I can assure you that this mindset never existed in the 70's, 80's or 90's as there was no such thing as encounter balancing or the idea of level balance.
There was no formal encounter balancing system before 3e, but that didn't mean balancing didn't happen -- you still had modules giving a suggested level range and number of players -- it was just done in an ad hoc manner. Which, tbh, is the way a fair number of 5e modules work as well (for example, CoS has two encounters that I know of that exceed the entire daily budget for a party of 5 at the level suggested for the area they're in).
Just to say, that thought process is a valid way to play the game and isn't bad. If anything's at fault, it's that the Session Zero either didn't happen or didn't establish the type of game well enough for the players to understand.
I'd say that given the obvious experience levels of the people giving opinions, session zero is assumed. However, even having run both session zeros, and refresher session zero talks after breaks...my experience has been that it sometimes doesn't sink into player mindsets. While I don't think you're wrong, I also think that players don't maximise their game experiences this way. It's a bit like Skyrim. Let's be honest, the default position is a stealth archer, however the game has MASSIVE amounts more that a player can get out of the game if they don't player as a stealth archer.
Session zero can cover a lot of bases, but I do disagree that a lack of session zero is at fault given that session zero doesn't always have the impact I get the impression you think it does. If anything, this is why I do a refresher after five sessions. I've found that five sessions with a newer player to me is often about the point I have been able to make a fair and balanced assessment of playstyle incompatibilities. It's also the best point I've found to do mop-ups and remind players that there are other options. It doesn't always have the effect.
Just to say, that thought process is a valid way to play the game and isn't bad. If anything's at fault, it's that the Session Zero either didn't happen or didn't establish the type of game well enough for the players to understand.
I'd say that given the obvious experience levels of the people giving opinions, session zero is assumed. However, even having run both session zeros, and refresher session zero talks after breaks...my experience has been that it sometimes doesn't sink into player mindsets. While I don't think you're wrong, I also think that players don't maximise their game experiences this way. It's a bit like Skyrim. Let's be honest, the default position is a stealth archer, however the game has MASSIVE amounts more that a player can get out of the game if they don't player as a stealth archer.
Session zero can cover a lot of bases, but I do disagree that a lack of session zero is at fault given that session zero doesn't always have the impact I get the impression you think it does. If anything, this is why I do a refresher after five sessions. I've found that five sessions with a newer player to me is often about the point I have been able to make a fair and balanced assessment of playstyle incompatibilities. It's also the best point I've found to do mop-ups and remind players that there are other options. It doesn't always have the effect.
I think we're still in agreement here. Whether it's a Session Zero or a follow-up afterwards, a group should make sure people are on the same page in terms of how they're playing the game. My main point honestly was just that a lot of comments here were painting the player in a bad light, when all they did wrong (I assume) was have different expectations.
EDIT: Rereading OPs post, the player in question was probably being a bit of an ass when they could've been more polite in expressing concern, so maybe my point was less important than I originally thought.
I'm personally not a fan of leaving "unwinnable" encounters in my games, but that's just my playstyle. If I were in a similar situation, I would have narrated that this was an overwhelmingly large force and that battling head-on would be a death sentence.
This is the key, in the narration from the DM. If as a player, the narration of the encounter sounds like something where the players are "supposed to fight", then that absolutely should be a winnable fight. The original poster's description sounds like it was narrated clearly as an unwinnable battle, but maybe that somehow didn't translate to the player.
I think part of the OP was that one person in the party thought every encounter that the party come across should be a winnable combat. That belief made them charge into bad situations or to aggravate NPCs that could harm the party.
To me that sounds like every encounter comes across as winnable because every encounter is described as such. Not saying all the fault is on the DM, but a clearly unwinnable or ghighly difficult encounter should be described as such if it would be clear to a group of competent, knowledgeable adventurers. Such forces also tend to have reputations that precede them.
Don't put it all on "players these days." If you describe every encounter the same way, is it really unreasonable that players assume every encounter winnable? This attitude that players should know to run because they missed their first swing even though you haven't given them clear information - you are the ONLY source of information they have - just comes off as a refusal to consider that some of the blame may fall on the DM.
When you have a misalignment of expectations, killing the party to "teach" them what their expectations should have been and/or complaining that it is all the party's fault is not the most productive way to handle the situation. You can realign expectations at any time - not just at session zero. And most of the time you can do it in game, generally under the guise of "your characters are too smart to make that mistake." Just talk to your players. You are not their enemy, you just control their enemies.
There was no formal encounter balancing system before 3e, but that didn't mean balancing didn't happen -- you still had modules giving a suggested level range and number of players -- it was just done in an ad hoc manner. Which, tbh, is the way a fair number of 5e modules work as well (for example, CoS has two encounters that I know of that exceed the entire daily budget for a party of 5 at the level suggested for the area they're in).
I'd say that given the obvious experience levels of the people giving opinions, session zero is assumed. However, even having run both session zeros, and refresher session zero talks after breaks...my experience has been that it sometimes doesn't sink into player mindsets. While I don't think you're wrong, I also think that players don't maximise their game experiences this way. It's a bit like Skyrim. Let's be honest, the default position is a stealth archer, however the game has MASSIVE amounts more that a player can get out of the game if they don't player as a stealth archer.
Session zero can cover a lot of bases, but I do disagree that a lack of session zero is at fault given that session zero doesn't always have the impact I get the impression you think it does. If anything, this is why I do a refresher after five sessions. I've found that five sessions with a newer player to me is often about the point I have been able to make a fair and balanced assessment of playstyle incompatibilities. It's also the best point I've found to do mop-ups and remind players that there are other options. It doesn't always have the effect.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I think we're still in agreement here. Whether it's a Session Zero or a follow-up afterwards, a group should make sure people are on the same page in terms of how they're playing the game. My main point honestly was just that a lot of comments here were painting the player in a bad light, when all they did wrong (I assume) was have different expectations.
EDIT: Rereading OPs post, the player in question was probably being a bit of an ass when they could've been more polite in expressing concern, so maybe my point was less important than I originally thought.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
To me that sounds like every encounter comes across as winnable because every encounter is described as such. Not saying all the fault is on the DM, but a clearly unwinnable or ghighly difficult encounter should be described as such if it would be clear to a group of competent, knowledgeable adventurers. Such forces also tend to have reputations that precede them.
Don't put it all on "players these days." If you describe every encounter the same way, is it really unreasonable that players assume every encounter winnable? This attitude that players should know to run because they missed their first swing even though you haven't given them clear information - you are the ONLY source of information they have - just comes off as a refusal to consider that some of the blame may fall on the DM.
When you have a misalignment of expectations, killing the party to "teach" them what their expectations should have been and/or complaining that it is all the party's fault is not the most productive way to handle the situation. You can realign expectations at any time - not just at session zero. And most of the time you can do it in game, generally under the guise of "your characters are too smart to make that mistake." Just talk to your players. You are not their enemy, you just control their enemies.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm