Expanding D&D adventures past mere combat

[MerricB]

edit: if you look at the text i was referencing you will see it is barely a paragraph in the Basic set. yet, with the players and the referee's help it can be expanded to be much more.

I've run the adventure in the Basic Set twice, and both times that Mirror has been absolutely brilliant. It really lends itself to expansion.

You've got to love the line, "She might even invite one of the characters to come into the mirror and keep her company, but if he does so, he disappears and is never seen again." that's fun!

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Easier said than done, though. DM Background is a huge crutch that makes adventure writing so much easier.

The DM Background is important for context, but it is so rarely actually used properly. It "justifies" why the writer made their choices during the adventure, but it isn't integrated into the adventure to be useful - that's a problem.

Cheers!

 

[Templeton580]

*

 

[MerricB]

Well, it appears to me that one way to set the sights of players and their characters outside the boundaries of combat encounters is to make them interested in the world around them...provided that you have players who play along, or actively pursuit that kind of interest. As such, there is nothing better than getting their characters involved with NPCs who aren't combat targets at all, but great for interaction.

Ongoing interactions with NPCs and organisations are definitely needed! (Some of the relationships with the Elder Amberites in my old Amber game really drew the players in - I must try to recapture that!)

You can see the Eberron adventures trying to provide these sort of ongoing NPCs. There are two in particular in the original four adventures - Elaydren d'Cannith, and a recurring villain. (There's also the ongoing attacks from minions of the Lord of Blades, but that isn't quite the same).

The villain suffers from being underused after his first appearance in SotLW - and rarely is in a position to interact with the PCs thereafter.

The patron, Lady Elaydren, never interacts with the PCs except to say, "I want to hire you. Go there and do this." The interaction needs to be more significant. The adventures would be greatly improved by a DM who does expand their relationship with their patron.

What is most frustrating is that there are a couple of great role-playing opportunities in WotVB - the gnomish ball is a *great* set piece. My players really enjoyed it. However, because it contains no-one of any ongoing consequence, the effects of it are minimised. Yes, it's a role-playing encounter, but role-playing also needs continuity of interaction.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Yet reading a novel and playing D&D both require the use of imagination, while playing a computer game does not.

D&D and the computer game both require creativity to solve the puzzles. The novel doesn't.

Role-playing games are unusual in how many skills they require to play well.

Cheers!

 

[Templeton580]

*

 

[nothing to see here]

I'm sure others can think of more elements that can be added to take D&D away from merely being killing monsters - and that many of you do it all the time. (I may find the DMG2, which I'm still waiting on - stupid, incompetent Wizards Australia! - covers this, though I'd be somewhat surprised).

Great post Merric! While I love the D&D ruleset, the main problem I have with it regarding non-combat encounters stems not from the rules themselves but from different players playstyles.

I'm of the camp that one of the big appeals of D&D (and RPG's in general) is that it allows to become something fantastic -- something you're not. It's escapist. And certainly when combat is the order of the day, no matter how dull you're day to day life is, this escapism shines through...the rules deliver.

Now I'm of the belief that, if somebody who is no overly charming in the real world wants to play somebody charming (or intelligent / or perceptive / or well connected etc etc) in D&D the game would ideally, present some sort of mechanics to allow you to have that escapism. However mechanics for roleplaying run against a sizeable other group of RPG'ers who want their roleplaying to be, well, roleplaying, unfettered by unecessary die rolling.

Designing core game mechanics to appeal to both groups is, well, difficult. At least on combat...most people can more or less agree on the need for rules (if disagree on the quality of them).

You see the best example of this phenomenon one these very boards on the rules forums whenever a question about the diplomacy skill comes up. A lot of people seem unsastisfied...only some are unsatisfied that the rules aren't detailed enough, while others believe the current rules already get in the way too much. Catch 22 all around.

 

[diaglo]

I've run the adventure in the Basic Set twice, and both times that Mirror has been absolutely brilliant. It really lends itself to expansion.

You've got to love the line, "She might even invite one of the characters to come into the mirror and keep her company, but if he does so, he disappears and is never seen again." that's fun!

Cheers!

somewhere on ENWurld is an old thread i started or posted to about my nongamer wife playing this very adventure.

she had the most fun with the mirror.

but she is a pacifist in real life so that may have had something to do with it.

mrs. diaglo "make love not war" Ooi

 

[Hjorimir]

In order to keep the game from being nothing more than a string of combats I have simply made combat the second choice...because in my campaign combat is deadly.

My players have learned this (the hard way) and now really try to think their way around situations when they can. This has made them very interested in the story because the clues to victory lie within.

There is no drama to be found in any conflict where the winner is known before it even starts. If there is no drama there is no tension and people become bored; who wants to play a boring game?

 

[MerricB]

The trouble with making combat really deadly is that you then eliminate it as an option - this isn't what I want to do at all! I prefer heroic fantasy where the PCs can be heroes and survive their battles.

Certainly there will be battles that are too hard, but making them the norm is against the tradition of D&D; I don't wan't to go against that.