D&D 5E How viable is 5E to play at high levels?

[Erechel]

Same here. Except "a couple years" for me is 35 years.

Also Erechel, where does it say in the book that encounters are designed around 6-8 per game session?

The book doesn't say that. They throw the Adventuring Day construct, which is a narrative construct, and it is designed to build tension over an adventure or session. It really doesn't matter how much time in-game it is: this is why having "adventuring days" of a week doesn't alter the core concept of adventuring days. The in-game time isn't really the issue, but it is the adventuring day itself. You can say that an adventuring day lasts:


*Gritty realism = 1 week in fiction time
*Default = 24 hours in fiction time
*Epic Heroism= about 3 hours in fiction time

And those are all adventuring days. It doesn't matter, really. And all that could be structured by session as a base, no matter how much time it really passes in fiction time. What I'm saying is that an Adventuring Day, as a narrative construct, should be oriented to maximize tension in an adventure. And that an adventure is at the most efficient if it happens in a single session, because you could build tension to reach a climax of the session. And that it is difficult to build any type of climax in a single session if you are in the middle of an adventuring day, and so your characters are at their strongest point. You hardly could put a boss fight in the middle of an adventuring day, being it noon or wednesday in fiction time. If you do, it would be an easier fight, and many players will perceive it as not a challenge at all, thus no a real climax of the session. This isn't to say that several small stories could not build tension, or that you could not use an adventuring day in three or more sessions (although better you have a lot of regularity and compromise, as problems may arise, or a lot of memory), but I don't think that it is advisable. Building a climax only 1 every three sessions? It sounds unsatisfying, as the real "session" (let's say, the "episode") is divided in three or more weeks. It's like to see a single episode of a TV show divided in three weeks.

Also 35 years of experience isn't valid with an "adventuring day", as it is a construct from 5e, although based on earlier concepts. It surely helps to know the basics of GM narrative, hence my own "curriculum". And having cliffhangers isn't an issue, maybe I'm expressing myself wrong, and I'm not saying what I want to say (it is a little difficult to write in English for me), but having meaningless cliffhangers is. A meaningless cliffhanger is one in which there isn't anything at stake. Its building suspense where it don't really is any. That becomes dull easily. But a cliffhanger isn't the opposite of building a session climax; you could build (as I've said earlier) a cliffhanger after building a climax, EG adding a twist, but surely you have to build a climax in a single session. It's difficultier if the game structure builds in a base of 3 sessions per adventuring day, which isn't at all what it does; as you said it doesn't assume a session and that's the core problem: D&D doesn't know what to do with a given session. It doesn't provide a base model to modify, unless you understand (as I do) that the Adventuring Day = Session. Then you could work on.

 

[Erechel]

As for building a cliffhanger without forgetting to build a climax in a single story, see any Marvel DCU movie: they all have a climax & resolution, and then, after the credits, you have a cliffhanger. That's a well-built narrative.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One of the main complains in the prior editions was how much the combats last, and how much time resolving seemingly simple things consumed. And there was also the 5-minute adventuring day.

5e has certainly gone as far as can be expected in tuning for fast combats, to the point of drawing complaints of combats being trivial or boring or the game seeming 'too easy.' That's how D&D design seems to go, really, the metaphorical pendulum over-correcting for overblown complaints about each prior edition in turn.

This time around, it wasn't only about fast combat. There were a lot of non-promises not actually committed to, but still put forward as soft goals of some sort during the playtest. One of them was about balancing class designs, which were, necessarily, in the standard-issue pendulum-over-correction, going to be designed around different resource pools for the sake of arbitrary mechanical distinction.

We’re also aware that classes that need to rest to regain spells are the main source of this pressure, though hit point loss also plays a role. Since the game balances the fighter’s and rogue’s staying power against the wizard’s and cleric’s spell attrition, it’s important that the “workday” last long enough for the rogue and fighter to shine.

...

