Encouraging Non-Combat Options

[Trickery]

When running combat heavy games, such as published adventures, what do you do to encourage or enable your players to take non-combat options? There are quite a few feats and spells that, though being perfectly good at what they do, I rarely ever see in play because they're unlikely to affect combat.

[JackPhoenix]

If I'm running combat-heavy game, why should I encourage non-combat options? That's like encouraging everyone making combat monster for a game that will be mostly about intrigues and politics. Players should make their characters effective for the game they'll be in.

[Grimmnist]

If I'm running combat-heavy game, why should I encourage non-combat options? That's like encouraging everyone making combat monster for a game that will be mostly about intrigues and politics. Players should make their characters effective for the game they'll be in.

It is important not to switch the tone of a campaign midway, at least without discussing it with your players. Ideally the DM and the players should be on the same page for how much Combat/Social/Exploration before character creation.

In terms of modifying the published adventures, most of the combat grind comes from dungeon delving. Large complexes filled with lots of small encounters. I would recommend giving the players ways to avoid the dungeon, for instance luring the bbeg out of the fortress or having the combat encounter in town (yay collateral!).

[ad_hoc]

When running combat heavy games, such as published adventures, what do you do to encourage or enable your players to take non-combat options? There are quite a few feats and spells that, though being perfectly good at what they do, I rarely ever see in play because they're unlikely to affect combat.

Sounds like we are playing different published adventures.

The ones I have played have had a good balance between pillars. They probably go up to 50/25/25.

I haven't played an adventure with more than 50% of game time devoted to combat.

[CorporateSlave]

Sounds like we are playing different published adventures.

The ones I have played have had a good balance between pillars. They probably go up to 50/25/25.

I haven't played an adventure with more than 50% of game time devoted to combat.

To be fair, if the party is murder-hoboey enough, they can often combat themselves around the interaction pillar at the very least, no matter what the published adventure thinks!

However if that's the case then they seem to be happy with the hack and slash anyway!

However however, if it is more a case of the party can't seem to come up with other solutions even when they might be advantageous, and maybe are even getting a little frustrated with or bored of the incessant combat, perhaps start with "soft" punishment for using combat where interaction was called for (say, some valuable treasure is damaged and rendered worthless during the fight, or collateral death of an NPC non-combatant ally). Then give little rewards for outside the kill-box thinking, like a reward for bringing in the enemy alive, or making a friend out of an enemy (like feeding the hungry wolf pack, who jumps into a later fight on the side of the party).

Also, if someone takes a Feat that is more suited for interaction or exploration pillars, make use of it whenever possible - Observant's +5 to passive perception and investigation can be used by a savvy DM to reward a player (pass a note if they notice something no-one else did? Could also send a text message in this day and age, if the players know to look for them). A silly DM can just as easily frustrate such a choice, by asking for perception or investigation checks every time, even when passive would have been more appropriate.

[ad_hoc]

To be fair, if the party is murder-hoboey enough, they can often combat themselves around the interaction pillar at the very least, no matter what the published adventure thinks!


Only if the DM doesn't allow TPKs (or adventure/campaign failure).

Maybe that is an answer to the OP's question. At our table failure of an adventure or an entire campaign is an option. The group try all they can to avoid combat through the other pillars because they don't want to die and ideally want to succeed on the adventure's goals.

[Trickery]

Only if the DM doesn't allow TPKs (or adventure/campaign failure).

Maybe that is an answer to the OP's question. At our table failure of an adventure or an entire campaign is an option. The group try all they can to avoid combat through the other pillars because they don't want to die and ideally want to succeed on the adventure's goals.

If a party was behaving like murder-hobos, I would assume that's how they wanted to play. I try not to force anything on the players. I'm more of a...adapt to my players sort of DM? The campaign changes depending on what they engage with versus what they ignore.

