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

[Umbran]

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.

Is combat necessarily exciting or memorable?

 

[iserith]

Is combat necessarily exciting or memorable?

Per "How to Play," it's the goal of the DM and players both to make it so. Same for exploration and social.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

That seems like a really weak... explanation?.... rebuttal?....concession?... what exactly is that? Tangent? That is a statement that seems to by exception prove the point I made.

And in any event, you'd have to show that it was a problem to have scenes that exist solely to motivate the GM. I don't know that it is a problem for the GM to treat the game as a theater game and step up to the challenge of a writing prompt in the middle of running an RPG. Can I not enjoy an "Iron DM" challenge in it's own right as the GM because a dice throw for a random prompt gave me something I probably would have never invented on my own? Maybe yes I'll fail and the scene will be meaningless, and I'll handwave a conclusion and move on. But maybe I won't fail stepping on up, and not only myself but the PCs will be entertained.

The GM can explore the imaginary space as well.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That seems like a really weak... explanation?.... rebuttal?....concession?... what exactly is that? Tangent? That is a statement that seems to by exception prove the point I made.

You were asking for a writer's perspective, which in no way proves your point. People need to stop telling people who disagree with them that they've 'proven their point' it's bad rhetoric.

Also, DMing is not writing. Most problems with DMs come from them trying to write.

And in any event, you'd have to show that it was a problem to have scenes that exist solely to motivate the GM.

The post I was replying to was saying that all those reasons listed were examples of random encounters being integrated into the narrative. There was no judgement on whether it was a problem or not, just that it was integrated into the narrative.

 

[Helldritch]

Easily avoided with common spells.

If you think about the Tiny hut, that is a death wish in my campaigns. It WILL be spotted and if you are near a lair, you will get the whole lair on you. My players now avoid that spell like the plague. Useful in the wilds, but once you are tackling a lair or mega dungeon, it is a liability you do not want to try.

 

[Helldritch]

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

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

The narrative emerges from the game play.
I do not play NPCs in the party. It is a sure way to get to lose objectivity. I let the players play their henchmen (sidekicks) whenever they have one. And yes, they do tend to have a few. As henchmen often become the next character when one dies.

Also. Random encounters forces a DM to improvise the results, integrate them into the narrative and often find justifications for the presence of said monsters/foes/events. Heck, players will often find better justifications for the presence of a monster than myself.

Random encounters prevent a few things such as:
1) It prevents the DM to "Tell" a story in which the characters have no say in the story. They are the actors in the DMs' story. For that alone, they are worth it.
2) It keeps the players on their toes. When resting is just a simple matter, it removes a lot of the tension of invading a lair.
3) It makes the world much more believable. Yes, the story is centered on the players, but the world isn't. Things continue to happen while the characters are doing something else.
4) It also pushes players forward. I use random encounters to push the 6-8 encounters per day. I create my own tables fitted with the current adventure, area or campaign in mind with a possibility for "general" unrelated encounters. Not all encounters are hostile in nature.
5) Since random encounters do not give treasure and/or experience, players will tend to find other ways to resolve them whenever possible. They do count for the 6-8 encounters period however and using a short rest (a day in my campaign) means that this rest must be carefully considered.

 

[overgeeked]

In 5E, random encounters are almost pointless. Unless they're triggered in a dungeon or other fight-rich environment, the PCs can easily rest and recover any and all spent resources. If you have a wizard of 5th-level or higher, they will take Leomund's Tiny Hut and have unlimited access to long rests.

 

[iserith]

In 5E, random encounters are almost pointless. Unless they're triggered in a dungeon or other fight-rich environment, the PCs can easily rest and recover any and all spent resources. If you have a wizard of 5th-level or higher, they will take Leomund's Tiny Hut and have unlimited access to long rests.

Have you considered the possibility that how you personally run your game (or DMs under which you have played) are doing so in a way that makes spells like Leomund's tiny hut more valuable than they actually are?

That's a common occurrence in my experience: Someone exclaims "This thing is broken!" or words to that effect then when you look under the hood of their game you see that it's not the thing that's doing it. It comes up for this spell, resting in general, passive Perception, the works. It's almost never the thing itself, but due to other factors about how the game is presented and managed.

 

[overgeeked]

Have you considered the possibility that how you personally run your game (or DMs under which you have played) are doing so in a way that makes spells like Leomund's tiny hut more valuable than they actually are?

That's a common occurrence in my experience: Someone exclaims "This thing is broken!" or words to that effect then when you look under the hood of their game you see that it's not the thing that's doing it. It comes up for this spell, resting in general, passive Perception, the works. It's almost never the thing itself, but due to other factors about how the game is presented and managed.

So...long rests, effectively infinite resources, and Leomund's Tiny Hut are perfectly fine...it's my fault for wanting a game that's more challenging than LOL easy mode. Okay. Sure.

 

[iserith]

So...long rests, effectively infinite resources, and Leomund's Tiny Hut are perfectly fine...it's my fault for wanting a game that's more challenging than LOL easy mode. Okay. Sure.

You can want what you want and nobody can gainsay that. But you take this tact in multiple threads and those of us who have challenging games even with normal resting rules and Leomund's tiny hut might wonder what you're doing versus what we're doing. Because clearly there's something going on there. Perhaps you're missing or not implementing certain rules or the like. I've certainly had plenty of discussions with people where you get a glimpse of how they run their game and I'm like, well, (for example) no wonder Perception is so overvalued as a skill in your game!