D&D 5E Out of Combat Woes

[Pvt. Winslow]

I need a little advice from you experienced gurus.

Currently I'm DMing a level 10 party of four PC's in a custom campaign setting, and the combat is going great. The players are engaged, having a blast, and routinely tell me that each session after the last becomes their new favorite.

The problem is, I'm having trouble making non-combat as interesting as combat. I tried porting over a version of the Skill Challenge system from 4E, inspired by a poster here (sorry I can't remember who originally posted it, I'd love to give them credit). It's worked out well enough, but seriously lacks in the interesting department.

In a nutshell, I frame the objective (in one instance it was catching a group of rival adventurers as they chased a klutzy scholar through a city's alleyways), establish initiative order, then go player by player and ask how they want to work towards the goal (which in that case, was catch the scholar before the baddies did). Players tell me what their character does, we determine a skill together, then I go to the next player. Repeat until all four players have declared, then I get them to roll together. DC's are really simple. DC 15 for most standard tasks. DC 20 for risky tasks (but you get 2 successes if you beat the DC, and suffer -1 success if you fail), and some actions are automatic successes (one player flew his griffon up over the alleys to get ahead, and I decided that was worth an auto success).

The system works with passes, with the number of passes determining the number of successes needed. I determine a few different results, based on failing by 2, tying, and succeeding by more than 2.

Now you know where I'm coming from. The thing is, it still sometimes feels like a chore getting the players into the right mindset to do the challenges (which was a huge flaw of Skill Challenges in the first place, in how they can make the moment feel gamey). I'm just not sure what else I could do. In the risk of sounding arrogant, I'm not too worried about my ability to design fun combats, if my player's comments are any indication. Still, I feel like I'm letting them down when it comes to making interaction with the world interesting.

I make up NPC's, random shops, items to buy, and minor events that can happen (like walking by as a team master's wagon axle breaks and his wagon crashes to the cobblestones, spilling cabbage in front of the PC's path, just to see how they react), but often they don't seem to pay much attention to such things.

I guess I'm just hoping to hear some examples from posters on how they run the game outside of combats. How do you resolve scenes like chases, infiltrations, a political soiree where you're trying to coax out info, a trek in the wilderness trying to find an ancient ruin, etc. Do you use skill checks? How do you determine who gets to go, how many checks are involved? How do you determine DC's?

Really, any suggestions will help.

 

[Paraxis]

Even when I ran skill challenges in 4e the best way is to just have the players describe the characters actions. Go from there.

So the way I do it is go around the table so you don't miss anyone and do as you do and ask them what they want to do in the situation. Don't resolve it at that point in time, this isn't turn based combat, just get an idea of what they want to do. Then ask the next person and so on. Once everyone has decided on a course of action you narrate how things play out.

You don't use turn order like combat so that it doesn't feel like combat. Also it gives you time to think about what is going to happen or might happen, hopefully it also lets the group try and use some teamwork and build off of each others ideas.

They don't talk about skills like they are power card options, like "My highest skill is athletics I want to use athletics in this skill challenge." --that is what makes it feel gamey.

They describe what they want the character to do, "I chase after the scholar trying to avoid the crowds and vendor stalls." --You as a DM decide if you want him to make an ability check. You can decide if he succeeds or fails without one, but I like to have people roll but you call for the check based on the described actions, you might make it an acrobatics check to dodge an overturned cabbage cart or something else.

It feels gamey when treated like a game instead of like people describing their actions.

Now behind the screen can you have a system like 4e skill challenges where you know they need 5 successful checks to corner the guy before he gets away? Sure you can, but the second you tell them that it becomes a mini game and not a narrative experience.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

Now behind the screen can you have a system like 4e skill challenges where you know they need 5 successful checks to corner the guy before he gets away? Sure you can, but the second you tell them that it becomes a mini game and not a narrative experience.

Yeah, this is part of where I'm having issues. I tell them that they're in a skill challenge. I like your suggestion to not use Initiative but instead just pick someone to be first, then kinda randomly ask someone next, or if someone pipes up themselves go with that. I've been toying with the idea of making individual checks have repercussions instead of needing a total number of successes. So say one character tries to dodge stalls and fails his check. Maybe I have it take away a HD to reflect his last second dodge that strains some muscles he'll feel later. Or maybe I actually make it deal 1d10 damage, to reflect some of his luck or stamina running out.

Basically, on top of them needing X successes, which I don't tell them how many they need, there's also repercussions for failing checks, as the scene allows. Only thing I worry about that, is if the players know checks can have consequences, they will DEFINITELY game it and try to barter their best skills every time.

Hrm

 

[LostSoul]

I use a version of 4E's skill challenges.

First I make a Reaction Roll. It's based off the B/X Reaction Roll table but expanded for WotC-D&D CHA modifiers.

3d6 Roll 
+ Charisma Modifier	Reaction				Successes
4 or less		Extremely hostile, no dialogue possible	--
5-8			Hostile, possible attack		8
9-12			Uncertain, cautious, and wary		6
13-16			Interested in dialogue			4
17+			Looking to make friends			2

Then I base the NPC's attitude off of that. (Find a reason if the NPC knows the PC's, or just general obstinacy if it's a random encounter.)

