I love my Christmas presents! Let's see, how about start reading the brand new 5E DMG - I heard that they tried to harken back to the good ol' days!

flip, flip, flip.......

Random Encounter Challenge
Random encounters need not be level-appropriate for the adventurers,

Ok, with you so far...

but it's considered bad form to slaughter a party using a random encounter

Huh, but isn't that the fun or random encounters....?!

since most players consider this ending to be an unsatisfying one.

Sigh. Sorry, I really wanted to get behind this edition, but mixing "bad form", "slaughter", and "unsatisfactory" in the same sentence makes me realize that I drank too much of the Kool-Aid.

Honestly, I'm not into random encounter TPK. I prefer not to have TPKs happen at all.

I mean, they happen, sometimes because I misjudged things, sometimes because my players misjudged things, and sometimes because the dice just fall that way, but suggesting against intentionally putting them in a TPK situation isn't the horrible advice you make it out to be.

5e, at low level especially, can be pretty deadly as it is.

But yeah, let's nitpick about how 5e D&D isn't manly enough again by picking 1 or 2 sentences out and declaring it crap. Honestly, it just sounds like you are looking for shit to bitch about.

Actually flipped through this at my local Hastings today. It looks really good. There is definitely a nod to the old school with lots of random charts for stuff... and the first fifty pages or so, are all about creating your own homebrew campaign world.

WOTC gets a +1 for going in the right direction. Still took them ten years to produce after I told them what would sell.

I love random loot charts. You have no idea how oddly happy the random loot charts make me. As a DM, I don't even roll them ahead of time, I love rolling them at the table and being just as surprised as the players by what they find. (For sentient creatures though, I sometimes have to roll ahead of time, otherwise it is weird that they had a +1 sword and weren't using it).

Quote from: Emperor Norton;806139Honestly, I'm not into random encounter TPK. I prefer not to have TPKs happen at all.
...

Part of the problem is that many of the current generation of D&D players will not necessarily run away if they start getting their asses kicked.

Because for many years with organized play, many D&D PC's have gone into every "encounter" with the assumption that they will win.

Previous editions with their emphasis on "balanced encounters" have literally trained players into believing that they can win every fight.

Remember, there are no XP awards in the rules for running away...


The passages from the new DMG Tyndale quoted say it all:

Quote from: Tyndale;806136but it's considered bad form to slaughter a party using a random encounter...

since most players consider this ending to be and unsatisfying one.
...
...

They have the unwritten assumption that the players will not run away if over-matched !!! and will all fight to the death for a TPK!!?

WTF!





Naturally every GM on this board and their players are special snowflakes. And may exempt themselves from this broad criticism.

Let's try to prevent this from being the PvP thread all over again.

Fine, the OP went a little over the top with "gaming dmg" (damage I assume), but he has a valid point.

Quote from: 5e DMGRandom Encounter Challenge
Random encounters need not be level-appropriate for the adventurers, but it's considered bad form to slaughter a party using a random encounter since most players consider this ending to be and unsatisfying one.

Now, does the DMG add in there "but, some players enjoy the thrill and excitement of traveling in a dangerous area and are willing to risk the consequences, so TPKs as a result of a random encounter need not be actively avoided in all cases?"

No. It does not.  It reinforces the modern gaming paradigm of "it's the character's story", "characters should live", "players should succeed", etc.

Following the 5e DMG advice leads to campaigns where at 3rd level the PCs want to cross the Dragon Peaks by navigating Giant Pass...because the GM won't let the world kill them if they do.  

Which is fine, because that's obviously a popular way to play these days, but...it's NOT the only way to play and the DMG makes it sound like it is.

Does this make the DMG a bad product? No.
Does this make 5e a bad system? No.
Does it reinforce the CR paradigm present in all WotC version of D&D? Yes.

The DMG isn't outright banning TPK's due to powerful random encounters, but it is saying your player's will be unsatisfied with your bad form as a GM. A healthy does of Kool-Aid, indeed.

 Following this advice then, when the players can't run into the natural inhabitants of Dragon Peak or Giant Pass (or as the DMG does say, they "should" get a chance to see the dragons first and hide from them, or the Giants might not be aggressive) because to do so would lead to "Level Inappropriate Encounters that may lead to unsatisfying slaughter and bad form".  What are the GM's options?
1. Let the players do what they demand to do, nerfing the world and upsetting it's consistency in the bargain.
2. Outright tell the players they can't do that, or arrange it behind the curtain so they get sidetracked and never manage to make it there.

So we're back to OOC behavioral managing or some form of managed experience (don't want to use the R word).

