combat light. Just one calorie

[edathompson2]

Has anyone ran a campaign where combat was never really all that threatening?

I mean, all the monsters are all well under what the PCs can handle?

I've been running an Eberron campaign the last 8 months. I let the players know up front that combat would be a whole lot less challenging. I also told them terrain and environmental effects would be lethal. I also told them that XP would be given based upon me having fun as a DM.

I just wanted to see how my players enjoyed it. here's the feedback I've gotten so far.

1. They feel like role-play is easier

2. They feel like super heroes protecting people in combat and it feels really cool.

3. They love the political intrigue of factions trying to win their favor to use them against the other.

4. No arguments over rules. If one starts the others quickly jump on them to let it go (keeping the DM happy for higher XP)

5. They like that combat is more puzzle and choices like. "Do we kill the Silver Flame for attempting to execute a teenage werewolf who doesn't know she's a werewolf? Or beat them unconscious? or attempt diplomacy? Intimidate?

6. Because of how "powerful" the group is, they are known through Khorvaire because of the Korranberg chronicle. They like fame.

[edathompson2]

Anyone else tried something similar?

[FelineArchmage]

Never played anything similar, but it seems like a very relaxed and non-stressful way of playing! I can definitely see the merits in having light encounters.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Eh, I'd rather play an intrigue campaign with very few good combats than an intrigue campaign with moderately few trivial combats. Personal taste though.

XP based on DM mood strikes me as a tad manipulative if I'm being brutally honest. You even said yourself that it's got your players policing each other to keep you happy. I don't think I could help feeling like an ass in that situation.

It sounds like your players are having fun though so, by all means, keep doing what works for you.

[Malimar]

I haven't run anything like this, but I've been playing for a few years with a group whose DMs (we rotate games and DMs) mostly inadvertently do this. We're a group of 6 or 7, and all the DMs except me run from adventure paths without modifying the encounters (which are designed for groups of 4 or 5), so we wind up steamrolling everything. Never being seriously challenged gets old.

If it were a deliberate design goal on the DM's part, that would quite possibly be a different matter.

[NOhara24]

I also told them that XP would be given based upon me having fun as a DM.

4. No arguments over rules. If one starts the others quickly jump on them to let it go (keeping the DM happy for higher XP)

.

I always had the understanding that it was the DM's job to make the game fun for everyone, including himself, because he's the only one with the power to do so. It's a player's job to play, not worry about if the DM is getting upset or not.

I understand wanting to avoid rules-lawyering, but literally not being able to ask about rules or how something works on the off-chance of the DM not liking it & penalizing the whole party is super manipulative. You're the DM. You don't need leverage like that over your players, and they need to respect your authority as DM.

As far as trivial encounters go, D&D without meaningful & challenging combat (actual war, or of the politicking variety) is just story time.

But hey, if your players are liking it, great. You wouldn't find me at your table though.

[Venger]

XP based on DM mood strikes me as a tad manipulative if I'm being brutally honest. You even said yourself that it's got your players policing each other to keep you happy. I don't think I could help feeling like an ass in that situation.

It sounds like your players are having fun though so, by all means, keep doing what works for you.

I agree in a vacuum, this rule is pretty yucky, but it doesn't sound like it's creating any serious problems.

PMedathompson2 it sounds like you and your friends are having fun, but if you're not interested in running combat or tracking xp by raw, is there a reason you're using 3.5 as a system mechanically versus something more freeform?

[edathompson2]

I agree in a vacuum, this rule is pretty yucky, but it doesn't sound like it's creating any serious problems.

PMedathompson2 it sounds like you and your friends are having fun, but if you're not interested in running combat or tracking xp by raw, is there a reason you're using 3.5 as a system mechanically versus something more freeform?

We're still tracking combat by the 3.5 system. I don't use raw for xp. My players complained that they can't role-play if they want to level up.

So it was a simple solution. I generally try to stick to 3 games per level but if the players are absolutely brilliant I'll level them up in one game session. It happened once.

[edathompson2]

I always had the understanding that it was the DM's job to make the game fun for everyone, including himself, because he's the only one with the power to do so. It's a player's job to play, not worry about if the DM is getting upset or not.

