Encounters are pure combat because NPCs are 2D

[Dalebert]

After contemplating, it occurs to me that encounters turn into combat frequently because it's easy; far easier than fleshing out more complex motivations for NPCs than "I fight to the death against any invaders!" I suspect that's the number one factor contributing to it, though I'm sure it doesn't help that xp is framed primarily as a reward for defeating enemies where "defeat" typically means "kill". Expect that to contribute to murder hobo-ism.

I'm just wondering, when you put some orcs at a guard post, how much thought do folks typically give to questions like "Why am I here? Where do my loyalties lie and how strong are they? Is there somewhere I'd rather be right now? Is my family nearby and am i thinking about them more when there's a palpable threat?"

That's just me brainstorming the most cliche stuff. Thoughts?

[MaxWilson]

After contemplating, it occurs to me that encounters turn into combat frequently because it's easy; far easier than fleshing out more complex motivations for NPCs than "I fight to the death against any invaders!" I suspect that's the number one factor contributing to it, though I'm sure it doesn't help that xp is framed primarily as a reward for defeating enemies where "defeat" typically means "kill". Expect that to contribute to murder hobo-ism.

I'm just wondering, when you put some orcs at a guard post, how much thought do folks typically give to questions like "Why am I here? Where do my loyalties lie and how strong are they? Is there somewhere I'd rather be right now? Is my family nearby and am i thinking about them more when there's a palpable threat?"

That's just me brainstorming the most cliche stuff. Thoughts?

I generally don't work out that level of detail because (1) it's pretty easy to synthesize details about family/etc. on the fly if the PCs engage socially, and (2) if they don't engage socially it's wasted prep. I stick to group stuff like "why is this group of orcs here and what do they want?" As long as I know how the group will act, I can come up with specific individuals as needed.

It doesn't hurt, as an exercise, to prep eight or ten NPCs with the questions you have above, but once you've done it a few times it becomes easy to do it on the fly, well enough at least to keep the players engaged. (And players tend to inject their own ideas anyway, through the questions they ask.)

[Arkhios]

one thing that could also work against the mindset "it grants XP, let's kill it" is, imho, to simply say the players first hand that "you get level up when I say so, end of discussion".

Basically, use the milestone advancement (found in DMG) instead of granting XP.

This way the players might end up growing a more socially engaging mindset because they'll soon learn that no matter how many NPC/Monster they kill, it doesn't matter in the end.

[solidork]

Personally, I get a lot of cognitive dissonance because I as a player enjoy fighting and combat and the fact that the characters probably want to avoid it whenever possible. Our group tends to lean towards "what the characters would do" so most of us are pretty pleased when we get a straightforward quest to fight some dudes.

[Jophiel]

I generally don't work out that level of detail because (1) it's pretty easy to synthesize details about family/etc. on the fly if the PCs engage socially, and (2) if they don't engage socially it's wasted prep. I stick to group stuff like "why is this group of orcs here and what do they want?"
Yeah, I'd say it's pretty easy to determine if your orcs (or city watch or wizard's assistants or vampire thralls or Knights of the Holy Temple) are going to be susceptible to bribery, break morale, etc without getting overly granular about it.

I'd say the primary reason why most encounters are "pure combat" is because D&D is a largely combat oriented game based in heroic high fantasy with lots of dragon slaying, dungeon exploring and treasure grabbing. While it doesn't have to be, that's the milieu most campaigns are based around.

[Anymage]

Skills have never been D&D's strong suit. Nor have mechanical hooks for social interaction or ties that the characters have to the world. Properly negotiating with the orcs will either require a couple of anticlimactic dice rolls, or creating new mechanics on the spot. Combat, meanwhile, has a robust engine.

Unfortunately, creating the mechanics to pull that off would require significant overhauls to D&D. And 5e is pretty much an open acknowledgement that lots of fans like all the idiosyncratic D&Disms. So I just accept that D&D is a very specific model of high fantasy epic heroes, and roll with that.

[MaxWilson]

Personally, I get a lot of cognitive dissonance because I as a player enjoy fighting and combat and the fact that the characters probably want to avoid it whenever possible. Our group tends to lean towards "what the characters would do" so most of us are pretty pleased when we get a straightforward quest to fight some dudes.

Also, 5E pushes players towards combat because it's the only area of the game that has any real structure, and it's where most characters' interesting abilities lie. (And no, "you get advantage on XYZ checks" doesn't count as an interesting ability unless players have some game structure to engage with. It could just as easily be Enhance Ability for advantage on arbitrary ability checks, and it means nothing unless you know what the checks are likely to be for and to result in.)

