There is also a flip side to this, DMs that let their players rest too often.
If your players are using up all their resources on the first battle or two, don’t let them rest. You don’t have to destroy them, but give them one more battle when they’re low on resources.
Next time they’ll hopefully use their resources better. If not… Do it again.
As a DM if you’ve miscalculated, double that monsters HP. Or if you’re about to overrun them, cut it in half.
A common “solution” I see is throwing one really really big monster at the players. This can work, but has the downside of killing players in nearly one hit, which isn’t satisfying.
I don’t agree that the blame here rests on GMs “letting their players rest”. It’s a more fundamental issue with campaign styles not meshing with the way the system is designed. (Or more to the point: the system not being designed to be optimal for the style of campaign that the majority of the audience wants to play.) “Don’t let them rest…give them one more battle” is not advice that works well very often in a strongly narratively-driven game where GMs generally avoid excessive random encounters.
There is also a flip side to this, DMs that let their players rest too often.
I used to play in a group where we rotated who was DM’ing every couple weeks. Two of the DMs were very generous with their rests. I didn’t really like it, because that doesn’t feel like D&D to me. Also as a short rest class (Warlock), it’s irritating that I get my two whole spells, maybe four if we short rest, but the wizard blows his load on two fights instead of the recommended 5.
When it was my turn, and I threw them in a longer dungeon without easy resting options, there was weeping.
As a DM if you’ve miscalculated, double that monsters HP. Or if you’re about to overrun them, cut it in half.
I know people do this, but I kind of don’t like it. I don’t really like the HP and other stats shifting around based on gut feel. Feels like we should just write a book if we’re going to fudge it.
I prefer systems with more transparency, anyway. D&D is wacky about “how much HP does this knight have? Could be 20. Could be 200.” When I was playing a nWoD game, it was nice to know that any human is probably going to have about 7 health levels.
That is EXACTLY me. Two generous DMs, and me who caused weeping.
I knew it was a change so it wasn’t gauntlet after gauntlet, it was a slow introduction. As a DM you get better at planning and as players they get better at planning.
In terms of shifting HP, sometimes it’s 4 guards, sometimes it’s 8. Having more token on the floor can be harder to manage, but more HP is easier to manage. And if course HP can be anything. More armor. Resistance to elements, etc. HP is just the more hidden stat.
As a DM if you’ve miscalculated, double that monsters HP. Or if you’re about to overrun them, cut it in half.
I don’t really care for this advice. I see it given a lot, but in my opinion it takes agency away from the players and gives the GM even more power than usual to direct the narrative.
If you’re doing it all the time, then yes it’s a problem and the DM should plan encounters better. However if you see a battle going wrong it’s a quick and easy fix.
If the players attack the castle, and you’ve said the guards are strong, but they’re about to go down in one hit, beef them up.
Especially, as it relates to the article, if you find players using all their resources and trivializing everything.
If the players are using their resources to smash through strong guards, and the GM covertly buffs them to counteract that fact, then that is precisely the point I am making about it undermining the players’ agency. The players decided to burn those abilities on those guards. Let them trivialize them. That’s why they used the resources. That was their decision.
The GM robs them of that agency by changing it behind the scenes, without telling them, and becomes the sole arbiter for how an encounter is “supposed” to play out.
No, my point is that I said “strong guards” but in fact they were not (until buffed).
The point of the linked article is that players are finding too many encounters trivial because they have too many long rests. If the DM isn’t providing the right level of encounters, doubling HP is an easy quick fix.
Obviously it’s a balance. If you always double HP, improve your planning. Don’t always take away or invalidate a players decision.
Doubling HP is not an easy fix; it’s a lazy cheat. That’s my point.
If you’re truly disappointed as a GM at how weak your strong guards were, say that to your players. “Wow, I messed that one up. Can you all please give me five minutes while I reevaluate the next encounter?”
There is also a flip side to this, DMs that let their players rest too often.
If your players are using up all their resources on the first battle or two, don’t let them rest. You don’t have to destroy them, but give them one more battle when they’re low on resources.
Next time they’ll hopefully use their resources better. If not… Do it again.
As a DM if you’ve miscalculated, double that monsters HP. Or if you’re about to overrun them, cut it in half.
A common “solution” I see is throwing one really really big monster at the players. This can work, but has the downside of killing players in nearly one hit, which isn’t satisfying.
I don’t agree that the blame here rests on GMs “letting their players rest”. It’s a more fundamental issue with campaign styles not meshing with the way the system is designed. (Or more to the point: the system not being designed to be optimal for the style of campaign that the majority of the audience wants to play.) “Don’t let them rest…give them one more battle” is not advice that works well very often in a strongly narratively-driven game where GMs generally avoid excessive random encounters.
I used to play in a group where we rotated who was DM’ing every couple weeks. Two of the DMs were very generous with their rests. I didn’t really like it, because that doesn’t feel like D&D to me. Also as a short rest class (Warlock), it’s irritating that I get my two whole spells, maybe four if we short rest, but the wizard blows his load on two fights instead of the recommended 5.
When it was my turn, and I threw them in a longer dungeon without easy resting options, there was weeping.
I know people do this, but I kind of don’t like it. I don’t really like the HP and other stats shifting around based on gut feel. Feels like we should just write a book if we’re going to fudge it.
I prefer systems with more transparency, anyway. D&D is wacky about “how much HP does this knight have? Could be 20. Could be 200.” When I was playing a nWoD game, it was nice to know that any human is probably going to have about 7 health levels.
That is EXACTLY me. Two generous DMs, and me who caused weeping.
I knew it was a change so it wasn’t gauntlet after gauntlet, it was a slow introduction. As a DM you get better at planning and as players they get better at planning.
In terms of shifting HP, sometimes it’s 4 guards, sometimes it’s 8. Having more token on the floor can be harder to manage, but more HP is easier to manage. And if course HP can be anything. More armor. Resistance to elements, etc. HP is just the more hidden stat.
I don’t really care for this advice. I see it given a lot, but in my opinion it takes agency away from the players and gives the GM even more power than usual to direct the narrative.
If you’re doing it all the time, then yes it’s a problem and the DM should plan encounters better. However if you see a battle going wrong it’s a quick and easy fix.
If the players attack the castle, and you’ve said the guards are strong, but they’re about to go down in one hit, beef them up.
Especially, as it relates to the article, if you find players using all their resources and trivializing everything.
If the players are using their resources to smash through strong guards, and the GM covertly buffs them to counteract that fact, then that is precisely the point I am making about it undermining the players’ agency. The players decided to burn those abilities on those guards. Let them trivialize them. That’s why they used the resources. That was their decision.
The GM robs them of that agency by changing it behind the scenes, without telling them, and becomes the sole arbiter for how an encounter is “supposed” to play out.
No, my point is that I said “strong guards” but in fact they were not (until buffed).
The point of the linked article is that players are finding too many encounters trivial because they have too many long rests. If the DM isn’t providing the right level of encounters, doubling HP is an easy quick fix.
Obviously it’s a balance. If you always double HP, improve your planning. Don’t always take away or invalidate a players decision.
Doubling HP is not an easy fix; it’s a lazy cheat. That’s my point.
If you’re truly disappointed as a GM at how weak your strong guards were, say that to your players. “Wow, I messed that one up. Can you all please give me five minutes while I reevaluate the next encounter?”