D&D 5E last encounter was totally one-sided

Uchawi

First Post
The more I read of this thread, the more I am convinced that many of the "problems" people have with the game are from a metagaming perspective, and could be alleviated with more immersion--funny enough in a role-playing game.

Here's what I mean by that. I see a lot of anguish around trying to mechanically find the balance of the game, and if balance doesn't happen automatically outside of in-game factors, then the game itself is broken somehow. I am convinced now more than ever that if the players played their PCs like actual people, and the DM played the game world as an actual living game world, most of these issues would resolve themselves. Players using metagame knowledge (I know we'll have X amount of encounters per day so I know I can spend Y amount of resources every encounter) and DMs catering to these players' expectations of rest, refusing to have the inhabitants react like a living creature would to what's going on, and treating monsters/NPCs as pawns on a gameboard with no other actions other than what's in a statblock is going to cause issues. D&D isn't expected to play that way, so if you're expecting the game to do something it isn't designed to do, you'll be disappointed.

Do real life soldiers know how many contacts they'll get on every patrol, so they know exactly how much ammo to use up per contact? Of course not. In the same vein, players shouldn't know how many encounters they will have for certain. Every rest period, short or long, should be a risk v reward evaluation. It's on the players to initiate rests. It's on the DM to fairly determine how every other creature in the area will react. Some times this means PCs get a rest. Sometimes this means the dungeon inhabitants are alerted to the PCs and are out looking for them. There is no manipulation, or cheating, or whatever else has been implied earlier.

Play the game immersive, like a true role-playing game, and many of these issues won't even come up. Yes, this means there is prep time needed by the DM because the DM needs to know how each of these creatures will react and what they would do. That's the price to play when you're running the game. If you cannot, or will not prep for your games, then you have no right to complain the game isn't working for you.

Some days they might have 2 encounters. Some days 10. The average may come out to 6-8, but that doesn't mean you have to have 6-8 every adventuring day. Some days class X will run out of powers before the encounters are done for the day because there isn't a chance to rest, and some days class X will have left over powers because there was only one encounter. That's part of an organic game. The players have the choice in how to manage their resources, rather than have those choices dictated to them via metagaming expectations (which is what "I know I have X amount of encounters so I spend Y amount of resources per encounter" is). It's more player agency.
You can't remove the role playing from the rules or vice versa. No matter how you try to immerse yourself some of the idiosyncrasies will appear. You do have the choice to ignore or just accept it. A DM will have to decide how much effort you want to put into an adventure to address some of the gaps. It is not just a player problem.

Probably the biggest issue is the disparity of resource management between classes and monsters. Some are very arbitrary and you would question why they exist.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yes there are some groups that will try meta game the DM by guessing and anticipating when they will rest if they are sure that all encounters are winnable. This is especially true with young DM where a TPK will occur only when a fight will have been underestimated by the DM.

One way to eleminate the meta gaming is the TPK.

TPK are not bad. They are part of the game and it shows that sometimes, evil can win. This raises the players' expectations and their awareness of the dangers they are facing. It also has the other effect that now the players know that they don't have a carebear DM in front of them.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not the kind of DM that is out there against his players. I am not the DM that will do a TPK just for the fun of it.

But I am the kind of DM that: Rolls dice in plain view. Plays monsters realistically. Challenges the players. Forces the players to constantly better themselves and makes sure that every players get the limelight during campaings.

Do I make some encounters that are unwinnable? Yes, but it is always blatantly evident that the players are no match. And yet sometimes, some player get cocky and says: Let's try it anyways. With enough persuasion from him/her, the others soon follow him/her to their death.

Sometimes they just push onward too far.
Sometimes its just carelessness from their part. (they let an enemy raise the alarm, just bad planning or simply not paying attention enough.)

I don't kill players. Players kill themselves.
That is how I don't get Metagamed.
 

Is there anything on the DM's Guild that the OP could buy to help him out? Anything at all?

Also, could [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] provide character sheets for his party, complete write ups for all the BBEGs, and record/upload his next major party fight? If we're discussing this encounter for 10+ pages, I want all the information made available.
 
Last edited:

CapnZapp

Legend
Is there anything on the DM's Guild that the OP could buy to help him out? Anything at all?