If you want to push players more towards non-violent solutions, (1) make enemies tougher/riskier to fight (e.g. add uncertainty about how tough they are, and remove guarantees about "level appropriate" encounters), and (2) create rules and add role-playing opportunities for noncombat. Could be as simple as economic rules that give you a fixed income of 1000 gp/month as long as the orc kingdom you've just inherited (by marrying the queen) stays peaceful; could be as simple as detailed rules for riddle games via dueling Int checks and/or actual riddles, and then monsters who immediately initiate a riddle duel upon seeing the PCs. (Or a music duel via Performance!)

Give players something to engage with and they're more likely to engage.

Consider also handing out XP as soon as the monsters appear instead of after they're dead. "You meet a Sphinx. She looks hungry. Everybody gain 3000 XP. [Players groan--they now know she's a big threat.] She smiles with pointed teeth at you and says, 'Welcome to my humble abode. Shall we play a game?'"

[Keravath]

Honestly, this is pretty much entirely up to the DM since they decide how the NPC react to and engage with the actions of the characters. The DM knows the NPC motivations and their beliefs so he makes the decisions.

However, some significant limits are often the result of players initiating combat. Players may decide not to engage in conversation with a band of orcs because
a) They lose surprise and
b) Everyone knows orcs are evil

So from both a mechanical and a lore perspective, social engagement in many situations is pretty strongly discouraged.

On top of that, player experience plays a role. In many cases when the party encounters another creature or group of creatures there is something significant about the encounter since often DMs do not throw in encounters without meaning since it just uses up time. What types of encounters are common? Friendly, neutral and hostile ... it can sometimes be difficult to tell the difference. However, the characters are always taking a risk when they assume an ambiguous encounter is friendly or neutral since this will usually give the "initiative" to the side that attacks first. As a result, many players will cautiously assume that an encounter is hostile until proven otherwise. This also makes it much harder to come to a peaceful resolution when the PCs are clearly preparing for a fight.

This last is a roleplaying challenge. Most characters would believe that the encounter COULD be friendly and will initiate it with conversation. The PLAYER on the other hand goes into this knowing that they are putting the character at risk since the odds of a DM managed encounter having a hostile element are extremely high.


Mild ToA spoilers in the examples:

[From personal experience, my part was exploring in the jungles of chult, we returned to our canoes to find that another party of explorers had pulled up beside us. Most of the party hid and my character and another went forward to chat to the other party. The character thought this was the right course of action while myself as the player figured it was about a 90% chance for some sort of ambush. As it turned out the other "adventurers" were a group of disguised hags that opened the encounter after some chatting with a hold person spell. I failed the save and a couple of crits later was almost dead (luckily several of their hits missed). At the same time, the rest of the party responded and we ended up defeating the hags. However, my character came very close to dying because of the roleplaying choices ... but that is the nature of that particular character. In addition, the hags were hungry and by the time they figured out they were going to lose, there were few or no options to try to escape.

The opposite happened at another point where we engaged a large gang of Kobolds .. we had rushed into their lair after being attacked several times .. combat ensued. We noticed that there was a spell caster ... they took some damage from some spells and ranged weapons then one of our melee characters ran forward, knocked them prone and hit them again. At which point he cried out for mercy, surrendered the tribe and we were able to extract a lot of useful information from them.

All of these encounters are a mix of player actions AND NPC responses adjudicated by the DM. The key is the DM. ]

[Laserlight]

Economics 101: People respond to incentives. If you want players to do something, you have to show them that it will help them, not turn around and bite them.

Tell them, as the fight starts, that everyone knows that if a hobgoblin surrenders or gives his parole, you can trust him. And have the hobs offer to surrender; "spare us and don't attack our people, and we will guide you to the Ochre Temple you seek. And if we run into the cultists, we'll provide archery support as long as you handle the melee part." Have the hobs guide them past a deadly trap that the party wouldn't have spotted.

And don't get cute with "and then the hobgoblns betray you, BWA HA HA!", because then the party will never trust your NPCs--those hobgoblins or anyone else--again.

[Tanarii]

I'm just wondering, when you put some orcs at a guard post, how much thought do folks typically give to questions like "Why am I here? Where do my loyalties lie and how strong are they? Is there somewhere I'd rather be right now? Is my family nearby and am i thinking about them more when there's a palpable threat?"Not much, but that's because the default 5e Orc personality is roughly: pillage & take slaves, and might makes might so I should be the mightiest. They're intentionally designed to be a rapacious and evil foe that doesn't have very much in the way of characterization other than fight or get loot. 2D enemies to fight when you want to eat dice, drink pretzels, and roll some sodas.

Now, a human outpost is a totally different matter. A good motivation to go with there is "I'm a scared teenager worried I'll wet my pants when the enemy charges".


Personally, I get a lot of cognitive dissonance because I as a player enjoy fighting and combat and the fact that the characters probably want to avoid it whenever possible. Our group tends to lean towards "what the characters would do" so most of us are pretty pleased when we get a straightforward quest to fight some dudes.
A good way to bring these into sync is to ditch the assumption that the players can handle any and all combats they get into. Of course, that pretty much requires some kind of sandbox. If you run a linear adventure for a single party, that can be a showstopper.