I understand wanting to avoid rules-lawyering, but literally not being able to ask about rules or how something works on the off-chance of the DM not liking it & penalizing the whole party is super manipulative. You're the DM. You don't need leverage like that over your players, and they need to respect your authority as DM.

As far as trivial encounters go, D&D without meaningful & challenging combat (actual war, or of the politicking variety) is just story time.

But hey, if your players are liking it, great. You wouldn't find me at your table though.

They can ask about rules. Often do. If I don't know the answer, I ask our resident rules lawyer and typically go with that.

If they disagree, I say "Let's go with what you think and I'll look it up later".

I don't have authority over my players. I use an open sand box/set encounters style mix. I create puzzle/thinking encounters that I can plop in anywhere and allow the players to go where they want.

I just try to arbitrate what happens. I am typically high fiving the players for things they do.


I should probably clarify. None of the combat encounters are trivial. They usually involve capture/not kill. Protect an NPC. Time clock to get something done during a combat. Stop a flood. Protect citizens from acid rain while flying monsters are attacking them. Just a few examples.

So combat is intense from a thought process. it also makes the players reassess their skill and feat selections. As well as class selections.

[edathompson2]

Eh, I'd rather play an intrigue campaign with very few good combats than an intrigue campaign with moderately few trivial combats. Personal taste though.

XP based on DM mood strikes me as a tad manipulative if I'm being brutally honest. You even said yourself that it's got your players policing each other to keep you happy. I don't think I could help feeling like an ass in that situation.

It sounds like your players are having fun though so, by all means, keep doing what works for you.


That's my fault I should have explained that failure in combat is not measured by player death. It's usually the center of why the combat was happening that is the failure.

[Zombulian]

4. No arguments over rules. If one starts the others quickly jump on them to let it go (keeping the DM happy for higher XP)


I really, really don't like this. If it's working and keeping the players happy as well, fine. But I can see lots of possibilities of resentment arising from something like this. Plus the idea of having to cater to a DM's wishes so that I'm allowed to progress my character leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Overall, I don't see a problem with making combat easy if your players just want to go for a romp through a storyline, but at a certain point it will probably start to feel more like a choose-your-own-adventure book than a game with rules.
If you're familiar with the general posting population here, you probably know we don't like that as much.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's my fault I should have explained that failure in combat is not measured by player death. It's usually the center of why the combat was happening that is the failure.

Death isn't always a failure state for combat. It just means you need a res or a new character. The things you said you add to combat make it a puzzle but it's a puzzle that's utterly crushed by any kind of mobile tank build. If the enemy doesn't prove to be a genuine threat, they can be largely ignored and that's just a real turn-off for me.

I also get that combat itself is frequently a failure in an intrigue campaign, given the importance of secrecy.

My point is that, if you feel like a super hero, there need to be super villains to stand against you or you're just a souped-up cop/ EMT. Though, again, this is a taste thing. If you and your players like ROFL-stomping the enemies as hurdles to some other goal to which the combat is incidental, do you.

[heavyfuel]

Has anyone ran a campaign where combat was never really all that threatening?

I mean, all the monsters are all well under what the PCs can handle?

I've been running an Eberron campaign the last 8 months. I let the players know up front that combat would be a whole lot less challenging. I also told them terrain and environmental effects would be lethal. I also told them that XP would be given based upon me having fun as a DM.


I've never ran a campaign like this, but I've played in one. While this is a matter of personal preference, I found it dreadfully boring. There is very little tension when literally no one can oppose you. I enjoy the feeling that my character might fall in battle as this makes me care for him a greater deal than if I know I have unlimited plot armor.

Terrain and environmental effects being lethal accentuates the discrepancy between tiers since high tier characters don't care about these effects. If you say that falling is now much more deadly than 1d6/10ft, you now basically told every wizard and sorcerer that they need Feather Fall and any class without access to it is now ****ed. Simlarly, skill-monkey classes (usually higher tier than combat focused classes) might be able to Tumble their way out of a fall, but the same can't be said about the guy in full plate. Clerics and Druids are crazy powerful when they can prepare spells and have scrolls that simply say "no" to these effects.