Also, could [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] provide character sheets for his party, complete write ups for all the BBEGs, and record/upload his next major party fight? If we're discussing this encounter for 10+ pages, I want all the information made available.
Actually, I am the OP, it's been 23 pages (to me), and no, I didn't start the thread because I needed third-party products. But thanks anyway! :)
 

Hussar

Legend
Look, at the end of the day, it just has to be recognized as a limitation of the system. Just like 3e did poorly if you wanted to pace it at 8 encounters per day. 5e is based on how earlier editions played. Since you had so few renewable resources anyway, there just wasn't really any point of stopping. And, relative to the PC's, monsters in AD&D were individually VERY weak. It was entirely possible in AD&D to go entire encounters without expending any resources at all. The PC's could achieve pretty decent AC's by very low levels (an AC in the low negatives was achievable at 1st, if not 2nd level - Banded, shield and a decent Dex gave you an AC of 0 in a game where monsters got no attack bonuses at all and had a THAC0 of around 17-19 at low levels).

THAT'S the play style that 5e is setting out to emulate. In 3e, each encounter (at baseline) was meant to eat 20% of your resources. In 5e, that number is halved. Has to be. If you're expecting 6-8 encounters per day, each encounter can only eat about 10-15% of party resources. If your 10th level party of 5 has 300 HP total, a standard encounter should only eat about 30 HP. That's IT. That's all she wrote. If you have two full casters in that group, they have, combined, about 28 daily spells (or so, I'm going from memory here). Which means in a standard encounter, they should only cast 3 spells. Again, that's the baseline expectation.

If you go against the baseline expectations, OF COURSE the system is going to fight you all the way. Trying to do single encounter days in AD&D would be ludicrous. It just doesn't work. The system is far too swingy. Trying to do extended 6-8 encounter days in 3e doesn't work. Each encounter would be boring as all heck. And, again, the system is very swingy with monsters being much more individually powerful, meaning that a couple of lucky die rolls ends that adventuring day. 4e, where the balancing was all done at the encounter level, actually does work for both ways, but, I'm going to assume that's not an option.

So, here's your choice. Either suck it up and accept that the system is not going to do what you want, or adjust your adventure design to take advantage of the system. That's your choices. Fighting the system and then blaming the system isn't going to get you anywhere. Make a choice and stick with it.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Look, at the end of the day, it just has to be recognized as a limitation of the system. Just like 3e did poorly if you wanted to pace it at 8 encounters per day. In 3e, each encounter (at baseline) was meant to eat 20% of your resources. In 5e, that number is halved. Has to be. If you're expecting 6-8 encounters per day, each encounter can only eat about 10-15% of party resources. ...4e, where the balancing was all done at the encounter level, actually does work for both ways, but, I'm going to assume that's not an option.

So, here's your choice. Either suck it up and accept that the system is not going to do what you want, or adjust your adventure design to take advantage of the system. That's your choices.
Or adjust the system.

Or, y'know, continue to complain, because solutions are boring, but problems make for interesting discussions....
 

Hussar

Legend
Or adjust the system.

Or, y'know, continue to complain, because solutions are boring, but problems make for interesting discussions....

Well, that's the thing though. Sure, you can adjust the system, but, at that point, you're pretty much left to starting from scratch. This is a basic, fundamental design paradigm. Changing 5e to a more 3e style, where each monster is far more individually powerful and dangerous means that you have to rewrite the entire Monster Manual. I can't really see how this is going to be a productive use of time.

I mean, if you're dead set on the idea that adventure days should be one or two encounters, there is a tailor made system right there with thousands of supplements for you to use. 3e. And it works very, very well. I'm not sure what you would be gaining by trying to rewrite 5e that you couldn't much more easily gain by simply playing 3e. Or Pathfinder if that tickles your fancy. Either one would work.

Otherwise, I can't see this as anything else but an exercise in constant frustration as the 5e system is going to fight you tooth and nail if you try to force it into that 1-2 encounter mould. The classes, the monsters, the magic system, pretty much everything is based on the idea of a longer adventuring day. You'd have to rewrite the monsters, then turn around and rewrite the classes to lessen their nova-powers, then rewrite the magic system to make it less flexible, in order to reduce the nova powers of the casting classes.

