D&D 5E Out of Combat Woes

So far it seems the general consensus is to make sure each scene in a game is meaningful, to try and put more personality into NPCS via in character talking or just secret relevance to the plot, and to focus more on what players are trying to achieve than on how they achieve it.

I'm thinking I'll make a few different styles of challenge this weekend and run it Monday, posting the results. I'll try a standard skill challenge with consequences for failure. I'll try a scene with established obstacles and let the party tackle them one at a time, and I'll try a social scene where rolls are only important if what they're trying to do is risky or not likely to convince someone.

I'll let you guys know how it goes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

to focus more on what players are trying to achieve than on how they achieve it.

What they are trying to achieve is their goal. How they try to achieve it is their approach. In my view, the DM needs a clear statement as to both as well as the context of the scene in order to determine whether there is uncertainty to the outcome and, if there is uncertainty (and not just automatic success or failure), what the DC is.
 

RE: Skill Challenges.

One of my former 4E DM's ran his sessions without ever using the words "skill challenge" during the game. He just asked for skill rolls after we declared what our characters were attempting to do. At the end of the session, he awarded experience, and informed us what each encounter was worth, then he'd add something like, "Oh, and you completed three skill challenges." And he'd award XP for those, too.

And we'd all ask "What skill challenges?" because the way he ran them was completely seamless. He just incorporated them into the narrative without ever saying a word, and the game went right on without a hitch. IMHO, that's how skill challenges should be executed, if they're used at all.

I'd love to be able to run them this invisibly, but for some reason it just seems to go against my nature. Especially when a given check might cause negative effects to my character or worsen the scene, as a player I like to know what's going on so I can make a more informed choice. Problem with that is, being told you're in a skill challenge kinda puts you in a specific mindset.

Maybe my players would actually prefer if I tried to make skill challenges as tactical as my combats. So far one has given me feedback, saying his problem with my skill challenges is that they don't excite him. When they come up, he doesn't really feel any tension. I told him that maybe if I add instant repercussions (like say a failed check in chase scene might cause damage to you) that he'd find them more interesting.
 

What they are trying to achieve is their goal. How they try to achieve it is their approach. In my view, the DM needs a clear statement as to both as well as the context of the scene in order to determine whether there is uncertainty to the outcome and, if there is uncertainty (and not just automatic success or failure), what the DC is.

Do you think the order they declare their goal and approach in might make a difference? Right now most of my players seem to fall in the habit of declaring their approach first, then I prod them for their goal. Maybe I should try and get them in the habit of stating their goal, then we can figure out their characters approach. That way if they say "I want to get the baroness to tell me where her families crypt is, so maybe I'll try to seduce her" then we can figure out, depending on the pc in question, if there's a check involved, and if it's say Persuasion or deception. Maybe she's attractive, so flirting comes naturally. Or maybe she's plain, but the character really plays up her features in a more disingenuous way.
 

So far one has given me feedback, saying his problem with my skill challenges is that they don't excite him. When they come up, he doesn't really feel any tension.

Skill challenges can kill tension, because if done wrong they train players to subconsciously replace the intuitive goal ("the point of this is to convince the king not to execute these prisoners because we want to interrogate them first") with the meta goal ("the point of this is to be a skill check factory, go around the group and crank out X checks to move on"). This player's issue may be stemming from the metagame feel that may be coming through, rather than the presence or absence of consequences.
 

I need a little advice from you experienced gurus.

Currently I'm DMing a level 10 party of four PC's in a custom campaign setting, and the combat is going great. The players are engaged, having a blast, and routinely tell me that each session after the last becomes their new favorite.

The problem is, I'm having trouble making non-combat as interesting as combat.
That's always been an issue in D&D, and 5e is no different. 5e's base assumption is that players will describe what they want to do and you will rule success, failure, or roll vs DC. That's prettymuch it. If the players are already interested in a non-combat scene, and you're good at making successions of snap ruling like that, it works fine - it's barely different from just freestyle PRing the scene, but it works fine. It does nothing to generate interest, though, and the first step is /player describes what he wants to do/, which, in the absence of interest, is not going to happen.

