Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 8334864" data-attributes="member: 7030755">Thanks for the responses!&nbsp; I suppose another way to frame the session is how much do you want your game to involve combat encounters.&nbsp; For me, encounters where the main tension is management of per rest resources is not really interesting, since the outcome is not question, it's just a matter of how efficient you can be.&nbsp; This also makes even simple combats involve a lot of players look at their character sheets trying to decide what to do.&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO, in older editions things like wandering monster checks are more viable because the only real resource to track is hp, plus things like torches out of combat.&nbsp; In 5e that style feels less fluid (for me).We usually have 1-2 fights per session, but adventuring days can last over 2-3 sessions.&nbsp; That&nbsp; creates weird narrative pacing, where you've been playing a campaign for six months, but that's only been 10 in-game days.&nbsp; Further, I've found putting together &quot;deadly&quot; encounters in 5e ends up with a lot of weird and random swings,&nbsp; where one PC drops to 0 hp and another is barely touched, or that turn into slugfests.&nbsp; I think what I want ideally is 1-2 deadly fights per adventuring day, where the PCs are at full capacity, that are not either cakewalks or TPK by dice randomness.I don't watch critical role but I did search out and watch one of their combats to see how it went.&nbsp; It was a big set piece encounter that the PCs were nervous about and seemed to have narrative stakes.&nbsp; There was a nice terrain set up.&nbsp; But once it got going, it was 6 pcs vs 1 creature, an easy fight, and it didn't matter that the players didn't remember half their PC abilities.&nbsp; In the hands of a less charismatic DM/group, it would be really boring.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malmuria, post: 8334864, member: 7030755"] Thanks for the responses! I suppose another way to frame the session is how much do you want your game to involve combat encounters. For me, encounters where the main tension is management of per rest resources is not really interesting, since the outcome is not question, it's just a matter of how efficient you can be. This also makes even simple combats involve a lot of players look at their character sheets trying to decide what to do. IMO, in older editions things like wandering monster checks are more viable because the only real resource to track is hp, plus things like torches out of combat. In 5e that style feels less fluid (for me). We usually have 1-2 fights per session, but adventuring days can last over 2-3 sessions. That creates weird narrative pacing, where you've been playing a campaign for six months, but that's only been 10 in-game days. Further, I've found putting together "deadly" encounters in 5e ends up with a lot of weird and random swings, where one PC drops to 0 hp and another is barely touched, or that turn into slugfests. I think what I want ideally is 1-2 deadly fights per adventuring day, where the PCs are at full capacity, that are not either cakewalks or TPK by dice randomness. I don't watch critical role but I did search out and watch one of their combats to see how it went. It was a big set piece encounter that the PCs were nervous about and seemed to have narrative stakes. There was a nice terrain set up. But once it got going, it was 6 pcs vs 1 creature, an easy fight, and it didn't matter that the players didn't remember half their PC abilities. In the hands of a less charismatic DM/group, it would be really boring. [/QUOTE]

Verification