Though I've read Tomb of Anihilation does an okay job of "random encounters make the jungle deadly", if that's your kind of thing.

[Kadesh]

{scrubbed}

[ad_hoc]

A good way to bring these into sync is to ditch the assumption that the players can handle any and all combats they get into. Of course, that pretty much requires some kind of sandbox. If you run a linear adventure for a single party, that can be a showstopper.


That's probably about it.

Our group engages in exploration and social interaction whenever possible because we don't want to fail the objectives or worse, have a TPK.

[Unoriginal]

NPCs are only 2D if you make them so.


In the adventure modules I've read, and in most games I've seen, NPCs aren't 2D, they're just not fleshed out more than necessary.

{scrubbed}

[MaxWilson]

{scrubbed}

[Unoriginal]

{scrubbed}

[Yuki Akuma]

I think the primary reason that so many encounters with NPCs turn into combat is simply that combat is fun. And it's where most of the mechanical fiddly bits - the majority of the actual game - actually are.

[KorvinStarmast]

Though I've read Tomb of Anihilation does an okay job of "random encounters make the jungle deadly", if that's your kind of thing. Sure does.

[Derpaligtr]

NPCs are only 2D if you make them so.


In the adventure modules I've read, and in most games I've seen, NPCs aren't 2D, they're just not fleshed out more than necessary.



{scrubbed}

The game doesn't give DMs a lot of tools to make them anything other than 2d. Not on the DM's side, but on the player's side. The DM has the DMG which can help with stuff... A bit... But the game isn't helping on the other side of the screen.

The PHB doesn't go deep into roleplaying at all and doesn't really give players an incentive to not killing. 90% of the player's class options = kill things.

So when a DM places NPCs or Monsters in the path of the players... What are the players supposed to do? Use their class features and rules they learned to play the game (mostly combat related), or not use all that stuff?

There's only so much a DM can do when the game conditions the players to do one specific things. It would be like trying to play Dead Cells as a sneaking game and expecting to gain all the items and money that you would normally get...

The skill system is way too bare bones, for starters. NPCs/Monsters typically have combat options and not much else and players know that.

NPCs become three dimensional because of the DM's work, despite the game itself.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm just wondering, when you put some orcs at a guard post, how much thought do folks typically give to questions like "Why am I here? Where do my loyalties lie and how strong are they? Is there somewhere I'd rather be right now? Is my family nearby and am i thinking about them more when there's a palpable threat?" Depends on the campaign, the PC's and the context. Your question is too open ended to be of any practical use.
If you, as a DM, lack the imagination to address that then you might be better off simply responding to whatever it is your PC's do. Riff off of whatever initiatives they take1 but you can still incentivize the behavior you want to see.
You kvetch about murderhoboes? You have them because you allow and reward them.

I'm sure it doesn't help that xp is framed primarily as a reward for defeating enemies where "defeat" typically means "kill".
Only if you are a lazy DM. If you have six orcs in a fight, and they kill three, three flee, and they get XP for all six, what message are you sending?

Example: a dozen zombies recently attacked our party in ToA recently. Cleric turned nine, four kept coming at us. We took down the four and pressed on. XP for all of them, per the DM, since we defeated the threat. We didn't have to chase the rest of them down and destroy them to defeat them. We might have had to had there been a village nearby. Context matters.

Expect that to contribute to murder hobo-ism.If you put up with it, that's what you will get.

I do not find any merit in the "I am a victim of the rules" DM approach. I may be misreading your post, but that's the vibe I am getting.

------------------------------

1 One of the best DM's I ever had was a master at riffing off of whatever we did. He planned very little: he was also a proponent of "give 'em enough rope" DM'ing, in that we got ourselves into more pickles by our own bizarre choices then he ever had to dream up.

[Thrudd]

The DM doesn't need to know what every orc or guard is thinking or feeling beforehand. You don't need to plan personalities for every minor character that appears. That stuff can happen in the moment, based on rolls. If the PCs want to talk to the orcs, to bribe or intimidate or negotiate, you have themroll the dice. Depending on the outcome, you can determine if the orcs are amenable to them, scared of them, or not having any of it. Come up with a plausible motive and attitude for them at that moment and act it out/describe it.

It would help if reaction rolls could be reintroduced, to establish a random baseline DC for social encounters.

As was said, it also helps if the game allows for combat that is deadly, that will encourage the more careful approach of possible encounters. Reward XP at the end of the session based on goals achieved/challenges overcome. If they got something they wanted/needed out of the social encounter, they can get XP for it.

[Unoriginal]

The game doesn't give DMs a lot of tools to make them anything other than 2d. Not on the DM's side, but on the player's side. The DM has the DMG which can help with stuff... A bit... But the game isn't helping on the other side of the screen.