Heck, if you look at the complaints about 5e, I think a large number of them stem from this problem. "Sharpshooter and GWM are too powerful!" Why? "Because the PC's always have Bless up and other buffs". Wait a second, hang on. A 6 encounter day should be about 20 rounds of combat long (ish) If you run 6 encounters per day, that means that the cleric (or paladin) has to give up 6 actions out of 20 in order to bless every time. Suddenly, you've pretty much removed the cleric (or paladin) from a large chunk of each encounter. That character is spending 25-30% of his time casting a spell that doesn't actually do any direct effect to the enemy.

But, if you only have 1 big encounter (say 8 rounds long), then the cleric (or paladin) casts 1 bless spell, it lasts the entire encounter and only had to spend about 10% of his time casting a spell that doesn't have any direct effect on the enemy. Hrm, we've essentially granted that caster FIVE actions over the course of the adventuring day. It's no wonder that that character is having a much greater impact.

Granted they maybe should have had a lengthier discussion about why the longer encounter day is important in the 5e DMG. Fair enough. They possibly maybe should have spelled it out. But, sheesh, it's not exactly hard to figure out why you're having problems is it? Just how much hand holding do you expect WotC to do here. In any case, even if that's not in the DMG, it's HERE now. Spread the word. If you see some poor DM struggling with these issues in 5e, let that DM know that there is a really, really easy solution.

Beat the party like a piñata until juicy, juicy candy comes out. :D
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Changing 5e to a more 3e style, where each monster is far more individually powerful and dangerous means that you have to rewrite the entire Monster Manual.
It just means re-writing (or adding to existing write-ups) of the ones you're actually going to use.

I mean, if you're dead set on the idea that adventure days should be one or two encounters, there is a tailor made system right there with thousands of supplements for you to use. 3e.
It's really kinda broken in 5MWD mode, 3e is. Moreso than 5e, really.

Besides, 5e is meant to work with /more/ styles, not fewer....

Otherwise, I can't see this as anything else but an exercise in constant frustration as the 5e system is going to fight you tooth and nail if you try to force it into that 1-2 encounter mould. The classes, the monsters, the magic system, pretty much everything is based on the idea of a longer adventuring day.
Monsters aren't so bad, they're not that complex, and you just have to dial up the challenge on the monster side to match what your party can do when they Nova.

More problematic, perhaps, is intra-party balance in that scenario. For one thing, what the party can do in that Nova you have to tune your encounters to will vary wildly with party composition and system mastery. But, mainly, if the party composition does include any classes meant to shine on particularly long days, they're going to languish. You need to find ways to compensate for that. Potent magic items with wild 1/day powers, for instance.

Heck, if you look at the complaints about 5e, I think a large number of them stem from this problem.
Quite possibly.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
Or adjust the system.

Or, y'know, continue to complain, because solutions are boring, but problems make for interesting discussions....

If you look at my campaign thread, I've been adjusting the system by rebuilding tons of monsters up to my standards. I enjoy discussing what I view as a failure of the game mechanics. I don't know. I feel after this many editions of D&D and this much experience on the game design team that they could do a better job creating monsters capable of challenging higher level parties. They would understand action economy and tactical variety well enough to know how to build monsters, specifically solo monsters, capable of challenging an entire party in a straight up fight that doesn't require I empower the environment or add a number of specialized minions to shore up their weaknesses.
 

They would understand action economy and tactical variety well enough to know how to build monsters, specifically solo monsters, capable of challenging an entire party in a straight up fight that doesn't require I empower the environment or add a number of specialized minions to shore up their weaknesses.

They tried it with 4th Edition and lots of people didn't like it :p
 

pemerton

Legend
I think that when players know that each encounter is meant to be defeated, then that affects how they play their characters. It's a more subtle or passive form of metagaming. I think that surety on the players' part is what needs to be shifted. Once that happens, then the game will become more immersive, and the situation would improve.
This seems to presuppose that people who play differently from you don't experience an immersive game. Which seems needlessly contentious.

But on the bit about "encounters meant to be defeated" - presumably encounters are, in some tenable sense, meant to be survived. Otherwise the game comes to a short end.

It's not as if this tension - between the game being playable as a game, and the setting being "realistic", hasn't been around for a long time! As soon as the convention of monsters ranked by dungeon level and artificially partioned into rooms and wandering monster tables is abandoned, the issue comes up.

In re-reading Appendix C of Gygax's DMG earlier this evening, I came across the following two sentences on p 179, in the section on Underwater Encounters; there are fewer than 60 words in between the two sentences:

The numbers of monsters encountered are those shown in MONSTER MANUAL.

