D&D 5E Do you have fights that are *supposed* to happen?

[I'm A Banana]

I know that frequently in my games, a clever use of a ritual, an interesting use of the terrain, a successful skill check, or a clever strategy can win a combat without much in the way of attack rolls or initiative getting involved. In terms of pure damage efficiency, sometimes speak with animals and a good Charisma check will trump anything else you could've done with that pack of wolves. Yes, you can Intimidate that bugbear who was supposed to be the boss. You Stealthed in to get the MacGuffin? You clever hobbit, you!

I know sometimes in my games, alternative solutions aren't easy to come by. Okay, you've charmed the demon, but he still wants to destroy the world, and if you're going to try and stop him, he's going to try and kill you. But I never have a fight that is meant to happen, a fight that I would rule can't be solved in a way other than with blades and fists. In my mind, every fight has at least a potential escape hatch, even if the characters don't want to or won't bother using it (maybe you Deceive the demon into thinking you're going to carry out the dark ritual for him so he can go home? Gimmie a Charisma check and pray, folks). I roll with the punches and I'm inclined to Say Yes.

But I get the sense that not every DM is as free and loose with the possibility of a fight breaking out. In the hands of another DM, no, the demon who wants to destroy the world is going to attack you and there ain't nothin' you can do about it, sucka, this is a FIGHT TO THE DEATH and it will be HUGE. Don't roll for Deception, roll for Initiative, it ain't got time to listen to your monologue. Maybe you worked hard on your epic demon battle, maybe you've had a vision of this fight in your head for weeks, maybe you queue up the epic battle music and get pumped, and letting the party weasel out of that is going to be disappointing for *you*.

I'm interested in how prevalent these modes of play are, and what people have to say about 'em.

So how about you? Do you have fights that are supposed to happen, that will basically happen even if the party tries to avoid them? Or are you cool with your epic evil dragon being asked to kindly leave the town alone by the bard who rolls a 20?

 

[Blue]

First, I run multiple plots at once. I can work out encounters (which may or may not be fights) and the party follows some other thread and it never comes out.

Second, often things can go multiple ways. An encounter could be combat or bypassed with stealth, or a bribe, or good diplomacy, or the right magic, or cleverness. Or that bit of information they sought out two sessions ago. Or by interactions with backstory. "Oh, you served with Captain Mechal as well?" Or by running away. That's happened enough that's it's quite real.

As a player, I often work to avoid or blunt combat. Being railroaded into it regardless of what I do or what resources I expend makes me shake my head. Not saying all combats can be avoided - or that I want to avoid them all. But going against archers in a tower while I cross a bridge leading up to it - well, maybe I'll climb under the bridge instead.

As a side note, the last two answers are worded rather condescendingly. This is D&D - no one expects to be in a pacifistic campaign, but it's still possible to have something besides "occasionally wriggling out of a combat encounter". I can see where the majority of scenes don't have to be combat. I've run multiple-session streaks without combat in 3.5.

 

[Umbran]

Well, some epic demons *aren't* going to wait for your monologue. Really, they just aren't.

In general, I try to set up situations. How the party deals with them is up to them. Sometimes, the situation is that the monster wants to *EAT YOUR HED NOW!!!11!* If you can get past that without a fight, more power to you!

I am usually prepped for what I think are the most likely ways PCs will try to deal with a situation. Frequently, I am correct. But, players collectively have more brains than a single GM, so they can surprise me on occasion. I'm okay with that.

 

[SuperTD]

I wouldn't force them into any fights, but there are some that will be damn hard to avoid. But hey, if they come up with some crazy clever plan it might just work if the dice happen to be with you. I'm somewhere between "boss fights happen" and "all fights can be avoided" in the sense that I don't mind them sometimes getting out of fights, but I would get bored if they chose to play as pacifists, and would not run a game where the players went down that route.

 

[Celtavian]

I've never had players that look to avoid fights. My players like to fight. They prefer to solve problems with combat. I've had plenty of fights they could have avoided, but they often end up starting fights that aren't necessary. Their propensity to want to kill everything has led to problems in campaigns where they fail to gain allies that could help them or they kill an NPC they didn't have to kill or that NPC has to run. In the most recent Tyranny of Dragons module, one of the PCs ended up driving off an ally that was supposed to help us because he tried to start a fight with the ally. Combat is the most fun part of the game for my group and the one activity they are all equally capable of participating in.