The PHB doesn't go deep into roleplaying at all and doesn't really give players an incentive to not killing. 90% of the player's class options = kill things.

So when a DM places NPCs or Monsters in the path of the players... What are the players supposed to do? Use their class features and rules they learned to play the game (mostly combat related), or not use all that stuff?

There's only so much a DM can do when the game conditions the players to do one specific things. It would be like trying to play Dead Cells as a sneaking game and expecting to gain all the items and money that you would normally get...

The skill system is way too bare bones, for starters. NPCs/Monsters typically have combat options and not much else and players know that.

NPCs become three dimensional because of the DM's work, despite the game itself.

PCs and NPCs having a personality is not a question of game system. Abilities and rules do not make beings three-dimensional.

On the other hand, the MM, DMG and other books take time to flesh out the different beings. It's as much part of the game than the rules.

The DM's work IS the game, not despite the game.


but you can still incentivize the behavior you want to see.
You kvetch about murderhoboes? You have them because you allow and reward them.

This.

If you allow a behavior at your table, don't be surprised people do it. If you *reward* a behavior at your table, you have all right to be surprise if people don't do it.

Of course, you can't put the blame of the player's choices on the DM, it's their choices after all, but if the DM chose to put up with that, it's their responsibility.

[Derpaligtr]

PCs and NPCs having a personality is not a question of game system. Abilities and rules do not make beings three-dimensional.

On the other hand, the MM, DMG and other books take time to flesh out the different beings. It's as much part of the game than the rules.

The DM's work IS the game, not despite the game.



This.

If you allow a behavior at your table, don't be surprised people do it. If you *reward* a behavior at your table, you have all right to be surprise if people don't do it.

Of course, you can't put the blame of the player's choices on the DM, it's their choices after all, but if the DM chose to put up with that, it's their responsibility.

The DMs work is not the game. The game is the rules in which people follow to play it. The DM is one piece of the game, just like the players are one piece of the game. Don't be delusional, the DM is a referee and story teller, they still have rules to work with, they just get different ones than the people on the other side of the table.

A majority of people who sit down at the table use the PHB (maybe even the free srd) and maybe a splat book to improve their character.

They can't read the DMs mind. They can only use what they are given to deal with a situation. 90% or more of what players are given is "killthat things, sneak past that thing, or subdue that thing". Barely any rules given to the players are about anything other than combat in some form or another.

Any NPC that has an attitude that isn't helpful to the party instantly has a target painted on their back because that's what the PHB trains players to do.

Maybe if there were rules for role-playing, rules that would actively help with scenarios, then players would read the 5 pages in the PHB not dedicated to combat.

I'm aware that backgrounds have the traits/flaws/personality section... I love it. However, it isn't enough to get people to work with it when it comes to an NPC.

[Spiritchaser]

Historically I’ve had a less than stellar record when it comes to guessing which encounters my PCs will avoid, which they’ll resolve by combat, and which they’ll resolve by other methods. I always try and have a bit of a story hook or plan for everything remotely intelligent and free willed. Mostly it’s just a basic threadbare idea, but it fits in somehow and the rest can be made up as I go if diplomacy breaks out.

At least with my group, all it took were a few highly profitable outcomes and the PCs started looking for alternative dispute resolution in the strangest of places.

And then they’ll sometimes just go on a killing spree.

Still: Spend the time to come up with the basic basics of NPC motivation that can fit your campaign, and ad lib the rest as best you can.

[Unoriginal]

The DMs work is not the game. The game is the rules in which people follow to play it. The DM is one piece of the game, just like the players are one piece of the game. Don't be delusional, the DM is a referee and story teller, they still have rules to work with, they just get different ones than the people on the other side of the table.

A majority of people who sit down at the table use the PHB (maybe even the free srd) and maybe a splat book to improve their character.

They can't read the DMs mind. They can only use what they are given to deal with a situation. 90% or more of what players are given is "killthat things, sneak past that thing, or subdue that thing". Barely any rules given to the players are about anything other than combat in some form or another.

Any NPC that has an attitude that isn't helpful to the party instantly has a target painted on their back because that's what the PHB trains players to do.

Maybe if there were rules for role-playing, rules that would actively help with scenarios, then players would read the 5 pages in the PHB not dedicated to combat.

I'm aware that backgrounds have the traits/flaws/personality section... I love it. However, it isn't enough to get people to work with it when it comes to an NPC.

Look at the DMG. Yes, there is a "Master of the Rules" section, but there are others, notably "Master of the World".

The DM's work is the game, just as much as a monster's HD or the details of what Wild Shape allows.


Keep in mind that a DM could decide to have a break-doors-beat-mooks dungeon crawl where none of the NPCs ever talk as a campaign, and it'd be a perfectly legitimate choice (though I would personally find that boring). Same way that they could decide to have a campaign where the PCs have very few fights, and it'd be just as legitimate a choice.