Number of creatures encountered should be appropriate to the strength of the encountering party.​

Even Gygax had noticed that if you just play the game by reference to logical ecology as spelled out in the MM, the life of an adventuring party might be a short one.
 


hawkeyefan

Legend
This seems to presuppose that people who play differently from you don't experience an immersive game. Which seems needlessly contentious.

But on the bit about "encounters meant to be defeated" - presumably encounters are, in some tenable sense, meant to be survived. Otherwise the game comes to a short end.

It's not as if this tension - between the game being playable as a game, and the setting being "realistic", hasn't been around for a long time! As soon as the convention of monsters ranked by dungeon level and artificially partioned into rooms and wandering monster tables is abandoned, the issue comes up.

In re-reading Appendix C of Gygax's DMG earlier this evening, I came across the following two sentences on p 179, in the section on Underwater Encounters; there are fewer than 60 words in between the two sentences:

The numbers of monsters encountered are those shown in MONSTER MANUAL.

Number of creatures encountered should be appropriate to the strength of the encountering party.​

Even Gygax had noticed that if you just play the game by reference to logical ecology as spelled out in the MM, the life of an adventuring party might be a short one.

Well, I said "defeated" and you said "survived"....so there is a difference.

My point in this matter is not to be contentious or to imply that anyone who plays differently isn't playing in an immersive way. Instead, I am saying that the more immersive you play, the less meta-gaming will affect how the players choose to play their characters.

One of the ways I have achieved a more immersive game is to create encounters that are not meant to be resolved through combat....ones where if it does come to a fight, the PCs will lose. I do it just often enough to keep the possibility in my players' minds, and because they know it's possible, they approach every potential combat with this in mind. I want my players to make decisions more on story elements than game elements. So a party of 5 PCs would determine a lone guard in front of a cell is something they can easily deal with, and that's fine, but the same party of 5 PCs determining 400 orcs to not be a threat is what I want to avoid.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I am saying that the more immersive you play, the less meta-gaming will affect how the players choose to play their characters.

One of the ways I have achieved a more immersive game is to create encounters that are not meant to be resolved through combat....ones where if it does come to a fight, the PCs will lose. I do it just often enough to keep the possibility in my players' minds, and because they know it's possible, they approach every potential combat with this in mind. I want my players to make decisions more on story elements than game elements.
It doesn't sound like immersion vs metagame, to me. You can incorporate non-combat scenes that represent avoiding an unwinnable combat scenario in an entirely meta-game/gamist/non-immersive way, just as easily - if anything, more easily and consistently - as you can by painting an immersive world and leaving it to the players to puzzle out how to approach each challenge.



I enjoy discussing what I view as a failure of the game mechanics.
OK. Maybe we need some kind of rpg-system-criticism-specific-jargon variation on schadenfreude, here?

I feel after this many editions of D&D and this much experience on the game design team that they could do a better job creating monsters capable of challenging higher level parties.
To be fair, that may not have been exactly the top design priority. 'Classic feel,' OTOH, was. I seem to recall monsters not being that challenging to high-level PCs in the classic game. Maybe its intentional, like the swinginess of very low level.

They would understand action economy and tactical variety well enough to know how to build monsters, specifically solo monsters, capable of challenging an entire party in a straight up fight that doesn't require I empower the environment or add a number of specialized minions to shore up their weaknesses.
They tried it with 4th Edition and lots of people didn't like it :p
Nod. If they didn't have it right at first, they got there by MM3. Depending on your players optimization chops and your campaign's pacing/style you might have had to dial up encounters to make them genuinely challenging, but the designs were workable.

So, yeah they can do it, they have done it, they just backed off from it - there may have been some pendulum-swinging going on in the 5e design process, too.
 
Last edited:

hawkeyefan

Legend
It doesn't sound like immersion vs metagame, to me. You can incorporate non-combat scenes that represent avoiding an unwinnable combat scenario in an entirely meta-game/gamist/non-immersive way, just as easily - if anything, more easily and consistently - as you can by painting an immersive world and leaving it to the players to puzzle out how to approach each challenge.

Sure, there are many ways to achieve what I am talking about. However, when it comes to highly optimized PCs steamrolling everything in their path to the point where they don't even register anything as a threat anymore.....I think an unwinnable combat or two may be the best way toward making them think before jumping into combat.