That being said, I do have fights the players can't avoid if they want to stop the evil from happening. The evil tyrant king that was trying to take their kingdom wasn't going to stop due to negotiation. I do not allow social skills to work in situations where the opponent has zero interest in allowing them to work no matter how good the social skill is. In that particular instance the players did not initiate the fight, the evil king did. He hired a hit team and went after them. There are often instances where the only way to avoid the fight is run and let the evil guy do his evil. My players rarely choose that option. I see it as unrealistic to allow players to always avoid a fight. Sometimes enemies use violence and the only option for avoiding a fight would be running. The players always have the option to run and let the bad guy win, but they rarely choose that option. Hell, they rarely choose the negotiation option when that is available. Even if they negotiate, they usually feel they are negotiating from strength and engage in threats. If they are clearly more powerful than an opponent, I'll let them win through intimidation.

Yes. I do have fights they can't avoid with any method other than running. I would find a game that did otherwise to be lacking in verisimilitude. Rather than citing the numerous real world examples where there was no choice but to fight, I'll just say sometimes evil people give you no choice but to fight and there are a lot more than evil people in D&D that won't stop unless they are violently beaten.

I'm not going to vote on the poll. None of them fit how I feel. "Supposed" to fight is a word I don't care for because players always have the option to try something else including running. I prefer "the villain will not be deterred other than by defeating it in combat." That is how I see it. It has more to do with the motivation of the villain than my motivation as a DM or the players ability to avoid the fight. If my players said, "We want to work for the villain and offer our services." They could do that and avoid the fight and get paid. They would be part of the evil after that. Since they tend to play heroes, they don't want to engage in that behavior. That has nothing to do with "supposed" to fight.

 

[Lanefan]

In terms of pure damage efficiency, sometimes speak with animals and a good Charisma check will trump anything else you could've done with that pack of wolves. Yes, you can Intimidate that bugbear who was supposed to be the boss.

For this purpose I'd still count both these as "fights" - you still beat the enemy, just without using violence.

As a player, if something's put in front of me I just naturally assume we're going to have to beat it, either with weapons or spells or words or some combination of these. Completely avoiding an encounter, while always an option, never feels right in that the encounter you avoid on the way in is gonna bite you on the way out; so let's just get it over with.

Lan-"one of our very few consistent operating procedures is 'never leave an enemy behind us'"-efan

 

[Jester David]

I spent a LOT of time designing encounters in 3e/4e/PF. So those ended up mandatory. I'm a little loosie-goosie with 5e, so I'm much more willing to shrug off the party skipping over some of my prep work.

Generally, the unskippable fights are tied to story. They're unskippable as much because the party really wants to fight the monster and I want them to want to fight the monster.

 

[was]

It does not bother me as a player, or DM, if some of the encounters are handled without violence. The major ones, like boss fights, will probably require it.

 

[Umbran]

For this purpose I'd still count both these as "fights" - you still beat the enemy, just without using violence.

I think that is way too broad to be useful. "Fight without violence," is pretty self-contradictory.

Most of us recognize these as "challenges". You can resolve a challenge without a fight. You can't resolve a fight (or a combat challenge) without a fight

 

[Wik]

Well, if my players are able to find a way to beat an encounter without using violence, more power to them.... boss fight or no. BUT, if I had players who wanted to play the entire game as pacifists? Nope. They could play somewhere else, it's not my type of game. I want sandboxy and loose, but I still want it to be FUN, and a no violence game of D&D is, to me, not fun... if I'm gonna run a game like that, I'd prefer Delta Green or something else that better suits investigation and the like.

Really, though, my players like to kill stuff. Even things they probably shouldn't. Last session, they came into a room where six priests of evil evilosity were praying to some evil god statue thing. The encounter was "supposed" (according to the module) to be a cakewalk - a rogue could easily sneak up behind them and slit throats, and the priests were too absorbed in their religiousity to notice.

Nope. Party takes a look inside, sees evil cultists, and "Leeeeeeeroooooooy Jennnnnnnkiiiiiinnnnnnnns!" Lots of PCs get hurt, and cultist blood ruins the lovely tapestries.

In short, I'm in no trouble of seeing my game become Amnesty International any time soon.