Combat generates interest with a sense of jeopardy, and the excitement of an action scene. A non-combat scene can include action or jeopardy or excitement, too. But a broken axle or an interaction with a shopkeeper isn't that kind of non-combat scene. Even scenes that have that potential usually require player buy-in, up front. If you don't care who rules the kingdom and can't even remember the names of the plotters, a court intrigue scene is going to be boring.

So the primary thing is lay groundwork that makes the players care. Sad to say, most players care about the survival, power-accumulation and general aggrandizement of the their own characters and not much else. Combat figures directly into that. The PC's survival is on the line, he displays impressive abilities, and he at least gets experience points, if not an opportunity to lute a magic item (particularly important in 5e, as getting magic items makes you 'just better'). It's hard to roll all that - or even /any/ of that - into a non-combat scene.

Even assuming you could, combat has yet more stuff going for it. A lot of mechanics are brought up in combat. Action economy, hps, attacks & saving throws, damage, concentration, adv/dis, positioning, and, of course spells.

Out of combat, you're mostly making skill checks, which is like resolving a combat with nothing but attack rolls - no damage, no saves, no action economy, no tactics, nothing, just roll d20 vs DC. (Sure, those'd be some fast combats, but they'd be boring). Not only that, but in 5e combat you at least have a choice of possible attacks, you can be confident your longbow attack is going to be different from your longsword attack, and if your STR is higher than your DEX, that getting in close and using the sword will be an advantage. Out of combat, all you can do is describe an action that you /hope/ will get the DM to call for one of your better stats and a proficiency you have. So there's very little sense of player agency, as well. Of course, when a non-combat spell or ritual applies, casters get some agency.

So, what does that all mean? First of all, your skill-challenge-like mechanic is a good start. It gets everyone involved, gives them a teeny bit of agency in what skills they use, and means that everyone needs to contribute to success, so you have a teeny bit of jeopardy (in that a failure would presumably be bad). But, it's just a start. If you could find a way to add more depth to the resolution of skill checks, that'd be awesome - I've never thought of one, though. Failing that, you could still help things by providing a greater sense of jeopardy and of player buy-in to the challenge mattering. And, you can give rewards for success - exp, at minimum. But, something akin to the 'just-betterness' of magic items would be better. In an exploration challenge, treasure, including magic, is a possibility. In an interaction challenge, reputation, influence or privileges could result (or be lost). You'd have to give those things actual campaign and mechanical effects.

Privilege can be very important. For instance, if the premise of the campaign is that the PCs are all members of some order, and ongoing participation in the party's missions prettymuch requires maintaining that membership, then social challenges can carry a sense of jeopardy, as each offers a potential for disgrace and expulsion from the order (in essence, character death, since the PC can no longer participate in the campaign).



I guess I'm just hoping to hear some examples from posters on how they run the game outside of combats. How do you resolve scenes like chases, infiltrations, a political soiree where you're trying to coax out info, a trek in the wilderness trying to find an ancient ruin, etc. Do you use skill checks? How do you determine who gets to go, how many checks are involved? How do you determine DC's?

Really, any suggestions will help.
One thing that can help is getting a visual representation out there, and adding something to track and show progress or consequences of failure beyond just tallying successes (even if it /is/ just tallying successes, but visually). Think of it like creating a game within the game, with it's own rules and victory conditions. You can use randomization or player choice to make certain skill checks available instead of others, or at different DCs, or to put different rewards or consequences on the line. Take that soiree, for instance - players could choose to approach a potential source in a group conversation, at a meeting, in a private closed-door conference, or in quiet corner somewhere (or in the course of some other optional activity) - or, a player might 'mingle' or join a dance and just see if anyone lets something slip, so there's a random component, as well. Or, in the search for the ancient ruin, you might have a boardgame-like or flow-chart-like map set up, and successes or failures move you along it - closer to the goal, or into dangers, depending on where they land as a consequence of their choices and checks (and what choices & checks are available could depend on the current area, so, for instance, there might be a 'high ground' area that they can find fairly easily, that offers lower-DC perception checks to identify harder-to-find areas).
 

