D&D 5E "When DMing I Avoid Making the PCs have 'pointless' combats." (a poll)

[Charlaquin]

So, most of the time.

No

 

[Vaalingrade]

Random encounters are always integrated into the narrative.

Sometimes, it is to show them that getting a break while assaulting a base/lair is not really a good idea.
Sometimes, it is to remember them that the world does live and that things happens outside of the PCs' influence.
Sometimes, it is to put some pressure on the PC to go forward.
Sometimes, it is just to inspire my self to push the story forward into new territory.

These are not integrated into the narrative. They're metagame justifications.

Unless the narrative includes the DM as a character unto themselves.

 

[Charlaquin]

These are not integrated into the narrative.

They are if the narrative is emergent from the gameplay.

 

[Celebrim]

These are not integrated into the narrative. They're metagame justifications.

Unless the narrative includes the DM as a character unto themselves.

Do you not believe that writers have meta-narrative justifications for events in a story? Like do you believe that writers never know what purpose a story event serves in the story when write it? Is it somehow proof that they are not events integrated into the narrative that the author knows what purpose he wants the events to serve within the narrative.

Some would in fact say that the author is always in the story. In a trad RPG the DM exists as the narrator of the narrative. Whether or not the narrator is actually a character is an interesting discussion, but if the narrator is, then it's not a character in the sense the term is usually meant within a trad RPG. We could get into some wonderful 'Stanley Parable' like commentary on how much freedom a protagonist that is making their own choices in someone else's narrative actually has, but I think the part where that analogy fails is that in a trad RPG the DM can do what a computer program can't do (yet) and actually script out new content in response to the players truly leaving the planned for paths.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Do you not believe that writers have meta-narrative justifications for events in a story? Like do you believe that writers never know what purpose a story event serves in the story when write it? Is it somehow proof that they are not events integrated into the narrative that the author knows what purpose he wants the events to serve within the narrative.

Some would in fact say that the author is always in the story. In a trad RPG the DM exists as the narrator of the narrative. Whether or not the narrator is actually a character is an interesting discussion, but if the narrator is, then it's not a character in the sense the term is usually meant within a trad RPG. We could get into some wonderful 'Stanley Parable' like commentary on how much freedom a protagonist that is making their own choices in someone else's narrative actually has, but I think the part where that analogy fails is that in a trad RPG the DM can do what a computer program can't do (yet) and actually script out new content in response to the players truly leaving the planned for paths.

As a writer, I know that I never throw in or at the very least don't keep in a scene that exists solely to motivate me.

 

[Umbran]

There are no pointless combats in my view.

What about combat, specifically, means it cannot ever be pointless?

 

[wedgeski]

Hmm, 'pointless' encounter. The only definition I can think of--that applies to me, anyway--is a throwaway combat just to end a session, or give me some breathing room to go away and prep an unexpected turn by the party. In that respect I do try to avoid them.

 

[Umbran]

Back in my younger days, when we played every week, maybe multiple times a week, for entire afternoons and evenings, then I didn't care a whole lot about the quality of a fight, or how it fit into the larger experience of the game.

Now, I am playing with adults that have families and obligations. My regular game meets at best every other week, on a weeknight. My players have tons of other stuff they could be doing.

I don't have a lot of time for stuff that doesn't mean a lot to the players. Combat that isn't somehow more relevant than just its threat or use of resources gets heaved over the side.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

For me it's true. As a DM I find combat to be the most boring part of D&D, and I usually only do big setpieces.

Sometimes I make encounters with combat fodder on the way to make the "dungeon" more plausible, but at least after tier 1 I usually don't play out these encounters in combat, I just ask the party how they win over the minions.

 

[iserith]

What about combat, specifically, means it cannot ever be pointless?

It's another thing that happens in the emergent story. To the extent the goals of play are to have fun and create an exciting, memorable story together during play, combat is part of that goal when it occurs.