What does this mean for the five-minute adventuring day? DMs will have a crystal clear guideline on how many rounds of combat a group should tackle before resting. If the group spends less time in fights, casters grow stronger. If the characters spend more rounds fighting, the fighter and rogue grow stronger. The solution to the problem rests in the DM’s hands, who can use the tools and guidelines that we provide, plus keep track of how long fights take and adjust adventures accordingly

Where did 5e deliver this crystal clear guidance? Right there in the DMG's encounter design, 6-8 encounters/day, 2-3 short rests.

This edition assumes that most encounters don't last as much and the resolution time is faster... except it doesn't a great job at this at higher levels, where the options' bloat and bookkeeping becomes more draggy.

Be that as it may, it doesn't imply getting all 6-8 of those encounters into one session. Some tables play for 8hrs once or twice a month or less, others for 2-3 hrs every week. There's a lot of variation in what a 'session' might constitute.

Why throwing out a construct such as an adventuring day if you aren't going to tie it to some real experience, like the gaming session?

The game is very, very abstract. No player gets hurt in a combat, nobody leaves the table to go on a long journey, and one session can cover days (or years) of downtime, or be devoted entirely to less than an hour of fighting & exploring.

And that becomes a bookkeeping drag. You have to keep note from the spells you expended in several sessions. This isn't as big as a problem for a fighter or a rogue, but it is for most spellcasters

It's what folks who play casters are supposed to like. Plus, if you happen to 'forget' to account for a few slots used last session and thus use 'em again next...

Remember that D&D 5TH ED isn't a game of high stakes.

Is it? Because I hear 'too easy' pretty often.

 

[Erechel]

5e has certainly gone as far as can be expected in tuning for fast combats, to the point of drawing complaints of combats being trivial or boring or the game seeming 'too easy.' That's how D&D design seems to go, really, the metaphorical pendulum over-correcting for overblown complaints about each prior edition in turn.

At earlier levels, sure. At higher levels, not so much. That's why the "sweet spot" of D&D is between levels 3 to 10.

This time around, it wasn't only about fast combat. There were a lot of non-promises not actually committed to, but still put forward as soft goals of some sort during the playtest. One of them was about balancing class designs, which were, necessarily, in the standard-issue pendulum-over-correction, going to be designed around different resource pools for the sake of arbitrary mechanical distinction.

I'm not sure where are you going with this.

Where did 5e deliver this crystal clear guidance? Right there in the DMG's encounter design, 6-8 encounters/day, 2-3 short rests.

Be that as it may, it doesn't imply getting all 6-8 of those encounters into one session. Some tables play for 8hrs once or twice a month or less, others for 2-3 hrs every week. There's a lot of variation in what a 'session' might constitute.

And that's the problem's root. If you can't plan a base session, it is difficult to tweak it to the needs of the many. And I believe that D&D "pushes" the Adventuring Day as a session base. I'm on the 8hrs end, and it is difficult to have so many encounters in that time. I don't want to think about 2-3 hours per week. Breaking the session in three is... unsatisfying. Although you could put a "soft climax" in a short rest.

The game is very, very abstract. No player gets hurt in a combat, nobody leaves the table to go on a long journey, and one session can cover days (or years) of downtime, or be devoted entirely to less than an hour of fighting & exploring.

So? I don't really see the point. In a TV show, an spectator isn't really hurt. And? That's an excuse to build an episode that doesn't have climax?

It's what folks who play casters are supposed to like. Plus, if you happen to 'forget' to account for a few slots used last session and thus use 'em again next...

Not really. If they were, they should take account of rations, equipment weight and duration, etc. They want to break the laws of physics or burn goblins with fireballs, really.

Is it? Because I hear 'too easy' pretty often.

It isn't. That's exactly what I've said.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The book doesn't say that..

I wish you'd make up your mind. I said:

"But the adventuring day is in no way tied to how much real time your session lasts. It's nowhere in the rules to tie to the two together, and is not the assumed style of play."

And you said, "Except it does."

So if it does, where is it?

