must. rant. now.

[WizarDru]

Re: Think

D&D is a combat oriented game. Always has been but moreso in this version.

Wow. I'm not disputing your opinion, but this is completely opposite my experience. This edition has the most focus on non-combat activities and ways to advance than any one previously, IMHO. I mean, The 'G' series wasn't exactly brimming with RP-opportunities.

 

[the Rob]

As the DM in question, i have to agree that despite efforts to the contrary the gaming group is still very combat oriented. The idea to add creatures they cannot get past without negotiation, or putting them in a PC-race only environment where negotiations or diplomacy checks are required, often the only one who melds to the plot is Joe. The other players either mindlessly go to an inn, get drunk, wench, and start a bar fight... or attempt to threaten the king/ruler/primary NPC. They've threatened NPCs 10 levels higher than them, their gods, and i even have a PC who killed a small slave-girl wh knew how to get back to the pens unseen, but 'didn't want to go where the bad men would hurt her'.

And yes, i have killed them for their insane offensive actions, but it just doesn't seem to sink in. Although after reading the posts here, i have decided to try a strictly diplomacy basd campaign in a town where all they do is attend parties, diplomify nobles, etc.

Thanks for suggestions.
-the Rob

 

[Nightchilde-2]

They've threatened NPCs 10 levels higher than them, their gods,

*sputter*

They've threatened their gods?

Holy crap, PLEASE tell me that one of the characters isn't a cleric/druid/paladin/ranger 'cause IMC, the god would pull sponsorship so fast it would make the holy man's head spin!

Even if not, I, personally, would have their gods abandon them, and somehow mark/curse them with a deific-level curse. No church in their right mind would risk offending the gods by healing them.

Sorry, I just don't play with threatening gods...

 

[Henry]

Did he mean THEIR gods, of the gods of the NPC's they've killed?

If the first, that's suicidal.

If the second, that's just brassy.

"Come on, Bane, you cheezy pansy! Freakin' mama's boy with the gangrene-lookin'-fist cryin' about how a buncha AD-VEN-TUR-ERS SPOILED YOUR PLAYTIME! Yeah, I killed your high priest! I killed your monsters! C'mon, wimp! I'm Callin' you out!"

 

[fusangite]

As the DM in question, i have to agree that despite efforts to the contrary the gaming group is still very combat oriented. The idea to add creatures they cannot get past without negotiation, or putting them in a PC-race only environment where negotiations or diplomacy checks are required, often the only one who melds to the plot is Joe. The other players either mindlessly go to an inn, get drunk, wench, and start a bar fight... or attempt to threaten the king/ruler/primary NPC. They've threatened NPCs 10 levels higher than them, their gods, and i even have a PC who killed a small slave-girl wh knew how to get back to the pens unseen, but 'didn't want to go where the bad men would hurt her'.

And yes, i have killed them for their insane offensive actions, but it just doesn't seem to sink in. Although after reading the posts here, i have decided to try a strictly diplomacy basd campaign in a town where all they do is attend parties, diplomify nobles, etc.

Despite my academic bent and usual focus on role playing, without a doubt, the most fun I have ever had gaming was in a Champions campaign run by Teflon Billy. Much to the annoyance of the GM, initially, the players/characters would drunkenly bumble around, miss vital clues, forget what was going on and turn the whole thing into a fiasco. The campaign that was supposed to be inspired by the Watchmen, morphed into what was basically an adaptation of the Tick.

After some initial annoyance, however, the GM adapted to our absurd group dynamic and we had some really great times. People were given bonus experience for coming up with the most appropriate quote from the Simpsons or bringing beer.

Part of being a GM is adapting to, rather than resisting your players. It sounds to me like as long as you're dealing with this group, you're going to be running violent slapstick. Might as well roll with it while you and your more RP-minded player try to build a new group.

So, I really advise against trying to make your group something it's not. You may even find that situated in a different group, some of these hack & slash players play differently; a group dynamic is a special thing -- something to be celebrated, not destroyed.

 

[Dareoon Dalandrove]

First is your DM encouraging this? What I mean by this is do you get xp for avoiding the encounter? I've seen people fall into this trap. Your role playing, you have a time limit and need to get to point b quickly, but those orcs are in the way. Now you could fight them and get their xp or you could avoid them and get none. Now everyone wants to go up that lvl so..."I roll initive" is shouted and battle insuses. If you feel that this may be the case talk to your dm and the other players.

 

[cimerians]

Wow. I'm not disputing your opinion, but this is completely opposite my experience. This edition has the most focus on non-combat activities and ways to advance than any one previously, IMHO. I mean, The 'G' series wasn't exactly brimming with RP-opportunities

The rules are presented as such (Huge Combat section just like earlier editions). It just depends on what type of adventures you play.

I remember the Assassin's Knot, an old module by Lekofka I believe, not too much combat but lots of detective work, very fun module indeed.

 

[Quickbeam]

I'd agree with fusangite about attempting to bend the campaign a bit towards the player's desires, if the players were occasionally willing to bend their wants to suit Joe's or Rob's preferences. A group discussion is in order IMO. If everyone airs their concerns in an open and constructive manner, perhaps a compromise can be reached. If not, then some folks are likely to be unhappy in this gaming circle and may move on.

Good luck.