What we don't have (and feel free to point me to the page if we do) is the DMG telling the GM what many consider to be a key element of the roleplaying experience, "Let the characters be free to choose their actions and let the world be free to reply with a consistent and logical response."

If this were any other game but 5e (let's say an Xworld game or WW game), honestly ask yourself, would people on this site think this point, in particular, was good gaming advice?  A few would sure, but not that many.

(Don't even get me started on the Playstyle section where immersion into a deep, character and skill focused political campaign is called "Immersive Storytelling", we're at GS now I guess. ;p)

and for the Rule Zero crowd...Call me crazy, but a book with GMing advice should be capable of being criticized on the nature and worth of that advice, whether experienced GMs use it or not.

for the TL;DR crowd...The point isn't "God I love a TPK due to random encounters in the morning!" It's that the industry leader shouldn't be telling GMs a realistic world environment is "bad form".

Quote from: Emperor Norton;806139Honestly, it just sounds like you are looking for shit to bitch about.

Sorry if it came across that way.  But, point taken. Yes, I can be oppositional.  And yes, I was being bitchy at one sentence, but it still doesn't refute the point.  Sure I could just could ignore that sentence and keep reading (which I will for the record), but I was nonetheless disappointed.  I care about my players.  Greatly.  But qualifying "satisfaction" in terms of some method of "balance" gets (my personal) knickers in a notch and is contrary to our group's preferred play/risk style.  I certainly don't want to stack things against them, but at the same time I want a risk of imminent death around the corner.  Don't take that away from me for some false sense of "dissatisfaction".  Satisfaction is when one runs from scary shit as much as when you thump on equal or lesser foes. Please.

Granted, I could be nitpicking here (and for the record, am).  But couldn't they have said something to the effect of "please be cautious with random encounters.  It would be wise to balance your groups playing style with your preferred playing style.  Some groups like the risk of encountering adult red dragon at first level and some don't.  Proceed with caution."

Quote from: Jaeger;806144Part of the problem is that many of the current generation of D&D players will not necessarily run away if they start getting their asses kicked.

It's not just this particular RPG, though, it's in every medium: Heroes Don't Run Away, They Power Through.

The dominant teenage entertainment medium these days is probably videogames, few of which even let the player retreat (Without going back to a quicksave, natch) but also rarely put the player out of their depth. The few games that actually require retreating and planning - eg, Dark Souls - are lauded by some groups for their difficulty, but many players tend to bounce off them or whine when they get killed by a trash mob or a clear environmental trap.

Quote from: CRKrueger;806147Fine, the OP went a little over the top with "gaming dmg" (damage I assume), but he has a valid point.

Yes, I was over the top. I will grant that.

Let's try to prevent this from being the PvP thread all over again.

Fine, the OP went a little over the top with "gaming dmg" (damage I assume), but he has a valid point.

Quote from: 5e DMGRandom Encounter Challenge
Random encounters need not be level-appropriate for the adventurers, but it's considered bad form to slaughter a party using a random encounter since most players consider this ending to be and unsatisfying one.

Now, does the DMG add in there "but, some players enjoy the thrill and excitement of traveling in a dangerous area and are willing to risk the consequences, so TPKs as a result of a random encounter need not be actively avoided in all cases?"

No. It does not.  It reinforces the modern gaming paradigm of "it's the character's story", "characters should live", "players should succeed", etc.

Following the 5e DMG advice leads to campaigns where at 3rd level the PCs want to cross the Dragon Peaks by navigating Giant Pass...because the GM won't let the world kill them if they do.  

Which is fine, because that's obviously a popular way to play these days, but...it's NOT the only way to play and the DMG makes it sound like it is.

Does this make the DMG a bad product? No.
Does this make 5e a bad system? No.
Does it reinforce the CR paradigm present in all WotC version of D&D? Yes.

The DMG isn't outright banning TPK's due to powerful random encounters, but it is saying your player's will be unsatisfied with your bad form as a GM. A healthy does of Kool-Aid, indeed.

 Following this advice then, when the players can't run into the natural inhabitants of Dragon Peak or Giant Pass (or as the DMG does say, they "should" get a chance to see the dragons first and hide from them, or the Giants might not be aggressive) because to do so would lead to "Level Inappropriate Encounters that may lead to unsatisfying slaughter and bad form".  What are the GM's options?
1. Let the players do what they demand to do, nerfing the world and upsetting it's consistency in the bargain.
2. Outright tell the players they can't do that, or arrange it behind the curtain so they get sidetracked and never manage to make it there.

So we're back to OOC behavioral managing or some form of managed experience (don't want to use the R word).