The adventuring day is really nothing more than the time in between long rests. It's not a narrative construct. It's a mechanical rule where PCs regain resources. It can be one gaming session, two, or five gaming sessions. Just like you can have more than one adventuring day in a single session. There's no need to try to come up with some arbitrary category like you just did. And what I'm saying, is that the adventuring day is not tied to how long a table's gaming session is at all. Which, by looking at some of the responses here, people are doing. I.e., they are saying they will never get 6-8 encounters per day because their session doesn't last that long. And as I and others have pointed out, you can't blame the system for that when you're basing encounters per day not on how long the adventuring day lasts (as is how the book calculates them), but by how long you personally spend time gaming. Additionally, it's flawed to assume the adventuring day ends when the session ends because nowhere in the rules does it say to do that, and multiple people have said tension or whatever other metric you're using doesn't have to force gaming session = adventuring day. That's a personal preference of yours. Not how the game is designed or assumed to play in the context of how those encounter rules are constructed.

And lastly, 35 years of experience does matter, because it shows that a typical adventuring day doesn't matter what edition it is, or how many sessions you have, or how long those sessions are. Over that 35 years, regardless of edition, adventuring days did not end when sessions ended. They are never dependent on each other. Whether it be 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, or 5e, I've never tied the adventuring day to how long a session is. It's always been organic as to what is happening in the game world as to when PC take long rests (or the equivalent thereof).

 

[Erechel]

I wish you'd make up your mind. I said:

"But the adventuring day is in no way tied to how much real time your session lasts. It's nowhere in the rules to tie to the two together, and is not the assumed style of play."

And you said, "Except it does."

So if it does, where is it?

The adventuring day is really nothing more than the time in between long rests. It can be one gaming session, two, or five gaming sessions. Just like you can have more than one adventuring day in a single session. There's no need to try to come up with some arbitrary category like you just did. And what I'm saying, is that the adventuring day is not tied to how long a table's gaming session is at all. Which, by looking at some of the responses here, people are doing. I.e., they are saying they will never get 6-8 encounters per day because their session doesn't last that long. And as I and others have pointed out, you can't blame the system for that when you're basing encounters per day not on how long the adventuring day lasts (as is how the book calculates them), but by how long you personally spend time gaming. Additionally, it's flawed to assume the adventuring day ends when the session ends because nowhere in the rules does it say to do that, and multiple people have said tension or whatever other metric you're using doesn't have to force gaming session = adventuring day. That's a personal preference of yours. Not how the game is designed or assumed to play in the context of how those encounter rules are constructed.

And lastly, 35 years of experience does matter, because it shows that a typical adventuring day doesn't matter what edition it is, or how many sessions you have, or how long those sessions are. Over that 35 years, regardless of edition, adventuring days did not end when sessions ended. They are never dependent on each other. Whether it be 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, or 5e, I've never tied the adventuring day to how long a session is. It's always been organic as to what is happening in the game world as to when PC take long rests (or the equivalent thereof).

As I've said, the adventuring day is a narrative construct. I've a hard time trying to express myself in a foreign language. It is not firmly tied to the session time, but it is implied to by a narrative perspective. See the page 71 of the DMG where it equates an adventure to an episode of a TV show, and a campaign to a series as a whole.

That's why I've addressed the narration structure, and why I've talking about climaxes, that are explained also at the 72 page in the DMG. It isn't a big jump to equate the adventuring day to the session. In fact, it is according to you what many people do. You could equate as well the "adventuring day" to the adventure itself. But in a session you need to build a climax. And that's difficultier if the "adventuring day" lasts longer than the session, as you can't really challenge your players with a big boss when they are still with all their resources available.

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=6784868]Erechel[/MENTION], you act like you've never watched a TV show. They have arcs, tension, cliff hangers all the time. Yet weeks, even months can pass between shows. D&D can be paced the same way.

Along with [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] , I've been doing it this way for a long time. It may not work for you but it certainly works for others.

 

[Tony Vargas]

At earlier levels, sure. At higher levels, not so much. That's why the "sweet spot" of D&D is between levels 3 to 10. I'm not sure where are you going with this.

Level 3-10 'sweet spot,' check (or 5-11, or 4-12, whatever). 6-8 encounter/2-3 short rest 'day' for class balance and baseline encounter difficulty, check.

