What is your campaign balance? Combat vs Social?

[Jacob Lewis]

Social encounters kill lots of characters. There have been many poor social interactions with people and creatures more powerful than my group that have gone badly. Some of those resulted in PC deaths.

Doubtful, but you're free to believe whatever you like. Just don't try passing off your speculation as evidence, at least not to me.

And optimization is less important than most optimizers think. The game is designed around non-optimized PCs, so while it becomes easier for optimized PCs, optimization is not required to easily survive the game.

Then why is anyone (like the OP) ever need to get upset if someone optimizes their character build a certain way? Let them. The game will solve any problems because it is designed that way. It's friggin' magical!

Because I'm not mistaking all the extra rules for combat as meaning the game should revolve around combat. The extra rules are there because combat is much more complicated than exploration and social interaction, so it needs all the extra rules and abilities to be able to handle it, not because the game should be mostly combat.

But you are mistaken if you think anything I said implies the game "should" anything. It simply does. Combat is the cornerstone of the mechanics, but not the entirety of it. Nor would I say the pillars are equally represented. However, there are game systems that give those neglected pillars much more weight than the core rules as presented. Take a look at The One Ring/Adventures in Middle Earth for 5e.

This is your personal choice, not one the game is making for you. If you like to play a mostly combat game, that's great. For my part, I understand that the pillars are equal, and therefore strive to give them equal time in my game.

Well you're just a good gaming saint, ain't ya?

To be clear, it is not my personal choice. But it can be. Or anyone else's. That doesn't make it bad, wrong, inferior, or less than anyone else's choice. But if you're running a game a certain way, you should explain your expectations to your players. Then when they optimize their characters for combat that only happens once every three sessions and wonder why they're not having any fun, you can tell them they were doing it wrong.

Consequently, they may start looking for another group that better fits their style of play, but I call that a win for everyone.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I would say in my group 75-80 percent non-combatant. That can be either social or exploration. The groups I generally play with are really into social and more specifically problem solving. We do about 20-25 percent combat. Now when I play at the mall it typically switches the other way. And the mall crowd hates our play style with a passion. Nothing wrong with that either. Good group of kids wanting there own fun in a different way.

 

[pogre]

This brings me to my question. How do you balance your campaign? If your campaign is just a massive dungeon crawl then being 100% combat is the way to go, but a role play game should have balance. So how should a standard game be balanced? 50% combat 50% social interaction? Do you favor one over the other?

Disagree with the bolded.

Combat is a lot of fun for many, many folks. I always get a sense in session zero (usually before) of what kind of game people want. I have one group that loves combat. I have another group that really enjoys social interaction. There is tons and tons of combat in the first group's game Dungeon of the Mad Mage and probably 20% combat in the second group (mostly homebrew).

Find a group that suits your style. However, I reject completely the idea that folks that crank up the combat and measure a game session by dice rolled are doing anything wrong.

 

[Monayuris]

Disagree with the bolded.

Combat is a lot of fun for many, many folks. I always get a sense in session zero (usually before) of what kind of game people want. I have one group that loves combat. I have another group that really enjoys social interaction. There is tons and tons of combat in the first group's game Dungeon of the Mad Mage and probably 20% combat in the second group (mostly homebrew).

Find a group that suits your style. However, I reject completely the idea that folks that crank up the combat and measure a game session by dice rolled are doing anything wrong.

I agree completely. Personally, I find too much combat to be boring, but if that is what the group likes and everyone is on the same page then you don't need any balance... its totally cool to go from fight to fight.

It sounds like the original poster is suffering from a difference in expectations.

As a DM, you shouldn't be 'balancing' the game to hinder / punish the play style of which you don't approve. Instead you should be setting clear expectations from the beginning about what play style you want and working with your players to satisfy those expectations or compromise when needed.

 

[Maxperson]

Doubtful, but you're free to believe whatever you like. Just don't try passing off your speculation as evidence, at least not to me.

Are you seriously arguing that a social encounter with the king gone badly cannot result in "Off with their heads!"?

Then why is anyone (like the OP) ever need to get upset if someone optimizes their character build a certain way? Let them. The game will solve any problems because it is designed that way. It's friggin' magical!

Because like you, some people have blinders on and don't see that the game functions just fine with or without optimizing. I'm always amused by those who optimize for combat in my games. It usually means that they are gimping themselves during most of the game, since combat should only be about a third of the game.

But you are mistaken if you think anything I said implies the game "should" anything. It simply does. Combat is the cornerstone of the mechanics, but not the entirety of it. Nor would I say the pillars are equally represented. However, there are game systems that give those neglected pillars much more weight than the core rules as presented. Take a look at The One Ring/Adventures in Middle Earth for 5e.

Combat is not the cornerstone of the mechanics. It's simply the most complicated and therefore requires more pages of rules. Despite the bulk of combat rules, they are no more important than the rules on exploration or social interaction.

Well you're just a good gaming saint, ain't ya?

I prefer guru.

To be clear, it is not my personal choice.