My comments were made in regard to a group of players who never hesitate to enter combat. They never view a possible fight as unwinnable....so combat is never not an option for them.

My game has gone through that phase at points in the past. The unwinnable fight is one of the best tools I used to help correct things. I also varied up the encounters and hte monsters and overall sought to make things far less predictable.

If players think in terms of stat blocks, it's a problem, in my eyes. They shouldn't know an enemies capabilities beyond what they've actually seen. So I strive to avoid that.
 

Very few threath could prove lethal for a group of high level adventurers in 1ed. Almost none...

The most powerful creatures were not really that much of a big thing back then. That is why there are stories of group slaying demi to greater gods to have a challenge! In those times it was easy to fall into the hack 'n slash or maunty haul campaigns. D&D was played more like a board games in which each room was a challenge to be vanquished and that would not interact with each others or to outside stimuli. 10 orcs in room A would stay there until PC would trigger them. The only way to make things feel "alive" was the random encounters and logic was not always there.

It took more than the standard DM to create immersive play in which every game could challenge the players in a logical way. The dreaded Tomb of Horror was one of the first adventures to introduce real threaths (and possible true death for players) that were not simple monsters.

It took the Island of the Ape to see a true challenge adventure for high level characters. I will not spoil the end (in case some players are reading) but the end fight was a killer if the players had not prepared accordingly because they had missed some major hints.

Dragon Lance was the first serie of modules that were more than 3 in length that had a creative continuous story in which players had to flee. They were still basic but they were a blast to run. The story element was very strong and reading the book would not help simply because the ending and the story plot were highly modular/random if the DM wanted to. It also introduced the "mysterious death" option in which the body of a slain character would disappear only to have that character come back for the next adventure. (Yes I know of GDQ 1-7 but they started as independent adventures. The link is simply a background story check to which players are reacting to. They are not the driving force that change some of the outcomes as in the DL serie)

True free form campaing came with the Shadow Dale, Tantras and Waterdeep adventures that were introducing 2nd edition. In it we could see the begining of the mile stones (players should be X level to get here). Not everything was written down and the DM had a lot of work ahead of him to make things work out smoothly. After that, most adventures reverted to the standard adventures of 1st edition. DM and players might not have been ready for this kind of product yet. Again most threaths were not that big of challenge.

3rd edition introduced the "campaing" module series in which players were brought from 1st level to 20th level in a campaing that required almost no side trek adventures. They were kind of a package deal. Now threath are really out there as monsters can now use every single advantages the players have. No monsters can be taken out of the MM and used as his, especialy casters. Dragons were the worst to build. That alone led to all kind of abuse (and mathematics was being the least of it) but it was the edition in which monsters could finaly be a real threath alone, or not. But it was not an easy era for DMs. All this mathematical riff raff led to the 5mwd that still plague the game even to this day. The threaths were there but the balancing and work involved is astronomical, almost biblical in proportion.

4th edition followed with for the first time, leveling from 1 to 30 in the core book. No need for an epic level handbook now. Still threaths were not that big of a challenge if the guidelines were followed as written. Monsters could now be taken out of the box again and DM work was minimal. Yet for all its good side and innovation, 4ed fell short in players and DM expectations. The classes were too balanced at every level and playing one or the other didn't have any meaning at all. The game almost looked like a table top MMORPG. They did try to correct the 4ed trajectory with subsequent books but it was too little too late. The first and formost real redeeming quality of fourth edition was the introduction of attack cantrips that could be used at will. Now spell caster could go and use magic as a fighter uses his sword. The second quality (and not the last) was that mathematics (or the how many "+"s do I have to count for this round? syndrome) in D&D were no longuer a nightmare.

5ed reverted back to a crossbreed between 4th and 1st ed. Mathematic is now at an acceptable level. Casters were somewhat downgraded but are still powerful (no CODZILLA as in 3.x ed. good Lord am I glad). The threath level in 5ed is comparable to a cross breed between 1ed and 4th. The solo (lair) monsters are a bit lacking and the idea of 4ed that solo should realy be solo is no longuer true. Solo must either be accompanied by minions or be preceded by tough fights to be used alone. The threath level is easy to assess for old timers like me but some younger DM (especialy those that were introduced in the 3.x and 4ed era) have a bit of a difficulty to adjust. The 5mwd dies hard as this kind of play is the closest to what you see in novels and movies and it is psychologicaly natural to want to stick to the 5mwd.