What is important, like in many, many cases concerning the relationship between DMs and players, is that they clearly communicate about what they want to do with the campaign and how the NPCs should be handled.

[Derpaligtr]

Look at the DMG. Yes, there is a "Master of the Rules" section, but there are others, notably "Master of the World".

The DM's work is the game, just as much as a monster's HD or the details of what Wild Shape allows.


Keep in mind that a DM could decide to have a break-doors-beat-mooks dungeon crawl where none of the NPCs ever talk as a campaign, and it'd be a perfectly legitimate choice (though I would personally find that boring). Same way that they could decide to have a campaign where the PCs have very few fights, and it'd be just as legitimate a choice.


What is important, like in many, many cases concerning the relationship between DMs and players, is that they clearly communicate about what they want to do with the campaign and how the NPCs should be handled.

The DM still has rules to go by.

The DM is not the game, that's like saying game developers are the game. Miyomoto is not Mario.

{scrubbed}

The game has rules and if the game had rules for roleplaying your way out of situations, NPCs could be a lot more 3d as players wouldn't just try to murder anything that so much as frowns at them.

Of you don't use the combat rules of D&D, you're ignoring 90% of the rules and playing Calvin Ball at that point because the players have no basis to go off from because the game doesn't give players a hard set of rules. The bare bones tules on skills/role-playing aren't very deep and pretty much goes...

Can their character do this without a roll... Yes? No roll. No? Roll. That's the extent of it. That's fine for some of the time, sure, but trying to make NPCs that revolve around more than combat is not a strength of the game.

Saying X gives you Y in terms of combat is there, but with role-playing options, N = whatever the flavor of the day is.

If you're playing calvin ball then sure, the DM is the game, because the DM isn't playing D&D at that point.

But maybe if the PHB didn't set the game up to be about murder hobos, then players won't be murder hobos.

[Unoriginal]

The DM still has rules to go by.

The DM is not the game, that's like saying game developers are the game. Miyomoto is not Mario.


{scrubbed}

The game has rules and if the game had rules for roleplaying your way out of situations, NPCs could be a lot more 3d as players wouldn't just try to murder anything that so much as frowns at them.

Of you don't use the combat rules of D&D, you're ignoring 90% of the rules and playing Calvin Ball at that point because the players have no basis to go off from because the game doesn't give players a hard set of rules. The bare bones tules on skills/role-playing aren't very deep and pretty much goes...

Can their character do this without a roll... Yes? No roll. No? Roll. That's the extent of it. That's fine for some of the time, sure, but trying to make NPCs that revolve around more than combat is not a strength of the game.

Saying X gives you Y in terms of combat is there, but with role-playing options, N = whatever the flavor of the day is.

If you're playing calvin ball then sure, the DM is the game, because the DM isn't playing D&D at that point.

But maybe if the PHB didn't set the game up to be about murder hobos, then players won't be murder hobos.

One, thank you for the insult. I'm told it's against the rules.

Two, I've never said the DM was the game, I said the the DM's work, DMing, was part of the game. Just like the rules are.

DMing is part of the game. The DM is the one in control of the NPCs, they're the one acting their roles and deciding their personalities.

It's one of the things that make the essence of roleplaying.

Three, you can't make characters more three-dimensional by taking what is a natural character interaction and forcing more rules to systematize the results.

Four, given the description you've given of how 5e handle it, you don't seem to have read the DMG social rules. You probably should


Five, if you can name any RPG that according to you does not teach players that fighting works, it'd be welcome

[Kadesh]

The game literally doesn't exist unless there is someone there for the players to interact with, provide decription and to make/interpret a players statement of action into a game mechanic.

The DM is the world, and whole world, and the other players are able to interwct with that.

A DM doesn't need the rules to play, but the game requires a DM to provide the world.

[Unoriginal]

The game literally doesn't exist unless there is someone there for the players to interact with, provide decription and to make/interpret a players statement of action into a game mechanic.

The DM is the world, and whole world, and the other players are able to interwct with that.

A DM doesn't need the rules to play, but the game requires a DM to provide the world.

Well a DM needs the D&D rules to play D&D. Otherwise it's just freeform.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Guys, please keep this conversation civil. There's no reason to insult or attack each other.

[Nifft]

After contemplating, it occurs to me that encounters turn into combat frequently because it's easy; far easier than fleshing out more complex motivations for NPCs than "I fight to the death against any invaders!" I suspect that's the number one factor contributing to it, though I'm sure it doesn't help that xp is framed primarily as a reward for defeating enemies where "defeat" typically means "kill". Expect that to contribute to murder hobo-ism.

I'm just wondering, when you put some orcs at a guard post, how much thought do folks typically give to questions like "Why am I here? Where do my loyalties lie and how strong are they? Is there somewhere I'd rather be right now? Is my family nearby and am i thinking about them more when there's a palpable threat?"

