D&D 5E (2014) "When DMing I Avoid Making the PCs have 'pointless' combats." (a poll)

[Agametorememberbooks]

Neither of my groups just want to resort to outright violence and so I don’t force combat. Between 2 groups I only have 1 player who’s more the murder hobo type of player, but he’s generally quelled by the rest of the players in the group.

 

[payn]

On the topic of random tables, I think if you play a have sword and will travel sandbox style game they make sense. The random table is a jack in the box for both GM and PCs. It livens up this weeks episode. I can also see it giving life to a world that is inhabited with things that do randomly encounter each other. Helps immerse in a setting and world and makes a better experience.

If random tables are just there to screw PCs out of resting and/or to provide enough XP to level, then to hell with them. YMMV

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Yah I can't vote in this poll because it has implied assumptions I am unaware of, then tells me to use my own standard....but by my own standard I'd use the terms "combat that is not fun vs. combat that is fun."

In Pathfinder 2E, as an example, any combat that is more than 4 CR below the group or 3 CR or more above the group will decidedly not be fun; in the lower CR case its just better to ask them how they trounce the enemy as a summary, and in the higher CR case its better to just ask them now how they try to escape certain death, than to play the combat.

In D&D 5E even really low CR encounters can be amusing sometimes, or surprisingly deadly, while some unsually high CR encounters can turn out to be unexpectedly deadly or get utterly trounced by the group.

If the definition of pointless is an encounter that does not tie in to the story or plot of the moment, then it raises questions about how to assess the concept in sandbox/hexcrawl style gaming, which is the closer style to campaigning to what I do. As a result, a wandering monster encounter is kind of the point, at times, and helps with the verisimilitude of the encounter. As a GM, the only "pointless" encounter would then be the ones players initiate for which I can't imagine why they decided to go that direction....but those tend to lean on the "wtf fun" side of the equation, being unexpected, so I wouldn't want to discourage those.

 

[Charlaquin]

In the invisible railroad thread, my “gun safety” stance on combat deadliness came up, and I realized this probably influences my view on the matter of “pointless” combat. I treat every encounter as potentially lethal, because even an encounter that should be trivial by the numbers could still result in character death(s) if the players get unlucky enough. So, the idea of any combat being pointless wouldn’t even occur to me, when any combat could end up being a character’s last.

 

[Oofta]

I don't use truly random encounters or encounters that are foregone conclusions. I may have encounters where it doesn't tie directly to the story but will set the mood or establish/reinforce information about the location. But those, to me, are not pointless.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

There are no pointless combats in my view.

"You are just as dead if you buy the farm in an 'incident' as you are if you buy it in a declared war." - Juan Rico

 

[iserith]

“Pointless” is a loaded word, TBH.

How many would change their answer if the question was “All my combat encounters are directly related to the story at hand”?

For me, the "story at hand" is just whatever the PCs are doing and have done. So any given combat encounter is just another part of that story.

I minimize pointless combat. Pointless combat, to me, is combat that doesn't add anything interesting to the game or else move the story forward. A lot of random encounters fit this bill. They're time-wasters that exist only to sap player resources. I use them sparingly.

Random encounters actually serve a lot of useful purposes. Per the DMG, they create urgency, establish atmosphere, drain resources, provide assistance, add interest, and reinforce campaign themes. So sure, they do sap resources, but they do a lot more than that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

“Pointless” is a loaded word, TBH.

How many would change their answer if the question was “All my combat encounters are directly related to the story at hand”?

That's a far deeper question, actually.

A fight not be part of the A plot, but might be part of the B or C, or might be a worldbuilding or character focus perspective.

But I never have something come screaming out of the wilds to serve the XP budget or the dice.

 

[robus]

Fascinating that it’s split at 50/50 so far. Might say a lot or nothing at all

I voted true for the record. I’m not sure what a pointless combat would be, but I certainly don’t want to waste my players time on them. So all mine are 100% certified pointful!

 

[SteveC]

If a combat doesn't have a point, I have no interest in running it. It doesn't necessarily have to advance "the plot", though: sometimes a combat can be a fun an interesting challenge just by itself. But if something isn't going to be important/relevant to the game, and isn't just fun ... why waste time with it?