I believe that D&D "pushes" the Adventuring Day as a session base.

I see nothing in the game, itself, that suggests that. Where are you seeing it?

I'm on the 8hrs end, and it is difficult to have so many encounters in that time. I don't want to think about 2-3 hours per week. Breaking the session in three is... unsatisfying. Although you could put a "soft climax" in a short rest.

I ran 2hr weekly session games for the Encounters program for much of it's 2010-14 run, and a 2hr-hard-stop game from 2012 through 2015 - since I've been running with a softer stop (could go up to 4 hrs if I really wanted to, but it's a Wed night, and I work 9-5, so...).

There's no way, in any edition, even 5e even with trivial encounters, I'm squeezing all 6-8 into one 2hr session. It's just not going to happen, ever, on plain RL logistics.

So? I don't really see the point. In a TV show, an spectator isn't really hurt. And? That's an excuse to build an episode that doesn't have climax?

No, it's a reason to cover days/weeks/years in some 1-hr episodes, and dilate a tense ten minutes from several different points of view over a whole 1hr episode in others, and still end on a cliff-hanger before minute 10 is up. With the famous exception of 24, that is.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is you saying D&D is meant to be run at 1 session = 1 adventuring day, therefor D&D is broken, is like saying that every 1 hr TV show is meant to be 24, therefor every other TV show is bad.

Not really. If they were, they should take account of rations, equipment weight and duration, etc. They want to break the laws of physics or burn goblins with fireballs, really.

I'm not speak'n for 'em, just repeat'n what they've been say'n for decades. The stereotype is, if you want to play a caster, you want to manage complex resources, it's not that you want to be wildly overpowered and re-charge those resources in 5-minute workdays, it's that you love the complexity and challenge. Similarly, if you don't want to play a caster, you must want to play a bone-simple (or 'blood-simple' with apologies to Dashiell Hammett) beatstick meatshield that's been completely cleansed of player agency.

Or you wouldn't be playing D&D.

It isn't. That's exactly what I've said.

Oh, sorry, mis-read.

 

[Erechel]

@Erechel, you act like you've never watched a TV show. They have arcs, tension, cliff hangers all the time. Yet weeks, even months can pass between shows. D&D can be paced the same way.

I don't act like that. I believe that you are missreading me, as Tony did when I've said that D&D isn't a high stakes game. As i've said three times now, cliffhangers aren't the issue, is the MEANINGLESS cliffhangers and the delaying of a climax forever. I've even quoted the Marvel DCU as a proper way to build cliffhangers: each movie or episode of a show has its own climax and then construct a cliffhanger with a twist of the plot, or the introduction of a new conflict. Only the last episodes of a season delay a bigger climax for a To Be Continued, but even them they have a climax of its own, see the Marvel Agents of SHIELD to see what I'm saying. And the DMG explicitly says that each adventure should have a climax and equate adventures to episodes! What I'm saying, again this for the fourth time, it's that its DIFFICULTIER to build a climax if the party has most of its resources available! That's why it is important the Adventuring Day. If it weren't, there wouldn't be one.

Along with @Sacrosanct , I've been doing it this way for a long time. It may not work for you but it certainly works for others.

And I've already acknowledge that. I've said that the Adventuring Day is a modern construction but the narrative structure of an adventure or session isn't.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't act like that. I believe that you are missreading me, as Tony did when I've said that D&D isn't a high stakes game. As i've said three times now, cliffhangers aren't the issue, is the MEANINGLESS cliffhangers and the delaying of a climax forever.

If it's not high-stakes, are there /ever/ cliffhangers?

It seems to me there often are...

And the DMG explicitly says that each adventure should have a climax and equate adventures to episodes!

Still doesn't mean they equate to sessions nor to days, for that matter.

And I've already acknowledge that. I've said that the Adventuring Day is a modern construction but the narrative structure of an adventure or session isn't.

The adventuring 'day' as a guideline is more WotC-era, but, like many other things that have gotten spelled out later in the game's history, it's always been there.