That's just me brainstorming the most cliche stuff. Thoughts?

D&D is a game played for fun.

Sometimes, the fun that some players want to enjoy is success at relatively mindless violence.

There's nothing wrong with building a complex world where potential antagonists are just folks trying to get by, and the PCs engage in non-violent solutions -- but it's not going to scratch that type of player's itch.


Personally, I do tend to do a lot of world-building in my head to justify why these critters are operating here instead of elsewhere. But I'm always cognizant of the need to regularly deliver combat challenges which are not moral quandaries because some players enjoy combat and don't want it sullied with the need to think about morality.


one thing that could also work against the mindset "it grants XP, let's kill it" is, imho, to simply say the players first hand that "you get level up when I say so, end of discussion".

Basically, use the milestone advancement (found in DMG) instead of granting XP.

This way the players might end up growing a more socially engaging mindset because they'll soon learn that no matter how many NPC/Monster they kill, it doesn't matter in the end.

Yeah, this is also true. You will tend to get more of the behaviors which you reward.

[Gryndle]

OP sorta has a point. however I think they are missing one key detail.
NPCs are two-dimensional, but only when/if the DM and players allow them to be so. the game systems does intend for you to put SOME work into it.

And hey, me and my group are guilty of that sometimes too. I have noticed lately that my sessions are lacking in the PC/NPC interactions and are losing some of the player buy-in to the storylines. Why is that? because I am rapidly approaching DM burnout, and have been lacking inspiration. The problem isn't the system, and solution isn't anything that can be fixed by altering game mechanics. It comes down to me just needing a break, most of the players being too involved or obligated in real life to give me that break. Luckily, one of the guys is making it a RL priority to clear time so he can run the next campaign, which will be the Dragon Heist/Undermountain books.

back on point, the OPs complaint is not a system problem, its a group-dynamic problem.


edit: typos are my kryptonite

[Asmotherion]

One of the major factors that makes one an adventurer is the fact he has next to no Leverage to hold him back from adventuring.

Either his folks are Dead, or too strong to be threatened. In any case they are safe from being used as Leverage to hold him back, otherwise he would use his power to protect them in case he cares about them/the average adventurer trope in a non "I want to kill the rest of my family for them killing my family/attmpting to kill me" kind of trope.

In character creation there is a major point that most people look down as secondary: Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws. This is a compass to explain what your character thinks and who he really is. Why he does what he does. Why is he here, what would he do in this battle. Focus on that perspective, and battles would stop being simple Die Rolls.

Add more descriptions, get dialogues during battle. Battle should include RP. Not just Attacking each other. Intimidate each other. Try Diplomacy. Think about capturing the Humanoid Enemies Alive, if possible; If Good you spare a life, and if Evil you can torture them for your enjoyment afterwards, if Lawful you can take them to the Authorities, and if Chaotic you probably see them as pawns of a Dictator, and not your true enemies. Humanoid Enemies are always worth to try capturing alive, as it adds more RP value to your D&D (even if it makes things more dificult for you).

Just some tips you might enjoy.

[Dalebert]

Depends on the campaign, the PC's and the context. Your question is too open ended to be of any practical use.
If you, as a DM, lack the imagination to address that then you might be better off simply responding to whatever it is your PC's do. Riff off of whatever initiatives they take1 but you can still incentivize the behavior you want to see.
You kvetch about murderhoboes? You have them because you allow and reward them.

I'm talking about general things I see in games as a player. I'm obviously criticizing DM styles that might lead to this so I'm not complaining that my own NPCs are not fleshed out enough. How absurd would that be? "My NPCs aren't fleshed out enough!" That would be like complaining angrily at the dinner table that the potatoes are too dry when you cooked them. The exception might be in some AL games where the modules spells out the action the NPC takes to the letter. Even then though, over time I've become more inclined to allow myself leeway. But I'm growing further frustrated with AL play and Season 8 changes gave me the motivation I needed to start playing more homebrew.


I do not find any merit in the "I am a victim of the rules" DM approach. I may be misreading your post, but that's the vibe I am getting.

I'm just baffled at how my post could be interpreted as me complaining about the games where I'm the DM. I'm frustrated when I've dared to assume there might be some interesting motivations only to have any attempt to veer from the hack-and-slay narrative bite me in the behind.

The "I'm a victim of the rules" approach was added by others after my OP so that response should probably be directed at those posts. That said, I do acknowledge how much of the rules are structured around making combat interesting as opposed to other interaction so I don't think those thoughts are completely without merit. It just wasn't in the OP you were responding to to my recollection.