If I already know what the NPC's attitude is, I don't need to roll.

Then we just "role-play". When the player has their PC say something and I don't know how the NPC will react, I ask for a check. These checks aren't always counted as "Successes" as you can see on the table; sometimes it's just a check. It depends on what the PCs are trying to do: reading someone's body language normally requires a check, but it's not going to count as a success towards whatever. If the player has their PC say something that is going to improve relations or move the social conflict in the PC's favour, and I know that the NPC will react that way, I count it as an auto-success. Same thing, but reversed, for failure.

I always have the NPC respond to whatever the PC says. Normally this means the NPC asking for concessions about half-way through, then negotiating those concessions. I play the NPC as a character and not part of some kind of mechanical construct; if this means that the conflict dies out before successes or failures are met, that's okay. You'll get a sense of how the NPC "reacts" to the PCs in the future, so you won't need to make another Reaction Roll (barring other events, of course).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Hmm. How much direction do your players have outside of combat? Do they always have an objective, or are they sometimes just set adrift to sandbox?

I'd have to know that to comment more on how to address the issue.

It may be that your players really just aren't interested in anything other than combat. If they're having a great time with it, and the PCs just stand around staring blankly when the initiative timer isn't going, then maybe you're doing exactly what they're looking for. Of course, as a DM, if you want more out of the game, that's equally valid. I mean, they (probably) aren't paying you, so you should be able to play what you enjoy as the DM.

But yeah, I'd need to know a bit more about the background as I mentioned to provide more constructive feedback.

 

[Celebrim]

First of all, the 4e skill challenge is IMO, one of the worst implemented and worst conceived good ideas ever in the history of PnP RPGs. The idea of a prolonged and important non-combat scenario needing a framework of rules about it is a good one. But the idea that one single framework could contain all the possible non-combat challenges was as bad as the idea of having a framework was good. And the idea of the skill interaction between the challenge and the fiction, or the setting, be one that is abstracted and non-specific was equally bad.

Imagine if combat was entirely this way, and you'll quickly see I think how boring such a framework would be. Instead of describing an action, make combat even more abstact so that it was nothing but a series of successes wearing a way a foe before they achieved a certain number of successes. Highly static non-cinematic combats can fall into something close to that rut, and they quickly become dull.

It's obvious that to make combat more exciting, it requires the rules to reference the sort of features of combat we'd expect to see in combat to add in our imagination and to associate the players actions strongly with particular events that occur in the combat. So the rules of combat are made non-generic and specific to combat by having some sort of rules particular to the weapons being used (missile weapons are used at a distance, melee weapons up close), the sort of maneuvers made by the combatants, and that the combat occurs in some sort of imagined space and ideally a space with terrain since anyone that studies tactics knows that they occur at the intersection of weapons and terrain.

The same thing has to occur if you want exciting skill challenges. Otherwise, they will - as you put it - feel entirely too gamey. My suggestion to you would be to take advantage of the GM's day sale to get an entirely different perspective on this by buying a PDF that is quite excellent that is about a particular sort of non-combat (well, sometimes) skill challenge, which has the same sort of association between its mechanics and the thing it simulates as the combat engine has with combat, and that PDF is called "Hot Pursuit: The D20 Guide to Chases". Now, this pdf is for 3e (more or less) but I think you'll see it is very adaptable to any system based on the D20s and easily tweaked to circumstances. And what it actually does is present a vastly superior 'skill challenge' system - if you are engaged in a chase scene, either to evade something or to capture it or prevent its evasion.

And I think you'll be able from there to begin to think of less pure gamey, more engaging sorts of play that both simulate the thing better and facilitate its narration better - both your narrative response as the GM and in the imagined space going on in the player's heads.

What I would encourage you to do is build your skill challenges more organicly than 4e does. This requires more encounter design than 4e actually spells out (most of the time), but is in the long run more satisfying. An example would be persuading a council of 9 tribal elders to vote to help you, where each tribal member has particular prejudices, weaknesses, and so forth and then just letting the players attack the problem organically with blackmail, bribery, intimidation, assassination, negotiation, favors, and persuasion however they like. Detail how likely the obvious courses of actions are to work with each different NPC - some are cowards, some are corrupt, some are noble, others admire courage, and some are logical and respect strong clear reasoning. And of course, investigating and interacting with these NPCs will reveal which plans are more likely to work, and what means of leverage you might could raise up - one secretly wants to avenge a murdered wife, another has an adulterous affair she wishes to keep secret, one has gambling debts, and a third is actually a traitor working for the enemy. And so on and so forth. Design a scenario, and the exact structure of winning isn't needed. In the end they need to get a majority of votes. That's how you engage both characters and players and get them to use their skills and wits.

I make up NPC's, random shops, items to buy, and minor events that can happen (like walking by as a team master's wagon axle breaks and his wagon crashes to the cobblestones, spilling cabbage in front of the PC's path, just to see how they react), but often they don't seem to pay much attention to such things.