What we don't have (and feel free to point me to the page if we do) is the DMG telling the GM what many consider to be a key element of the roleplaying experience, "Let the characters be free to choose their actions and let the world be free to reply with a consistent and logical response."

If this were any other game but 5e (let's say an Xworld game or WW game), honestly ask yourself, would people on this site think this point, in particular, was good gaming advice?  A few would sure, but not that many.

(Don't even get me started on the Playstyle section where immersion into a deep, character and skill focused political campaign is called "Immersive Storytelling", we're at GS now I guess. ;p)

and for the Rule Zero crowd...Call me crazy, but a book with GMing advice should be capable of being criticized on the nature and worth of that advice, whether experienced GMs use it or not.

for the TL;DR crowd...The point isn't "God I love a TPK due to random encounters in the morning!" It's that the industry leader shouldn't be telling GMs a realistic world environment is "bad form".

I would also say that in 5e you have to be a bit more careful about overpowering the players, because, once again, especially at low level, higher level monsters won't just kill you, they will kill you in ONE SHOT.

The only chance they would even HAVE to run is by spotting ahead of time, and being aware of the relative power level of the enemy before engaging it to know to avoid it. An ambush by a CR3-4 enemy in 5e against a level 1 party is almost assured to have several deaths before they can even escape.

Hell, a CR2 Cave Bear could potentially KO two level 1 characters on the first turn of combat, and has a higher movement rate than the party more than likely.

Basically, the real advice should be, if you are going to include significantly level different opponents in your random encounters, if you don't A. let your characters detect them from a distance, and B. clue in characers with the appropriate knowledge style skills to the danger level of the enemy, you are going to quickly turning the game into a blender of death that relies almost entirely on luck.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;806168Basically, the real advice should be, if you are going to include significantly level different opponents in your random encounters, if you don't A. let your characters detect them from a distance, and B. clue in characers with the appropriate knowledge style skills to the danger level of the enemy, you are going to quickly turning the game into a blender of death that relies almost entirely on luck.

You kind of have a point, but eh, you're missing something.  If I decide to go into areas where wild Lions, Tigers, Leopards, and Jaguars live, there's a chance I might be attacked and not even see it coming.  How do I prevent this?  By not going there - or making sure I take special precautions, firearms, and friends.

Some creatures you're not gonna see coming, or you'll have to make tests to see if you do.  Now the GM warns the players not at the time of encounter, so they always get one last chance to get away, but by warning them ahead of time what the world is like, so they can make free informed choices with the understanding that they accept the possible resultant consequences of those choices.

Far too much is made these days of Player Agency when the concern should be Character Agency.

Quote from: CRKrueger;806184If I decide to go into areas where wild Lions, Tigers, Leopards, and Jaguars live, there's a chance I might be attacked and not even see it coming.  How do I prevent this?  By not going there - or making sure I take special precautions, firearms, and friends.

It seems like a macroscopic version of the 'kick in the door syndrome'. I'm usually the Player who wants to make up a plan, put any odds of combat in our favor... then there are the Players who just want to burst in guns blazin'... usually because they know the GM will pull punches and let them get away with it and it's 'cool'.
Real life caravans and expeditions spent loads of time preparing and researching an area best they could so they didn't blunder in unprepared. A bit of that in-game adds to the suspense... more fun to hear foreboding tales about the Temple of Whatsit... rumours of its dangers... vs. just stumbling upon it while out 'adventuring'.

With the OP on maybe drinking the kool aid, then coming around to what the system actually is.  Characters are tough in 5E. They get death saves, for one thing, which is already a safety net. Granted , at lower levels you can get smeared into a little, pulpy dirt streak, even with that, but honestly, fat chance of that when you live in CR world. No wonder you hear some players bitching about a lack of challenge--the system isn't even set up, by default, to scare them.

Quote from: Tyndale;806136Sigh. Sorry, I really wanted to get behind this edition, but mixing "bad form", "slaughter", and "unsatisfactory" in the same sentence makes me realize that I drank too much of the Kool-Aid.

In the 1st edition DMG, Gygax required the DM to adjust the difficulty of random encounters to match the expected difficulty level of the dungeon.

In Master of the Game he also writes that the "superior role-playing game offers players continuity of play through ... avoidance of 'fatality' through some form of 'luck' or magic" (pg. 57) in order to sustain campaigns that would otherwise end due to PC death.

I think the point where people are complaining that 5E isn't hardcore enough because it's not insisting that DMs be even more lethal than Gary Gygax was the point where a demand for ideological purity has replaced common sense.