The DM doesn't need to know what every orc or guard is thinking or feeling beforehand. You don't need to plan personalities for every minor character that appeas. That stuff can happen in the moment, based on rolls. If the PCs want to talk to the orcs, to bribe or intimidate or negotiate, you have themroll the dice. Depending on the outcome, you can determine if the orcs are amenable to them, scared of them, or not having any of it. Come up with a plausible motive and attitude for them at that moment and act it out/describe it.

Absolutely this doesn't need to be all fleshed out in detail before hand. It's just as good I think to simply have the open mind that an NPC has potential to react in ways other than a stereotype of that creature.

[Camman1984]

I once had a tribe of goblins all planned out, forced to attack the party (level 7 iirc) out of sheer desperation to avoid starvation. there was supposed to be a bit of a fight but after a few deaths the goblins start panicking and fleeing/surrendering. This was meant for the party to talk to them, find out why they were attacking such a powerful group. They would then learn that the goblin home had been invaded and taken over by a devil loving sorcerer who was using it as his base of operations. the goblins had motive, backstory, a reason to be there and a reason to surrender to help the party onto the next arc....

2 fireballs later .....

I found it so so so hard not to just throw a beholder or some other tpk style monster at them.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I agree completely that the DM needs to insentivize the behaviour he wants to see. If you run your NPCs like robots, never fleeing and always fighting to the death without concern for anything but tpk, the players will react accordingly. If you do get them to interact, and then use the opportunity to spring a "gatcha" trap later, the players will vow not to fall for it again.

On the other hand, if a non-attack-roll/non-robot approach works out, they'll remember and take that with them into future situations.The answer isn't to make overpowered opponents, but to reward interaction. Carrot, rather than stick

[furby076]

In my opinion the way to resolve this is up to the DM. Also, in session zero, the DM should explain that while combat is always an option, it is not always the best solution. He should explain that what the players may think are "evil...smash", is not really true in his world. So with that.

1) Take a page from Eberron. Alignment is not really a concern. A red dragon can be lawful good, and an elf paladin can be chaotic evil. The party can encounter a red dragon, and if they outright attack it, they may anger some good things out there kill an ally, etc. If the encounter an elf paladin, and start talking to it, they may lose initiative and get attacked.
2) While 5e got rid of detect evil (as in alignment), let the players know that just cause something is evil doesn't mean it should be a target. Sure they CAN kill it, but maybe the evil creature (person)wants to work with the PCs towards a good goal. Evil aligned doesn't mean always doing evil acts. Just like good aligned doesn't always mean doing good acts
3) As one of the other posters mentioned. Give XPwhen you want to, not when things die. This allows you to control progression better (speed up or slow down campaign), and removes the "we need to kill 3 vampires tonight so we can get next level, let's go Simon Belmont on something"

My suggestions

[furby076]

Economics 101: People respond to incentives. If you want players to do something, you have to show them that it will help them, not turn around and bite them.

Tell them, as the fight starts, that everyone knows that if a hobgoblin surrenders or gives his parole, you can trust him. And have the hobs offer to surrender; "spare us and don't attack our people, and we will guide you to the Ochre Temple you seek. And if we run into the cultists, we'll provide archery support as long as you handle the melee part." Have the hobs guide them past a deadly trap that the party wouldn't have spotted.

And don't get cute with "and then the hobgoblns betray you, BWA HA HA!", because then the party will never trust your NPCs--those hobgoblins or anyone else--again.

True and good point. Though, once in a while, betrayal is good. Gotta keep the players on their toes

[opaopajr]

It is, as you say, partly due to complexity and/or laziness to flesh out the world. It is also partly due to XP being tightly codified for combat kills, but rather loose elsewhere. But it was NOT originally this way; that's where looking back to the past can help offer options.

Older editions walked you through both processes of alternate XP sources, the pertinence of a meaningful encounter (thus beyond grinding massacres to wimpy enemies), and the tools to spice up context throughout the setting world -- including randomized content tables for improv, and how to make your own.

Check them out! They might help you squeeze more fun out of 5e 'Done Your Way', than passive acceptance of what's offered. And really, it's very little effort to up your GM game with such tools and advice.

Ignore the "just accept the game as given" advice and make the game yours!

[Zorrah]

Indeed, I saw this thread and thought back to the various optimization threads. Or would it be more tier discussions?

Ultimately, while the 5e bard isn't the combat failure of previous editions, he is still top tier when it comes to diplomacy encounters (by design of course). Then we have the various flavors of ranger. The PHB beastmaster being something of the whipping boy when tier discussions and power are discussed, but in an explorer/wilderness survival campaign, that actually is ran such? It would be a good chance for such a character to shine. Yeah, wilderness survival is a little less daunting when spells like, create food, purify food and water, and whatever else, but even a bottom tier build like beastmaster deserves it's credit when there are chances for it to shine.

[UrielAwakened]

Encounters are usually combat because combat is fun.