And I wholeheartedly agree with other posters that have already said it: Dealing out XP based on your own personal mood as DM is extremely manipulative and I'd personally resentful if I had an idea that screws with whatever you had planned for, but was punished for using it. This happens all the time in RPGs. The DM has thought of something, but the players find a way to completely ignore it. Similarly, if I try doing something in accordance to the rules and you just shut me down because you haven't properly read them and also threaten me with XP loss if I try to make a point, then yeah, I'm walking off this game.

[edathompson2]

I really, really don't like this. If it's working and keeping the players happy as well, fine. But I can see lots of possibilities of resentment arising from something like this. Plus the idea of having to cater to a DM's wishes so that I'm allowed to progress my character leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Overall, I don't see a problem with making combat easy if your players just want to go for a romp through a storyline, but at a certain point it will probably start to feel more like a choose-your-own-adventure book than a game with rules.
If you're familiar with the general posting population here, you probably know we don't like that as much.

I can see your point. My players tend to be very vocal. If they don't like something, they tell me after the game. They usually get more XP than a normal gaming session. So, it's not been a problem.

On a side note, my players have a total of 175 years of D&D gaming combined.

We're not new to this. I've ran the cookie cutter campaigns. 3 to be exact. Averaging 5-7 years each. All 3.5. So I get the "religion" feel of a site like this.

This one was kind of an experiment. So far, it's their favorite.

[edathompson2]

Death isn't always a failure state for combat. It just means you need a res or a new character. The things you said you add to combat make it a puzzle but it's a puzzle that's utterly crushed by any kind of mobile tank build. If the enemy doesn't prove to be a genuine threat, they can be largely ignored and that's just a real turn-off for me.

I also get that combat itself is frequently a failure in an intrigue campaign, given the importance of secrecy.

My point is that, if you feel like a super hero, there need to be super villains to stand against you or you're just a souped-up cop/ EMT. Though, again, this is a taste thing. If you and your players like ROFL-stomping the enemies as hurdles to some other goal to which the combat is incidental, do you.

To your first paragraph, yes. If you built a mobile tank (although we have a warforged warblade in the campaign) after I gave the parameters of the campaign, you may be bored. As to how you'd react in my campaign, couldn't tell you. I know there are 2 guys that said the same thing before the campaign and now tell me it's the best they have ever played in. But I have no idea if you'd like it or not.

To your last paragraph, so there are super villains. But they are ones the party can't catch. they are the Moriarty, not bane. Not that there is anything wrong with a Bane character. But I've decided to exclude that character from this campaign and see how the players like it. So far so good.

[edathompson2]

I've never ran a campaign like this, but I've played in one. While this is a matter of personal preference, I found it dreadfully boring. There is very little tension when literally no one can oppose you. I enjoy the feeling that my character might fall in battle as this makes me care for him a greater deal than if I know I have unlimited plot armor.

Terrain and environmental effects being lethal accentuates the discrepancy between tiers since high tier characters don't care about these effects. If you say that falling is now much more deadly than 1d6/10ft, you now basically told every wizard and sorcerer that they need Feather Fall and any class without access to it is now ****ed. Simlarly, skill-monkey classes (usually higher tier than combat focused classes) might be able to Tumble their way out of a fall, but the same can't be said about the guy in full plate. Clerics and Druids are crazy powerful when they can prepare spells and have scrolls that simply say "no" to these effects.

And I wholeheartedly agree with other posters that have already said it: Dealing out XP based on your own personal mood as DM is extremely manipulative and I'd personally resentful if I had an idea that screws with whatever you had planned for, but was punished for using it. This happens all the time in RPGs. The DM has thought of something, but the players find a way to completely ignore it. Similarly, if I try doing something in accordance to the rules and you just shut me down because you haven't properly read them and also threaten me with XP loss if I try to make a point, then yeah, I'm walking off this game.

to the 1st paragraph. I agree. If there feels like there is no opposition, it can be boring. The villains do have to be creative to try and take out the PCs. Direct assault doesn't work. One particular event was a sabotaged train crash. It is definitely a different style of gaming. I honestly didn't think it would work out. But it's been a blast.