It's a rare player that cares deeply about slice-of-life low drama like that, and even among those that will engage with it, rare is the one that that is the primary reason they are setting at the table. More to the point, typically there is space in such an encounter only for 2-3 players to stay engaged, so if you have a large group you should try to keep slice of life to a minimum except when its serving a larger purpose - things like character development, clue provisioning, plot hooking, disguised exposition and setting orientation. You want to avoid making such slice of life events serve no purpose. If the cabbage seller spills his cabbages in front of the PCs, it shouldn't be just because - it should be the universe arranging that something important fall in the PC's laps. The cabbage seller is actually a smuggler transporting runaway slaves illegally out of the city, and his mishap has just attracted a number of the brutal town guards. Now that puts the PC's in an interesting situation where they have to make choices that matter, often on scarce information. That's the sort of situation you want to see the PC's react to. Less heroic situations probably shouldn't occur after level 1 or so, and even then should be leading to something.

 

[PnPgamer]

Good thread, this gives good tips for me as well.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

Hmm. How much direction do your players have outside of combat? Do they always have an objective, or are they sometimes just set adrift to sandbox?

I'd have to know that to comment more on how to address the issue.

It may be that your players really just aren't interested in anything other than combat. If they're having a great time with it, and the PCs just stand around staring blankly when the initiative timer isn't going, then maybe you're doing exactly what they're looking for. Of course, as a DM, if you want more out of the game, that's equally valid. I mean, they (probably) aren't paying you, so you should be able to play what you enjoy as the DM.

But yeah, I'd need to know a bit more about the background as I mentioned to provide more constructive feedback.

I do a mix of sandbox and clear objectives. I like to give them a goal to strive towards, but give them free reign on how they achieve it, and their path on the way. So that means when they get to town, I don't force them to fast forward bits unless they want to. I ask them what their characters do, and when the last player pauses for more than 5 seconds or so, I ask if they'd like me to fast forward. Usually at that point they say yes.

You could be right in that they aren't as interested in the out of combat aspect as I am. Maybe I'm overthinking it. Still, I appreciate any feedback I gets. More ideas can't hurt.

 

[GSHamster]

It feels like you are trying to force non-combat play into a combat framework.

Perhaps try an experiment and go to the other extreme. Don't use dice or a formal structure at all in non-combat. Simply ask your players what they do, and then use your judgement (taking into account their skills and the situation) as to what happens next.

Don't allow your players to say things like "I use Diplomacy". Make them say a specific action, "I try to convince the King that sending troops would increase his popularity with the people". Basically, you don't want the Skill to come before the action. You want the desired action to drive what Skill is used.

Realistically, running non-combat is in the middle of these two extremes. But I feel--from your description--that you are too close to one extreme, and would benefit from seeing the other extreme.

 

[Pvt. Winslow]

My suggestion to you would be to take advantage of the GM's day sale to get an entirely different perspective on this by buying a PDF that is quite excellent that is about a particular sort of non-combat (well, sometimes) skill challenge, which has the same sort of association between its mechanics and the thing it simulates as the combat engine has with combat, and that PDF is called "Hot Pursuit: The D20 Guide to Chases". Now, this pdf is for 3e (more or less) but I think you'll see it is very adaptable to any system based on the D20s and easily tweaked to circumstances. And what it actually does is present a vastly superior 'skill challenge' system - if you are engaged in a chase scene, either to evade something or to capture it or prevent its evasion.

I'll have to look into this. Sounds like even just for ideas it might be worth the money. Thanks for the suggestion.

An example would be persuading a council of 9 tribal elders to vote to help you, where each tribal member has particular prejudices, weaknesses, and so forth and then just letting the players attack the problem organically with blackmail, bribery, intimidation, assassination, negotiation, favors, and persuasion however they like. Detail how likely the obvious courses of actions are to work with each different NPC - some are cowards, some are corrupt, some are noble, others admire courage, and some are logical and respect strong clear reasoning. And of course, investigating and interacting with these NPCs will reveal which plans are more likely to work, and what means of leverage you might could raise up - one secretly wants to avenge a murdered wife, another has an adulterous affair she wishes to keep secret, one has gambling debts, and a third is actually a traitor working for the enemy. And so on and so forth.

This sounds really interesting. Almost like you'd run it as several mini challenges for each council member, working towards the greater challenge of winning the vote.

If the cabbage seller spills his cabbages in front of the PCs, it shouldn't be just because - it should be the universe arranging that something important fall in the PC's laps. The cabbage seller is actually a smuggler transporting runaway slaves illegally out of the city, and his mishap has just attracted a number of the brutal town guards. Now that puts the PC's in an interesting situation where they have to make choices that matter, often on scarce information. That's the sort of situation you want to see the PC's react to. Less heroic situations probably shouldn't occur after level 1 or so, and even then should be leading to something.

Maybe this is what I should stick to? Sometimes I wonder though, from a player perspective, is it always fun if any time the DM describes something, it's important to the story in some way? Basically, nothing is really window dressing. If a cart breaks down near them, its worth investigating?

Maybe it's all in how I describe it. Setting ambiance when they enter town is one thing, but making up random events that don't serve a purpose might be not worth the effort. I'll keep that in mind, Celebrim.