You also need those action beats in any good session or else attention spans are going to start to wander. Every hour or so there should be something happening that requires everyone to participate like that or else your pacing is hell.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Skills have never been D&D's strong suit. Nor have mechanical hooks for social interaction or ties that the characters have to the world. Properly negotiating with the orcs will either require a couple of anticlimactic dice rolls, or creating new mechanics on the spot. Combat, meanwhile, has a robust engine.

Unfortunately, creating the mechanics to pull that off would require significant overhauls to D&D. And 5e is pretty much an open acknowledgement that lots of fans like all the idiosyncratic D&Disms. So I just accept that D&D is a very specific model of high fantasy epic heroes, and roll with that.

I agree that there aren't mechanics for this, but that's because you can't "mechanic" story-telling in an elegant way. D&D isn't a board game or a war game, it's a role-playing game. The social encounters and skill usage falls to the DM and the PCs, they just give you the basic scaffolding to help determine whether something goes as planned or not. Even then, the DM has to decide how hard something should be so it still always comes back to us as people in the real world wanting to come together and tell a story/play pretend like when we were kids.

I used to run through the woods with my friends and fight orcs and hunt tigers with our swords and spears (read as: sharp sticks). But that didn't stop us from talking to a king who wasn't there or following Luke Skywalker into a huge battle, then helping him convince the sith lord to leave our planet in peace. There weren't "rules" and we were often just talking to empty air, but we both "heard" what everyone said because we were invested in the same story. That's where D&D really shines.

[MaxWilson]

I agree that there aren't mechanics for this, but that's because you can't "mechanic" story-telling in an elegant way. D&D isn't a board game or a war game, it's a role-playing game. The social encounters and skill usage falls to the DM and the PCs, they just give you the basic scaffolding to help determine whether something goes as planned or not. Even then, the DM has to decide how hard something should be so it still always comes back to us as people in the real world wanting to come together and tell a story/play pretend like when we were kids.

I used to run through the woods with my friends and fight orcs and hunt tigers with our swords and spears (read as: sharp sticks). But that didn't stop us from talking to a king who wasn't there or following Luke Skywalker into a huge battle, then helping him convince the sith lord to leave our planet in peace. There weren't "rules" and we were often just talking to empty air, but we both "heard" what everyone said because we were invested in the same story. That's where D&D really shines.

This logic would imply that D&D doesn't need combat rules either.

The reality though is that players are attracted to game structure. If you give them rules for e.g. building social reputation and establishing new trade routes, you're likely to see more social and economic activity at your table than if you have rules only for combat. There is after all a reason why you're not still playing with sharp sticks in the woods.

[UrielAwakened]

I agree that there aren't mechanics for this, but that's because you can't "mechanic" story-telling in an elegant way. D&D isn't a board game or a war game, it's a role-playing game. The social encounters and skill usage falls to the DM and the PCs, they just give you the basic scaffolding to help determine whether something goes as planned or not. Even then, the DM has to decide how hard something should be so it still always comes back to us as people in the real world wanting to come together and tell a story/play pretend like when we were kids.

I used to run through the woods with my friends and fight orcs and hunt tigers with our swords and spears (read as: sharp sticks). But that didn't stop us from talking to a king who wasn't there or following Luke Skywalker into a huge battle, then helping him convince the sith lord to leave our planet in peace. There weren't "rules" and we were often just talking to empty air, but we both "heard" what everyone said because we were invested in the same story. That's where D&D really shines.

But then you realize other games do have social encounter rules that are just as robust as their combat rules and this all looks pretty hollow.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

This logic would imply that D&D doesn't need combat rules either.

The reality though is that players are attracted to game structure. If you give them rules for e.g. building social reputation and establishing new trade routes, you're likely to see more social and economic activity at your table than if you have rules only for combat. There is after all a reason why you're not still playing with sharp sticks in the woods.

Yes, my point is that there is structure. The reason there's so much more for combat is that it's so much easier to make combat flow and balance out with rules. The same isn't true for storytelling. You can't micromanage characters' emotional responses or personal motivations with a bunch of rules. I agree that having rules in place for economic advancement, establishing trade routes, etc. are great ideas! D&D has a fair bit of that, but where it lacks there are plenty of supplements that people have provided. I think the reason there isn't more is because the designers realized that if they made things more concrete it would start to apply only in a limited selection of DM settings for people running their own campaigns or basing things more loosely on pre-written adventures.

And the reason I'm not playing with sharp sticks these days is because I don't want to be arrested and locked up.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

But then you realize other games do have social encounter rules that are just as robust as their combat rules and this all looks pretty hollow.

I'm not saying that other games don't have those rules. I just believe that the more rules you add to the story-telling/social encounter side of an rpg, the less it becomes true story-telling. It starts to change into a simulation game or something of that ilk. It becomes a less elegant system imo. I'm not saying people shouldn't enjoy it, just that they're typically playing for different reasons and maybe D&D just isn't the system for them.