So Flamestrike is perfectly right in saying that there is no problem with the threath level in 5ed and so are those that are saying the opposite. It seems to depends on which era you were introduced to D&D. From what I see, 1ed and 2ed gamers have no problem to adjust (and it seems we were the target audience for 5ed). The 3.x, PF and 4ed gamers seems to have a harder to time to adapt. Again I may be wrong but this is the feeling that I get from the other DMs I see around my home town and to a lesser extent, this forum.
 

pemerton

Legend
My point in this matter is not to be contentious or to imply that anyone who plays differently isn't playing in an immersive way. Instead, I am saying that the more immersive you play, the less meta-gaming will affect how the players choose to play their characters.
If players think in terms of stat blocks, it's a problem, in my eyes. They shouldn't know an enemies capabilities beyond what they've actually seen. So I strive to avoid that.
I'm sure you don't mean to be too contentious, because you're one of the most reasonable posters on the boards!

Nevertheless, what I've quoted is contentious. For instance, here is my conception of immersion (not just theoretical, but based on practical experience): the player feels an emotion that, broadly, correponds to the emotion experienced by the PC. So, if the PC is frustrated than so is the player; if the PC is feeling threatened then so is the player; if the PC is exhausted, then so is the player. I find this is more immersive than (say) pretending to be scared when you're not.

And I find that stats and mechanics are crucial to this. For instance, when my players were preparing (in character) to confront Orcus, they thought he might be tough. When I told them his stats (in response to the invoker/wizard player's successful monster knowledge check), they were genuinely worried.

Or, to give an example of frustration: in my 4e game the polearm fighter and archer ranger were affected by a chained cambion's Mind Shackles attack. Here is the flavour text of the chained cambion, and the mechanic of that ability (from the 4e MM3):

A chained cambion's reigning emotion is hate. It hates its life, its captors, and its enemies who roam free. A chained cambion screams its despair within the minds of nearby foes.

Mind Shackles (psychic) Recharge when first bloodied
Effect: Two enemies adjacent to each other in a close burst 5 are psychically shackled (save ends; each enemy makes a separate saving throw against this effect). While psychically shackled, an enemy takes 10 psychic damage at the start and the end of its turn if it isn't adjacent to the other creature that was affected by this power.
Aftereffect: The effect persists, and the damage decreases to 5 (save ends).​

The archer and fighter had to stay adjacent or take damage. Which caused frustration (and required some clever acrobatics at some points, due to the terrain of the room). When one saved but the other didn't, and so insisted on staying adjacent, this caused the frustration to turn into resentment. The players really were experiencing the despair and hate screamed into their PCs' minds by the chained cambion. (This monster is one of my favourite ever bits of RPG mechanical design.)

As far as exhaustion is concerned, this should be the result of active player resources (not hit points, but things like Action Surge) - so the player gets to choose when to try (just like the PC doing his/her utmost), and then when the resources are all gone but the challenge is still there, the player (like the PC) experiences the feeling of having nothing left.

(In 5e, getting Inspiration should also be a part of this cycle - being able to go on.)

One of the ways I have achieved a more immersive game is to create encounters that are not meant to be resolved through combat....ones where if it does come to a fight, the PCs will lose.
I prefer these sorts of choices to be made by the players rather than the GM.

Here's some old posts that show what I mean:

The scenario I ran yesterday (from the Eden Odyssesy d20 book called "Wonders Out of Time") called for a Large bear.

I wasn't sure exactly how many 10th level PCs would be facing it at once, and so in prepping I placed a single elite level 13 dire bear, rather than a lower level solo bear (a level 7 or 8 solo would be a rough XP equivalent), because I thought the slightly swingier high level elite would produce a more interesting range of outcomes across a wider range of possible PC party size.

<snip>

As it turns out, the whole party encountered the bear. I didn't want to do any re-statting on the fly, so stuck with the level 13 elite. They players decided that their PCs would try to tame and befriend the bear instead of fighting it. To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned, I decided to run this as a level 13 complexity 2 skill challenge (6 successes before 3 failures).
in a "fiction-first" system, the players could attempt to avoid a combat because that offered their best chance of success. If you design the challenge of avoiding said combat "To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned", then you undo the value of that choice.
I strongly disagree. Wide variance in difficulty or rewards based on player strategy doesn't preserve the value and meaning of player choice, it destroys that value - essentially, you create a single correct choice.

