D&D 2E Tips? Haven't DMed D&D since 2E

[Oofta]

I find the myth of 6-8 being "needed" to be mostly not needed. It's there not as a recommendation but as a measuring stick, after all.

My games tend to run a mix, sometimes its 1-2 encounters between long rests, sometimes its 3-5, sometimes it's more. Tends to work fine but gives each time to shine.

The tired vs fresh balancing act is not new for 5e, not unknown for GURPS or HERO or most any RPG where uses per xxx or recovery was a thing.

Different strokes for different folks and all, but I find having a higher number of combats keeps my game more sane especially at mid-to-high level. Before I did that, it felt like he casters would just go nova every combat while the classes that didn't need to worry about resource management as much were left behind. Occasionally I broadcast that they need to pull out the big guns and will only have a couple of fights before the next long rest. I guess I'm just saying that I like having a variety of encounter "days" where sometimes resource management is critical and I want that champion fighter to shine by being slow and steady and other times when the blasters can go wild.

I use the alternate rules (a long rest is several days, usually a week) and get in plenty of RP.

I'd recommend trying both and see which works best for you and your style of play. I rarely do dungeon crawls, and many campaigns span years if not decades so the alternate rule pacing just fits my style better.

 

[Shiroiken]

One thing that might bug you as a DM is that PCs are much more powerful that they used to be, even from an AD&D perspective. Don't worry, however, since monsters are also more powerful, so it balances out. PCs generally hit more often, while monsters generally deal more damage per hit; this is an intentional design decision based on player preferences per the public playtest survey results.

If you want a short 2-3 hour session, you could just run the 1st part of the Starter adventure. I've done that one mini-adventure against the goblins about 4 times to introduce people to 5E, and it works really well. If you decide to continue, you have a full fledged adventure to continue , and if not, it still works out fairly well ending with the PCs delivering the goods to the village.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Careful however:

If you play the goblins to their full ability instead of as desibed in the text, combats are possibly very dangerous.
Also for the boss fight, make sure that you know how surprise works.
A little heads up: there is no such thing as a surprise round. If someone is surprised they still roll initiative as normal. When it is their first turn, their only action they can take is vecoming not surprised anymore.

 

[iserith]

Careful however:

If you play the goblins to their full ability instead of as desibed in the text, combats are possibly very dangerous.

I rewrote the first encounter with the goblins in LMoP to where the PCs are on the hook for any supplies stolen from the wagon and then had the goblins do nothing but try to steal from the wagon and get away. Taking damage off the table for them except when cornered made for a much more dynamic encounter without the possibility of death but still with compelling stakes. Before I ran LMoP I had seen a lot of feedback about parties getting wrecked in that first challenge, so that was my fix.

 

[S'mon]

You could fix the first LMoP encounter just by having only 2 of the goblins having shortbows explaining why two run into melee.

I find game balance is much better with 1 week per long rest - I actually see the 6-8 encounters per LR!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You could fix the first LMoP encounter just by having only 2 of the goblins having shortbows explaining why two run into melee.

I find game balance is much better with 1 week per long rest - I actually see the 6-8 encounters per LR!

You usually don´t need 1 week. Just a whole day of rest is enough. But yes, a slightly longer long rest makes the game work perfektly for me.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I find the myth of 6-8 being "needed" to be mostly not needed. It's there not as a recommendation but as a measuring stick, after all.

My games tend to run a mix, sometimes its 1-2 encounters between long rests, sometimes its 3-5, sometimes it's more. Tends to work fine but gives each time to shine.

The tired vs fresh balancing act is not new for 5e, not unknown for GURPS or HERO or most any RPG where uses per xxx or recovery was a thing.

I strongly agree here. 6-8 combats per long rests are definitely not needed.
But if your party reliably has only 1-2 combats per day I noticed some unbalances (specifically the shield spell felt like an at-will)
I think your game works perfectly because there is a healthy mix of 1-2 encounter days, 3-5 encounter days and 6-8 encounter days, so there is always the threat of the curret encounter not be the last of the day and long rest dependent classes don´t go nova all day and usually try to preserve some resources.
Note that this is one of the things I fondly remember in 2nd edition. Spell resource management was a big thing for spell casting classes. As a player I like that game, because every expendition of any spell feels important.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

You should try to kill at least one PC in the first or second combat encounter, to give your players the proper fear of death.

 

[5ekyu]

If the measuring stick is 6-8 and you measure 1-2 do you feel that it purposely devalues certain classes? Are you creating an inbalance?

What's interesting to me is that it totally depends in the game your players want to play. I DM for two different groups and I have an open table game I have done this on purpose as a tool to improve by experiencing different players.

Players that love RAW, play by the rules will feel it. They will instinctually know they can go Nova every time. It also leads to 5 minute days. Go into a room, fight, long rest.

Players that focus on the story will instinctually hate 6-8 fights. The thing is though they do not care about class balance between themselves. They might enjoy combat but will make suboptimal choices for the sake of their character concept, even during combat.

So if your table leans heavily on either side you are fine. If it's split in the middle then it becomes super challlenging to balance.

Again, in our games, its a mix and often the characters dint know whether its a 1-2 ora 5-6 or more.

I find the uncertainty is as compelling as the actuality.

But the key is, yeah, sometimes they know they have fewer and sometimes they know it will be longer... That lets both shine and struggle at different times.

I cant,imagine trying to have equality but rather equilibrium. Alternative cases to shine.

But thats me.

 

[5ekyu]

I strongly agree here. 6-8 combats per long rests are definitely not needed.
But if your party reliably has only 1-2 combats per day I noticed some unbalances (specifically the shield spell felt like an at-will)
I think your game works perfectly because there is a healthy mix of 1-2 encounter days, 3-5 encounter days and 6-8 encounter days, so there is always the threat of the curret encounter not be the last of the day and long rest dependent classes don´t go nova all day and usually try to preserve some resources.
Note that this is one of the things I fondly remember in 2nd edition. Spell resource management was a big thing for spell casting classes. As a player I like that game, because every expendition of any spell feels important.

Yup... Mixing it up is key and i find frequently the fact of just not knowing can turn as much as actually having 5+.

I remember fondly an arc where they fought the boss in the second encounter without really knowing it. So it started as holding back then it was all panic then it was struggle.

After, they realized they still had to finish the mission and their killing boss changed timetable .

So most of the fight was the "spent" party hitying minions and mini-bosses in a hurry... Plus cutting deals cuz they did not have their heavies at the ready.

It played out fantastic over maybe 4 tactical cases plus a social or so.

Key is to keep mixing it up.