I'd love to be able to run them this invisibly, but for some reason it just seems to go against my nature.

Skeptic that I am, when I hear someone make the claim that someone did something very difficult, my first thought is always, "Maybe. But is there an easier explanation for the observed data."

And I think very much that there is. If in fact the skill challenge was run completely seamlessly and invisibly, the easiest explanation is that a skill challenge was not ran at all, but rather that the GM announced an ad hoc number of skill challenges over come to reflect his estimation of roughly how many skill challenges were completed during the session had he in fact been carefully running them.

Beautiful illusionism.
 

I hate skill challenges like 4e. Do your players a favor and ditch them. Rolling dice to see if you succeed "in entirety" at something is just gambling on your stats. Roll means either of two things: success or failure. It just isn't engaging. Combat is technically gambling but players influence the situation without knowing the outcome. This makes it more exciting.

Try doing this with your roleplay by making them sneak tunnel to tunnel with different options. They have to avoid gangs of monsters that could easily wipe the floor with them. Which route they take will end up in a different location with a different approach to their objective.

Alternatively (perhaps "in addition", make the group's non-combat choices have meaning in combat situations.

Example:
Lets assume your party has a Lawful Good person with the Background of Folk Hero. They ignore an old man's cabbage problem. You put effort into describing this. Make it matter! Bring it up later during a combat situation:

You're running from the angry mob and spy a nearby cart full of cabbages that would make an ideal spot to hide and catch your breath! An old man who looks vaguely familiar sits atop the cart. As you draw near he looks over and squints. He stands up and shakes his fist at you. This gives you pause and he snarls "You good for nothing whelps! Kids these days! I tell you they got no respect!". As the mob rounds the corner and spots you comprehension dawns and he cackles gleefully. The old fart jumps up and down while waving his arms to draw their attention. As you speed past the cart the old man's voice trails in the distance, "You're bad seeds! I knew it! You deserve whatever that mob is about to dish! Karma's a bitch!"

Now, you tell them that since they didn't get to take a breather they have to make a Con roll to see if anyone has exhaustion for this fight!

Or

Maybe failing to help a wagon fix its wheel delayed supplies to a magic shop in Baldur's gate. Word came that it was raided by Orcs that night and the components the wizard/artificer had ordered were destroyed and it would take another 6 weeks to get a new order in...


Try these out and I guarantee your party will be much more engaged in the non-combat situations you pour your time into.
 
Last edited:

There's been some good suggestions. I might need to sit down with my players and ask them how they feel non-combat should run. Whether they're fans of skill challenges for important scenes, or if they'd rather stick to freeform roleplay.

Sounds like a good idea.

I find though, that the less you make skill checks important out of combat, the less point they have.

Try rolling most of the non-combat skill checks yourself in secret. It can improve the experience for the players when they don't know how well they did on certain rolls. It also can help keep immersion for them, because they can just describe what they're doing, while at the same time knowing that their skills are coming into play. You might even want to throw in some references to that so they don't have to just take your word for it.

"Amiira spent a bit of time while you were in Neverwinter researching those odd creatures that keep appearing. She knows they are known as "modrons," planar creatures of pure law..." (In this case, I had rolled previously when the party's sorcerer first got a modron summoning wild surge, and I just filled in a tiny bit more detail later on when she got the second or third modron appearance (she gets a lot of wild surges)).

So far it seems the general consensus is to make sure each scene in a game is meaningful, to try and put more personality into NPCS via in character talking or just secret relevance to the plot, and to focus more on what players are trying to achieve than on how they achieve it.

Then let me dissent from the consensus.

