Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 4955733" data-attributes="member: 66434">It may be a big playstyle difference but in regular ongoing campaign play I don't have any encounters planned to the point of worrying about them not happening. If the players avoid a big encounter then they may miss out on some good rewards and thier avoidance might have consequences in the campaign but the world keeps turning (at least until the big encounters involve literally saving the world <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />)   It is one viable option certainly but a steady campaign of nothing but encounters that are readily handled may give the players a feeling of invincibility which make them less likely to think of solutions to a problem that don't involve just hacking through it. Adding a bit of realism to the gameworld is merely a bonus. The real benefit to the campaign is having players who will at least think before attacking. If the PC's never encounter anything to give them a reason for doubt then the DM can only blame him/her self for the table full of murderous hack & slashers who solve every obstacle with an axe.    I have run games for just a bit under 30 years and many of them ran just fine with save or die effects. My new 4E campaign seems to be running just fine without them so far. I don't see the connection between these effects and a very diverse spread of encounter power levels.</blockquote>

Verification