So let me get this straight. You've made a statement that combat options are usually more interesting, but that's not your personal choice? Why would you make the claim that combat options are usually more interesting when you don't believe that they are?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Disagree with the bolded.

Combat is a lot of fun for many, many folks. I always get a sense in session zero (usually before) of what kind of game people want. I have one group that loves combat. I have another group that really enjoys social interaction. There is tons and tons of combat in the first group's game Dungeon of the Mad Mage and probably 20% combat in the second group (mostly homebrew).

Find a group that suits your style. However, I reject completely the idea that folks that crank up the combat and measure a game session by dice rolled are doing anything wrong.

Well to be honest I disagree with you as well.

To me a ROLE PLAYING GAME is playing a role, it is pretending to be what you are not obviously. If all you are doing is walking from one combat to another combat with nothing of substance then you might as well play heroclicks, warhammer fantasy, or any number of board games where the whole game is rolling dice to kill them before they kill you.

There is nothing wrong with any of the above but Heroclicks in not a Role Playing Game and a campaign of DnD where every session basically starts with a roll for initiative and ends when either the last baddie dies (because in these types of games the baddies never retreat) or the party TPKs is not a one either.

DnD is built around combat and non-combat, if you are going to use only one and let your players optimize for just one then why not go out and pick some other system that has much more intense combat rules. Heck if you are going to do nothing but combat then why not go back to DnD3.5 or DnD4.0 both of which (to me at least) feel more detailed in their combat than the intentionally simplified DnD5.0.

Again well worth stating, there is nothing wrong with a combat only campaign, merely saying that in my opinion it is not really a role playing game. You are no more playing your 10th level fighter in a combat only campaign than you are playing the top hat marker you chose for Monopoly.

 

[pogre]

Well to be honest I disagree with you as well.

I'm on board with agreeing to disagree.

Good luck finding a group that suits your style.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

As a DM, you shouldn't be 'balancing' the game to hinder / punish the play style of which you don't approve. Instead you should be setting clear expectations from the beginning about what play style you want and working with your players to satisfy those expectations or compromise when needed.

Is it balancing the game to have non-combat interactions with dice rolls that due to their min-maxed character design in effect punishes them?


That is like saying you cannot have a villain learn. Lets say a party through intentional choice builds a total melee monster party. Everyone swings a big stick and damn do they hit hard. Is it a punishment if the villain the party is opposing throughout the campaign hires a mercenary band or archers to ambush the party because it plays straight to their most blatant weakness?

Is it unfair punishment if the clever king asks the character who did the majority of the damage and dealt the killing blow to the dragon to speak for the party in determining their reward? Suddenly the 8INT 7CHR Barbarian is severely punished by being designed 100% for combat. The smart King knows the suave and persuasive Bard of the party will have a well prepared request for a reward that will be hard to deny and save face. On the other hand the Barbarian who is barely smarter than the Hulk is likely to roughly answer "Grog want wine, women, and gold!" all a huge savings compared to what the socially savvy party members would ask to receive.

Not trying to play devils advocate here. It is an honest question. Is the game so much about "fun" that a DM should never target a players weakness even when it was a weakness created 100% by the players choices?

 

[Monayuris]

Is it balancing the game to have non-combat interactions with dice rolls that due to their min-maxed character design in effect punishes them?


That is like saying you cannot have a villain learn. Lets say a party through intentional choice builds a total melee monster party. Everyone swings a big stick and damn do they hit hard. Is it a punishment if the villain the party is opposing throughout the campaign hires a mercenary band or archers to ambush the party because it plays straight to their most blatant weakness?

Is it unfair punishment if the clever king asks the character who did the majority of the damage and dealt the killing blow to the dragon to speak for the party in determining their reward? Suddenly the 8INT 7CHR Barbarian is severely punished by being designed 100% for combat. The smart King knows the suave and persuasive Bard of the party will have a well prepared request for a reward that will be hard to deny and save face. On the other hand the Barbarian who is barely smarter than the Hulk is likely to roughly answer "Grog want wine, women, and gold!" all a huge savings compared to what the socially savvy party members would ask to receive.

Not trying to play devils advocate here. It is an honest question. Is the game so much about "fun" that a DM should never target a players weakness even when it was a weakness created 100% by the players choices?

Thanks for responding.

None of this is unfair. I may have misunderstood your original post. It sounded a little too much as if you were looking for ways to use in game methods to encourage the play style you want from the game.

My point was that if you want a specific play style from your players, you are better served communicating this play style directly to the players rather than manipulating your campaign to encourage it.

This is best hashed out directly.. If people show up to your game with combat monsters while you want a role playing / intrigue style game then you have a miscommunication and you should solve it outside of the game.

You should tell them: "I am running a political intrigue game where social interaction is favored over combat... your characters should have social skills and backgrounds to be able to succeed".

 

[Sadras]

On average I'd estimate combat usually constitutes around 35% of our sessions. The social and exploration pillars take quite a chunk of playtime.