<snip>

if a diplomatic approach is just as hard as a fight, whether or not the PCs have good CHA, skill trainings, etc means something. The fact that the characters chose a non violent means of resolving the problem even if it wasn't any easier tells us something about their values. If talking is easy, then PCs can get through without strong social skills, and all that their choice tells us about the characters is that they're expedient.

When one choice is obviously superior, going for it is a pretty trivial decision.
I agree with Victim. The less there difference to prospects of success the choice of tactics/approach makes, the more it expresses the values of the players (either outright, or in character as their PCs). Conversely, the more that the prospects of success are responsive to choices of tactics/approach, the more that those choices reflect the means/end rationality (ie the expedience) of the players.

An additional dimension in the latter case is whether the GM has set it up on purpose, or not. If the GM has done so, then the players making the "right" choice also shows their ability to respond to and follow GM cues.

And a final thought, that links this part of my post with the previous (about mechanics): if the players have reasonably deep pools of resources, then you can combine the two approaches. That is, players can express their values by choosing to expend resources to make their preferred approach viable. For instance, in this session, the player of the fighter PC spent resources to succeed on an Intimidate check and thereby confirm, in his first interaction with a Primoridal and its followers (Yan-C-Bin and some djinni), his status as the divine jailer of those elemental creatures who oppose the gods and thereby threaten the world.

And in the same session the players spent resources to persuade Maruts - who were present to observe the beginning of the end times - that they had got the date wrong, and the end times weren't yet coming. This wasn't necessarily easier than fighting the Maruts (the PCs are quite good fighters, and their diplomacy efforts meant that one of their number had to spend a couple of turn solo-ing the Tarrasque), but it was important to the PCs (and hence to their players) to establish it as true that the end times have not yet come.

TL;DR: My approach to establishing an immersive game is to ensure that the mechanics enduce a state in the players that corresponds to their PCs; and to frame the ingame situation so that the players can rationally choose to engage it in a way that expresses their values and desires, rather than purely expediently.

True free form campaing came with the Shadow Dale, Tantras and Waterdeep adventures that were introducing 2nd edition.
Some of use were running true free-form campaigns well before this, eg in my case using Keep on the Borderlands, and the D-series, or making up my own stuff.

Yet for all its good side and innovation, 4ed fell short in players and DM expectations. The classes were too balanced at every level and playing one or the other didn't have any meaning at all. The game almost looked like a table top MMORPG.
I think it's generally wise to avoid false generalisation. 4e didn't fall short in my expectations - it exceeded them. And it didn't look anything like an MMO (I've not played them, but I've seen them played, and heard reports of the play of them, and they don't seem to resemble anything like what I've described from my 4e games in this post).
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
I'm sure you don't mean to be too contentious, because you're one of the most reasonable posters on the boards!

Nevertheless, what I've quoted is contentious. For instance, here is my conception of immersion (not just theoretical, but based on practical experience): the player feels an emotion that, broadly, correponds to the emotion experienced by the PC. So, if the PC is frustrated than so is the player; if the PC is feeling threatened then so is the player; if the PC is exhausted, then so is the player. I find this is more immersive than (say) pretending to be scared when you're not.

I agree with you. I think aligning the players' state as closely as possible with that of the characters is key. That creates immersion, which i think improves the game.

And I find that stats and mechanics are crucial to this. For instance, when my players were preparing (in character) to confront Orcus, they thought he might be tough. When I told them his stats (in response to the invoker/wizard player's successful monster knowledge check), they were genuinely worried.

If showing a monster's stats is what works to achieve the desired result, then I'd say to do it. I don't know if that would work for my group...but I also don't know if Orcus is the best example. He immediately evokes some kind of response in players, most of the time at least.

But what about an unknown entity that is just being introduced? Sure, you could reveal his stats to make the players realize the threat he poses...but I also think that removes the mystery. I find it better to use the narrative element of the game to establish the threat level of an enemy. I want the players to be unsure in this case...so I keep them in the dark.

I think my main point about this is that I try to have enough variety in my encounters, and with my villains, that I don't want my players to ever assume that because it is an ogre they're facing, that it must be the one straight out of the MM and that they therefore know it's abilities.

Ultimately though, I think we agree on the goal...how it is best achieved is something that varies based on the situation, and of course on what works for the specific group in question.