As a player, I much prefer a simulationist approach where I don't know whether anything going on has any particular relevance beyond what I make of it. If the barmaid winks and smiles and seems interested in my character, I don't want that to always mean that there is a plot hiding there. If I pursue it, I'd like it to feel realistic. Maybe she's just a big flirt with half of her customers and nothing comes of it. Maybe I catch up to her in time to help her out in a run-in with a ruffian. Maybe we hit it off and she becomes a recurring NPC. Or maybe she's an agent of a vampire attempting to manipulate my character. I shouldn't know which of these it is, and honestly, I never want the DM to make a decision that makes more out of the character than makes sense in-world. If there is a chance that she might be the agent of the vampire, and the DM hadn't decided but was just throwing in her flirtation as background, then I'd prefer he makes a roll in secret to determine if there is any such significance. If there isn't, there isn't.

I don't like playing in a world where it feels like all of the events are somehow customized to my character, or have adventurous significance. Some things ought to "just" be window dressing. That doesn't mean I don't like formal adventures, plot arcs, and hidden adventurous situations that sometimes come about when you open that window dressing and have a look-see, just that the latter should be of a believable type and frequency, and for the sake of my fun, the DM should either have decided ahead of time that the adventurous content was there, or make an appropriate random roll. I hate playing a world where every choice you make just determines what sort of adventure the DM turns it into. Flirt with the barmaid? She is under vampire control. Cue initiation of vampire manipulation quest. Ignore barmaid? She is a normal barmaid. A weasel runs in the door. Cue initiation of the terrible trouble with weasels quest line. PCs pursue weasel quests? In end up they are part of some evil plans by followers of Vecna. Ignore weasels? They were simply an animal issue that someone else clears up. Yuck. Please don't ever subject me to such a scenario. I want the world to have independent integrity, to be "solid", not an amorphous Schrodinger's Plot Box, where the adventurous elements only lock in their existence or non-existence when you choose to open it. In that case, I'm not playing in a fantasy "world," I'm playing in the DM's head.

I'd much rather feel like I'm playing an Elder Scrolls game--but better. And that's exactly what D&D can give me.

This is definitely a style question, so I wanted to let you know what style preferences are out there. You don't have to compromise your style if there is no need. Find out what your players like. Figure out what it is that you like. Come up with something you all enjoy, or (if it really comes to it and no one is too attached), go your separate ways to groups that mesh better with your preferences.
 

Maybe my players would actually prefer if I tried to make skill challenges as tactical as my combats. So far one has given me feedback, saying his problem with my skill challenges is that they don't excite him. When they come up, he doesn't really feel any tension. I told him that maybe if I add instant repercussions (like say a failed check in chase scene might cause damage to you) that he'd find them more interesting.

This doesn't sound to me like a skill challenge presentation issue, but rather an issue of the player not buying into the stakes. Perhaps you might try more overtly discussing the stakes of the scene with the players and giving them some say on what success and failure look like. People tend to be more engaged with their own ideas in my experience and a neat side effect of this is that players will often make failure way worse than you might be comfortable unilaterally imposing. An example might be, "Okay, so the thief is running away with the very important missive. If she gets away, this will be a very bad outcome for you. What do you think happens if you fail in this scene?" Once everyone agrees, run the "skill challenge" in whatever way your group likes best.

Do you think the order they declare their goal and approach in might make a difference? Right now most of my players seem to fall in the habit of declaring their approach first, then I prod them for their goal. Maybe I should try and get them in the habit of stating their goal, then we can figure out their characters approach. That way if they say "I want to get the baroness to tell me where her families crypt is, so maybe I'll try to seduce her" then we can figure out, depending on the pc in question, if there's a check involved, and if it's say Persuasion or deception. Maybe she's attractive, so flirting comes naturally. Or maybe she's plain, but the character really plays up her features in a more disingenuous way.

To me it doesn't matter one way or another as long as it's clear. I'll ask questions if it's not. If you think it will help them think through their approach and make it more effective by envisioning their goal first, it's worth a shot.
 

Remove ads

Top