some dice, get to utter battlecries, and narrate ludicrous gibs. There's plenty of less fun ways to spend an afternoon with friends. It might not be the most epic story-telling adventure, but it's fun all the same, there's a narrative to it, and you get to play make-believe with math for a while. It's corny, but it's got a beat and you can dance to it. Folks look for different aesthetics in this game, and boinking around with friends and talking in funny voices is certainly the CORE of the reason to play the game for some folks.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think what often clouds these conversations is that "living, breathing world" is a pretty nebulous and overly fluffy statement that often leads to confusion over what the person describing the creation is trying to say. What I mean to say is that these settings have no autonomy of their own and "living, breathing, world" may imply that they do. They aren't living nor are they breathing in that sense. Each facet of the game world is an automotonic contrivance of one of three things:

- GM will
- Player will
- The output of GM-framed situations, player action declarations, resolution mechanics, and the table filling in the blanks of "what just happened" as required such that the imaginary space that everyone is sharing has some manner (even if of low resolution) of coherency for the collective.

There is a continuum (place those three whereever you would like on it) whereby varying table and system components dictate its evolution. There is no autonomy (no life or will of its own) of setting.

 

[skotothalamos]

Choosing when to spend resources and quickly determining how many resources to throw at a situation are two important parts of playing the game.

In 4e, where the only resources were dailies and healing surges, it was pretty easy to save the dailies until you got in trouble or felt like you'd hit the climax of the adventuring day. The surges pretty much managed themselves up until someone said "I'm out" (or down to one, or something).

With so many more resources at different recharge rates to deal with in 5e, I feel like throwing some "easy" encounters at the PCs is good, if only to teach them that those Spell Slots and Whatever Those Fighter Dice Are Called Now need to be saved up for when and where they're needed. (and Rages, I guess? Am I the only one who hates the fact that Barbarians need to carefully plan out when and where they're going to lose self-control over the course of the day? I digress...)

If they're too beaten up by the time they get to the big fight, well, maybe they should have used a few more [-]at-wills[/-] cantrips and basic attacks.