Or, to give an example of frustration: in my 4e game the polearm fighter and archer ranger were affected by a chained cambion's Mind Shackles attack. Here is the flavour text of the chained cambion, and the mechanic of that ability (from the 4e MM3):

A chained cambion's reigning emotion is hate. It hates its life, its captors, and its enemies who roam free. A chained cambion screams its despair within the minds of nearby foes.

Mind Shackles (psychic) Recharge when first bloodied
Effect: Two enemies adjacent to each other in a close burst 5 are psychically shackled (save ends; each enemy makes a separate saving throw against this effect). While psychically shackled, an enemy takes 10 psychic damage at the start and the end of its turn if it isn't adjacent to the other creature that was affected by this power.
Aftereffect: The effect persists, and the damage decreases to 5 (save ends).​

The archer and fighter had to stay adjacent or take damage. Which caused frustration (and required some clever acrobatics at some points, due to the terrain of the room). When one saved but the other didn't, and so insisted on staying adjacent, this caused the frustration to turn into resentment. The players really were experiencing the despair and hate screamed into their PCs' minds by the chained cambion. (This monster is one of my favourite ever bits of RPG mechanical design.)

As far as exhaustion is concerned, this should be the result of active player resources (not hit points, but things like Action Surge) - so the player gets to choose when to try (just like the PC doing his/her utmost), and then when the resources are all gone but the challenge is still there, the player (like the PC) experiences the feeling of having nothing left.

(In 5e, getting Inspiration should also be a part of this cycle - being able to go on.)

I prefer these sorts of choices to be made by the players rather than the GM.

Well this mind shackles effect is a mechanical effect that the characters are experiencing, so I would not have a problem sharing the mechanical info. I seee this as quite different than sharing monster stats.

As for player choice, I don't want to take it away or have it be meaningless. Indeed, quite the opposite. When I put them in a situation where fighting will surely lead to their doom, I do my very best to make that clear to them. I provide at least two other options (at the very most basic, there is always "talk" or "run" at least) for them to choose in lieu of combat.

I have just found that because my games do tend to be combat heavy, the players sometimes just become conditioned to treat fighting as their first option. The knowledge that this is a game has seeped in, and this encounter is just another challenge to be defeated. So I put situations where they cannot win in a fight and have to deal with it another way. If they still choose to fight, then There are consequences of that choice...but I don't simply TPK them and move on.

TL;DR: My approach to establishing an immersive game is to ensure that the mechanics enduce a state in the players that corresponds to their PCs; and to frame the ingame situation so that the players can rationally choose to engage it in a way that expresses their values and desires, rather than purely expediently.

Perhaps I should have made a distinction between game mechanics and stat blocks? I do think that the mechanics of the game should be considered. However, I feel like such mechanics should be applicable to the situation. Or should in some way be observable to the characters in order to justify the players' knowing of it. Like if the characters witness an orc sentry spot a fox from 100 yards away and nail it with an arrow, then my players can assume that he has a high perception score. That kind of thing. But it doesn't mean that I say "here's the orc sentey's stat block for your perusal."
 

Darkness

Hand and Eye of Piratecat [Moderator]
playing one or the other didn't have any meaning at all. The game almost looked like a table top MMORPG.
Unflattering comparisons between a D&D edition and a video game (genre) are a step on the path to the dark side... of edition warring. So let's not go there, please.

If you have any questions, PM me.

--Darkness,
EN World moderator
 

Some of use were running true free-form campaigns well before this, eg in my case using Keep on the Borderlands, and the D-series, or making up my own stuff.

In case you missed it, I was refering to published material. Of course hundreds (if not thousands) of DMs were running free-form campaing well before that (including myself) but published material was not using the free-form campaing style. This was previously only encouraged in the guidelines in the DMG on how to run a campaing.

The most free-form you could find previous to that was between two dungeons. How to get there and some wilderness encounter tables. It was not encouraged to create side treks nor were the said side trek included in the adventures. Go to the dungeon, kill, come back, rinse, repeat. A few dungeons did have some wilderness set encounters but it was not frequent enough to be compared to what the Shadow Dale trilogy proposed.

Edit: I should even add, that prior to second edition, most published adventures in 1ed were part of tournaments. It slowly changed with adventures like the "I", "U" and "DL" series. But even these could be used in tournament (save U2...)
 
Last edited:

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition Starter Box

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top