D&D 5E Social/Combat/Exploration Ratio

So, what do you think the ratio of encounters should be in a site-based adventure?

Assume, for the sake of simplicity, that every keyed area belongs to one of four categories:

1. Social - interact with NPCs, etc.
2. Combat - Kill stuff.
3. Exploration - find clues, solve puzzles, search for secret doors, disarm traps.
4. Empty (might have stuff in the room, but interacting with it will provide little information).

So, what should these ratios be?

Myself, I'm leaning on using something like this - 1 in 8 locations should be social, 3 in 8 combat (with only 1 or 2 of them being anything harder than an easy combat), 2 in 8 exploration, and 2 in 8 empty. That's sort of the ratio I've been using in rooms right now, but I'm curious to see how other GMs handle it.

(if it really matters for all you "it depends" types, the assume the dungeon has 24-32 keyed areas, or less than 50 at any rate. And I know many encounters can be solved multiple ways, but for ease of conversation, let's just assume a railroady "one solution only" situation).

In pre-3rd edition, rules as written the DM should make a reaction roll for EVERY encounter. Thus, any encounter could be a social encounter. This was before DnD's primary means of gathering experience was combat (pre-2e, it was treasure, so avoiding combat and exploring for treasure made sense.)

One of the early variants had this as a room stocking formula:
Roll 1d6
1 Monster
2 Monster and Treasure
3-6 Empty (1 in 6 chance of concealed treasure)

The concealed treasure could also be a trick/trap or magical thing.

The megadungeon stocking formula I've been using is this:
50% empty
5% special (meaning the strange and bizarre, glowing pools, magic altars, talking statues, etc.)
5% tricks and traps
5% treasure only
20% Monster and Treasure
15% Monster only

By monster I mean all sorts of inhabitants that I've put into the encounter table for the particular level, including a chance of NPC parties, neutral creatures (which can still be enemies), etc.

Empty has tables all its own, and could have marginal treasure or a source of clues for what was there or is still nearby. This blog has a great resource for empty rooms.

The ratio should be good for your preference as a DM, the preferences of the players, and the type of adventure you want to run. I see nothing wrong with the ratios you've given, assuming a wilderness or dungeon site rather than a town. I personally prefer more exploration and social than some, while others would put combat as at least half of all encounters. Also, many I know detest empty areas, seeing them as wasted space.

For me to stock a random dungeon would probably be closer to Redbeard's percentiles.

For me, and my table I prefer to run a lot of 1 and 2 running together, my players are all very big on social interaction, so if I can devise a room with potential enemies I try that route. Obviously some rooms are going to have straight combat but I try and at least do 50% of my encounters were combat isn't the only reaction I give the PC's, even though at first look it seems that would be the option...."hey here is a room full of bad guys lets kill them" I like to run a few scenario's for each room in case my PC's decide "hey here is a room full of bad guys...let talk a minute before killing them." It takes more work on my end, but we find it more enjoyable.

Also I hate empty rooms, so I try to minimize number 4. Unless I can tie the room to the narrative and use it as a stepping point for the overall story.

There is no reliable way to plan such ratios without ignoring the actions of the PCs. Encounters can be approached in different ways by different groups. I place monsters & NPCs with goals & motivations. I don't dictate how the players interact with these. In any medium to large sized dungeon environment I like to leave a decent number of areas empty. Some of these empty areas serve as resources for the PCs or the dungeon denizens.

In general, I strive to provide opportunities for the players to engage in all three pillars of the game in each scene. I leave it to them to decide how to approach things.

It depends on the nature of the adventure.

Not only that, I dislike thinking of an encounter as a 'combat' encounter just because it involves, say, an ogre. Why can't this be an interaction encounter? It all depends on what the pcs do.

Wik said:

So, what do you think the ratio of encounters should be in a site-based adventure?

Assume, for the sake of simplicity, that every keyed area belongs to one of four categories:

1. Social - interact with NPCs, etc.
2. Combat - Kill stuff.
3. Exploration - find clues, solve puzzles, search for secret doors, disarm traps.
4. Empty (might have stuff in the room, but interacting with it will provide little information).

So, what should these ratios be?

Myself, I'm leaning on using something like this - 1 in 8 locations should be social, 3 in 8 combat (with only 1 or 2 of them being anything harder than an easy combat), 2 in 8 exploration, and 2 in 8 empty. That's sort of the ratio I've been using in rooms right now, but I'm curious to see how other GMs handle it.

(if it really matters for all you "it depends" types, the assume the dungeon has 24-32 keyed areas, or less than 50 at any rate. And I know many encounters can be solved multiple ways, but for ease of conversation, let's just assume a railroady "one solution only" situation).

Click to expand...

I think I'm going to have to be an "it depends" type.

For me, it depends on my goal for the the adventure.

If I was going super-generic, I might have it evenly divided. So a 32-area dungeon would have 8 areas of each.

But in practice, I usually want to focus more on one or the other. In an adventure where I want them to be, I dunno, gathering allies for confronting an incoming alien invasion, I focus on the talky bits. In an adventure where they are colonizing a new territory, maybe I emphasize the mappy bits. In a gladitorial contest, I probably emphasize the fighty bits. Etc.

[MENTION=40177]Wik[/MENTION] You forgot #5: The players kibitz in-character, crack terrible jokes, play pranks on sleeping/unconscious/dead party members, antagonize every possible NPC, interrupt your attempts at introducing anything resembling story, and turn down fair deals on that one magic item they really want in favor of stealing it!

What pillar is that called?

Since I don't randomly generate my games:

3/8 is exploration, which includes simple exploration (we travel through the forest!) to challenging exploration (skill checks through dangerous terrain) to mixed exploration (exploration that could result in combat, but may not).
2/8 is strict combat. These are always going to be fights, you may choose not to fight them, but there is no option here to 'talk them down'. Avoidance is possible though outmaneuvering the enemy, but it's designed to be a fight.
2/8 is soft social. Soft social is any situation which is intended to be resolved through words rather than the sword, but the option to use a sword remains. I don't build "hard social" encounters where my players have no choice but to talk their way out.
1/8 is "empty". These are open plains, empty deserts, pre-looted dungeons. They serve some purpose, but they are not a challenge and they provide no reward. They are generally for giving players leads towards the other parts of the game.

I don't see how people are responding so much with "it depends". Don't you pre-plan what a certain area is going to be or do you just write "King" on your notes and make it all up when the party gets there? Because that's the only way I can see it as "it depends". Yes, every campaign is going to be different but I'd imagine you have some forethought as to if this campaign will include favor certain types of play over others and what parts of the game it will do so in.