D&D 5E Resource-Draining Model D&D Doesn't Work (for me)

[Retreater]

One of the key mechanics of D&D over the years has been the idea of resource-draining encounters. You burn torches, you fire arrows, you lose hit points to swarms of mooks, you cast spells from encounter-to-encounter, you scrape by with just enough strength left in you to fight the Big Bad at the end of the dungeon. Or you camp in a "safe area," hoping your characters can recover their resources without random encounters that further drag out the game and spend more resources.

Herein is the problem (for me). My group gets together twice a month, if we're lucky. We get about 3 hours of "quality" time each session (after taking out breaks, snacks, general socializing, etc.) Knowing that the majority of our time is going to be spent with "another ho-hum goblin encounter that will only challenge us by spending a 1st level spell and a few arrows" or a trap that might do 1-6 hp of damage, it just doesn't seem a good way to spend time.

Any one else experiencing this? Any work-arounds?

 

[Bitbrain]

Well, the group I DM for meets once a month for about four hours.

I try to limit the combat encounters to 2 or 3 fights, with a short rest between each.
then at the next session, everyone restarts at full, as though they had had a long rest.

EDIT
Also, each combat is of Hard or Deadly difficulty, which tends to make even the most reluctant spellcaster start casting spells like there is no tomorrow.

 

[happyhermit]

Goblin encounters don't have to be ho-hum, whether they are short or long, much of this depends on the people playing/world etc.

More to the point though, how long does it take your group to run a "trivial" combat? 5/10/30 minutes? I think that can be a big factor.

 

[Xeviat]

Any one else experiencing this? Any work-arounds?

I feel like this is part of the feel of D&D. The only work around is to make the encounters you do have on the harder side and shoot for 3 encounters a day with short rests in between.

4th Edition really helped avoid this, but it changed so much that I had a hard time getting enough players.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I've definitely had game sessions where, between RP and debating plans, there really wasn't time for more than one encounter. It would be nice if there was a resource to estimate encounter difficulty for a 1-2 encounter day, in addition to the 6-8 model. It wouldn't be as balanced between the short and long rest classes, but it would be nice to have for those days.

 

[Hriston]

The Adventuring Day XP table would suggest three deadly encounters per day.

 

[5ekyu]

One of the key mechanics of D&D over the years has been the idea of resource-draining encounters. You burn torches, you fire arrows, you lose hit points to swarms of mooks, you cast spells from encounter-to-encounter, you scrape by with just enough strength left in you to fight the Big Bad at the end of the dungeon. Or you camp in a "safe area," hoping your characters can recover their resources without random encounters that further drag out the game and spend more resources.

Herein is the problem (for me). My group gets together twice a month, if we're lucky. We get about 3 hours of "quality" time each session (after taking out breaks, snacks, general socializing, etc.) Knowing that the majority of our time is going to be spent with "another ho-hum goblin encounter that will only challenge us by spending a 1st level spell and a few arrows" or a trap that might do 1-6 hp of damage, it just doesn't seem a good way to spend time.

Any one else experiencing this? Any work-arounds?

Every statem is designed with a set of assumptions about the experience in play. 5e gives GMs that as a sort of heads up, not as a requirement. Many systems dont tell you, let you guess.

In my experience, few tables tend to execute those expectations - regardless of dystems.

If my gsme were limited sessions I would skip any worry about resource drain, definitely **never** have a "just goblin drain" encounter - any of those would contain more meaning and tie-ins.

I would then raise the threat on key encounters and especially focus on dramatic raises of threat and tension through "waves" or what 5e calls "extended encounters."

I would also tend to focus on non-resource related "solutions" elements too, right alongside the others.

I think a frequent problem among dome GMs is their reading the 5e under the hood stuff about how resources and 6-8 encounter etc as either requirements or actual expectations of play for their table, instead of them being just an example of the assumptions used so the GM can adjust.

 

[Retreater]

Goblin encounters don't have to be ho-hum, whether they are short or long, much of this depends on the people playing/world etc.

More to the point though, how long does it take your group to run a "trivial" combat? 5/10/30 minutes? I think that can be a big factor.

Closer to the 20-30 minute mark. Between drawing a map, ordering initiative, determining battle positions, etc, even "trivial" combats take too long when the only consequence is a few minor resources spent. But the game isn't set up for "edge of your seat, tax the party to the max" combats.

 

[Retreater]

I feel like this is part of the feel of D&D. The only work around is to make the encounters you do have on the harder side and shoot for 3 encounters a day with short rests in between.

4th Edition really helped avoid this, but it changed so much that I had a hard time getting enough players.

I've been running a bit of 4e in recent years. Unfortunately the problem seems even worse with 1.5 hour trivial encounters.

 

[CubicsRube]

Closer to the 20-30 minute mark. Between drawing a map, ordering initiative, determining battle positions, etc, even "trivial" combats take too long when the only consequence is a few minor resources spent. But the game isn't set up for "edge of your seat, tax the party to the max" combats.

I'd strongly encourage theatre of the mind for trivial combats and using maps only for big set encounters. Run the trivial ones more cinematically and describe their actions more. Runs much faster, and when you do pull out the map it creates variety in the players minds and they know that shizz is going down.

I'd also just scrap initiative for these enoers and just use side initiative, but your players might not like that.