I'm more wondering what I can do to make non-combat options more appealing. One thing I've done in the past is allow the players to befriend the creatures inhabiting dungeons versus killing everything inside. They still get loot; they just earn it in other ways, such as helping the inhabitants deal with their own unwanted guests.

Another option I've seen discussed is allowing players to take extra feats / spells that they wouldn't normally get, but only ones that don't affect combat. That way the players don't have to sacrifice their combat prowess for their out-of-combat abilities (also known as the Hexblade's dilemma, taking the invocations that make you a Hexblade versus ones that make you an interesting character).

[ad_hoc]

If a party was behaving like murder-hobos, I would assume that's how they wanted to play. I try not to force anything on the players. I'm more of a...adapt to my players sort of DM? The campaign changes depending on what they engage with versus what they ignore.

I'm more wondering what I can do to make non-combat options more appealing. One thing I've done in the past is allow the players to befriend the creatures inhabiting dungeons versus killing everything inside. They still get loot; they just earn it in other ways, such as helping the inhabitants deal with their own unwanted guests.

Another option I've seen discussed is allowing players to take extra feats / spells that they wouldn't normally get, but only ones that don't affect combat. That way the players don't have to sacrifice their combat prowess for their out-of-combat abilities (also known as the Hexblade's dilemma, taking the invocations that make you a Hexblade versus ones that make you an interesting character).

You're contradicting yourself here.

You say a DM should alter the way they play to cater to the player's behaviour. But you also want to change the player's behaviour to be more in line with the way you like to play.

It's an impossible task.

You also say that the published adventures have too much combat in them. But also say that you alter them to have more of a focus on combat.

The solution is to stop doing that. Everyone is a player in a game at the table. I would quickly become board with a group who doesn't want failure to be an option and just want to roll dice without purpose.

If the table is united in that and it isn't just 1 or 2 of the loudest people then I would move on to a different game.

[Trickery]

You're contradicting yourself here.

You say a DM should alter the way they play to cater to the player's behaviour. But you also want to change the player's behaviour to be more in line with the way you like to play.

It's an impossible task.

You also say that the published adventures have too much combat in them. But also say that you alter them to have more of a focus on combat.

The solution is to stop doing that. Everyone is a player in a game at the table. I would quickly become board with a group who doesn't want failure to be an option and just want to roll dice without purpose.

If the table is united in that and it isn't just 1 or 2 of the loudest people then I would move on to a different game.

I don't think you've quite understood me. Maybe I haven't been as clear as I could be. That's fine.

You can lightly encourage your players to play a certain way just through the specifics of the world. And, even before they sit down, you can setup houserules that will encourage a type of behavior. Not force it, only encourage it. The rules themselves encourage and discourage different options. For example, one thing the rules seem to discourage, to many players' dismay, is dual wielding. Similarly, I could encourage dual wielding by announcing a house rule where a character fighting with two weapons would mechanically behave as though wielding a double scimitar.

That's what I was looking for. Soft ways to encourage the players to take more non-combat features or enable them to do so.

[ad_hoc]

I see.

Maybe this suggestion will help:

At our table the DM describes the scene and then asks each player what they are doing in turn. Once everyone has said a thing the DM determines the amount of time that goes by (depends on how long the PC's actions take or if something happens to disrupt them). Then each PC has their actions resolved.

So maybe it is a matter of framing. Ask each player in turn what they are going to do in every scene just as though it were combat (though there is no initiative order so they can declare in any order they want). If there is no combat happening they will probably want to have something to do.

[Trickery]

I see.

Maybe this suggestion will help:

At our table the DM describes the scene and then asks each player what they are doing in turn. Once everyone has said a thing the DM determines the amount of time that goes by (depends on how long the PC's actions take or if something happens to disrupt them). Then each PC has their actions resolved.

So maybe it is a matter of framing. Ask each player in turn what they are going to do in every scene just as though it were combat (though there is no initiative order so they can declare in any order they want). If there is no combat happening they will probably want to have something to do.

Cool. I think I'll try that.