To your second paragraph, we're currently at seventh level. I told the players the campaign would wrap up around 10. So far, everyone has been able to contribute during encounters. Mostly because I'm a very experienced DM and I know how to create scenarios where everyone gets their due. HIGHLY RECOMMEND DMG 2. It hasn't been an issue yet.

As to the last paragraph, I'm not a punitive or a manipulative DM. If you argue a rule with me I usually say "Let's go with what you say and I'll make a ruling after the game" There hasn't been allot of arguing because combat is not the center of the game.

In my experience, 99% of rules arguments involve combat. Even on this forum I see it.

Most of the arguing happens between players. I usually say "Guys? Not during game please." And that's usually the end of it. My XP system is meant to be a reward, not be a punish. They almost always get more than they use to get using raw. In addition, if they want to roleplay the entire gaming session, they are not punished by RAW ruleset for XP. The players enjoy it. If you were my player, I would make sure I know what you enjoy. Make you feel welcomed. And ensure you have fun. if this particular style was not working for you, I'd adjust encounters to give you what you need while keeping the theme alive.

[heavyfuel]

to the 1st paragraph. I agree. If there feels like there is no opposition, it can be boring. The villains do have to be creative to try and take out the PCs. Direct assault doesn't work. One particular event was a sabotaged train crash. It is definitely a different style of gaming. I honestly didn't think it would work out. But it's been a blast.

To your second paragraph, we're currently at seventh level. I told the players the campaign would wrap up around 10. So far, everyone has been able to contribute during encounters. Mostly because I'm a very experienced DM and I know how to create scenarios where everyone gets their due. HIGHLY RECOMMEND DMG 2. It hasn't been an issue yet.

As to the last paragraph, I'm not a punitive or a manipulative DM. If you argue a rule with me I usually say "Let's go with what you say and I'll make a ruling after the game" There hasn't been allot of arguing because combat is not the center of the game.

In my experience, 99% of rules arguments involve combat. Even on this forum I see it.

Most of the arguing happens between players. I usually say "Guys? Not during game please." And that's usually the end of it. My XP system is meant to be a reward, not be a punish. They almost always get more than they use to get using raw. In addition, if they want to roleplay the entire gaming session, they are not punished by RAW ruleset for XP. The players enjoy it. If you were my player, I would make sure I know what you enjoy. Make you feel welcomed. And ensure you have fun. if this particular style was not working for you, I'd adjust encounters to give you what you need while keeping the theme alive.

But that's the thing that unites both my first and second point. A train crash poses real danger to the Fighter, but absolutely no threat to the Wizard who can cast Fly or to the Druid who can Wild Shape into an eagle.

Creating encounters where everyone can participate is indeed very nice. I'm not being sarcastic here. But you've only just reached the turning point that is 7th level. When the everyone automatically believes the Bard with +50 to Bluff due to Glibness, I think you'll find that any social encounter will be auto-solved with this standard action. (just to give one of many examples)

Fair point for your last paragraphs.

[edathompson2]

But that's the thing that unites both my first and second point. A train crash poses real danger to the Fighter, but absolutely no threat to the Wizard who can cast Fly or to the Druid who can Wild Shape into an eagle.

Creating encounters where everyone can participate is indeed very nice. I'm not being sarcastic here. But you've only just reached the turning point that is 7th level. When the everyone automatically believes the Bard with +50 to Bluff due to Glibness, I think you'll find that any social encounter will be auto-solved with this standard action. (just to give one of many examples)

Fair point for your last paragraphs.

Funny the wizard almost died. Failed his concentration check to cast a spell on shaky ground. In addition they got pummeled by flying luggage and people. Fighters high Hp helped them allot.

Allot of social encounters are auto solved by high diplomacy. There is one player that went that route and she can dominate a social situation. She has not been able to change fanatical (epic level handbook) yet but she's working on it. It makes her character very powerful and she loves it. The other players have fun with it too.