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

[iserith]

Again, yes, I expect the game to be challenging, the players don't want a challenge, therefore I'm the problem.

The way I think of it is this. If the rules allow it, the players will do it. I don't blame the players for that. I blame the rules. So, if the rules produce a result that I don't want, I change the rules. Simple. I am transparent about that and have no problems changing the rules and the players know that going in. Yet the still complain and object and quit. Like when I banned Leomund's Tiny Hut. The players abused the hell out of it. I let it slide until it became clear that they were never going to stop abusing it as long as it was an option, so I banned it. Players complained and quit.

I sit everyone down and do a one-on-one session zero. Give them the spiel and hand them a print out of the house rules and email a link to the same document online as a PDF. My expectations are made crystal clear. Yet the players still ignore those and play anyway...knowing their expectations do not match up with mine...then the complain and quit. It's a really weird cycle. It's repeated dozens and dozens of times. Players say they want a challenge, then once presented with one, they freak out and bounce.

I mean, all I can see here is there is some kind of communications breakdown happening that is leading to a mismatch of expectations. Or something going on in play you are doing that is not welcome. I don't see how you can end up with "dozens and dozens" of the same result and have it not be that. You seem to want to blame it on the rules or on D&D 5e players in general, but you also say you house rule a lot, so that takes at least some portion of the rules out of the calculation presumably. And D&D 5e players aren't a monolith, so we're back to you. Obviously, I don't have perfect insight into your game, but productive introspection is a good thing and I heartily recommend it.

 

[tetrasodium]

J
Really? Mass rage quits because they could not think things through? IMHO you are better off without them. I never had such rage quits since high school.


I do not know what to say other than the above. I warned every single players that there is no perfect solutions for any problems. If a player has some experience with a DM, I ask this person a bit about how the games were run by their old DMs. Hard mode is not for everyone and for those that want to try, a DM must warn them.

It maybe because I have a very different style than many DMs out here or that players in my area love challenging and deadly adventures. I truly do not know. One thing is for sure, when we do our Friday Night Dungeons we do have a lot of question as to how my games are so roughs (even in exhibit games). I truly run games like the world is alive.

One thing I often do as a cameo outside the game like the old:"Meanwhile" in old stories and movies. Is to describe a scene about the master villain of the current story. If they know the master mind then I describe the scene (but I do not tell the location) and make the villain curse the success of the players or say how they were fools to fail such easy endeavours and so on. It kinda of give a warning of things to comes. I usually use the dream of a priest or diviner or exhalted soul to give such "insights". I find that players like these (even if they're bad clichés). It also reinforce the fact that the world is alive and moves. It also help them understand that their actions have meaning and effects.

When a character dream of shadowy figure that say:" Curse these interlopers! They have set back my plans by months if not years! Come Azrazel! We must plan our next move carefully in (fill in the blank)!" It not only gives the player a warning of what is to come, it also sets them on the hunt. This is the kind of thing that my players and those that come to look at the exhibit games like a lot.

overgeeked already clarified the 1s&2s not mass point but I've seen a couple with the threat used as veto much more common. Things play out like this

• GM:"This next game is going to have x rule (ie roll stats in order, rests modified as follows, healing word is gone, whatever)."
• players ab&c: "cool sure"
• playerD: I'm not playing with that unplayable nerf. I just won't play. I can't believe you guys would be ok with that
• playerD: continues trying to force the veto by pressuring any player who doesn't really have any strong feelings

In past editions there were things that the gm could offer like a feat/magic item/etc because there were more dials & those dials were generally set to a much lower level. 5e has such a high % of the dials it didn't remove or remove as an option for this by simply declaring them ToTaLY "OpTiOnAL" in a ruleset that doesn't account for their added power. The GM has no cards to play in that discussion & the system ensures it

 

[Helldritch]

overgeeked already clarified the 1s&2s not mass point but I've seen a couple with the threat used as veto much more common. Things play out like this

• GM:"This next game is going to have x rule (ie roll stats in order, rests modified as follows, healing word is gone, whatever)."
• players ab&c: "cool sure"
• playerD: I'm not playing with that unplayable nerf. I just won't play. I can't believe you guys would be ok with that
• playerD: continues trying to force the veto by pressuring any player who doesn't really have any strong feelings

In past editions there were things that the gm could offer like a feat/magic item/etc because there were more dials & those dials were generally set to a much lower level. 5e has such a high % of the dials it didn't remove or remove as an option for this by simply declaring them ToTaLY "OpTiOnAL" in a ruleset that doesn't account for their added power. The GM has no cards to play in that discussion & the system ensures it

We've had this discussion before. And yes, I still agree that most dials have been removed from the hands of the DM. The only dial we have left that is fully under our control is: "If you're not happy with my way of doing things, fine. Find someone else to make you play."

It is a bit drastic but this is in fact, the only and last recourse we have if we can't have the players buy in to our premises/choices for the campaign. The old school way of challenging players are slowly coming to an end if what I read on this forum and a few others are true.

 

[Lojaan]

I remove all scenes, combat, social or exploration, that don't have a point. Why wouldn't you?

 

[overgeeked]

I mean, all I can see here is there is some kind of communications breakdown happening that is leading to a mismatch of expectations. Or something going on in play you are doing that is not welcome. I don't see how you can end up with "dozens and dozens" of the same result and have it not be that. You seem to want to blame it on the rules or on D&D 5e players in general, but you also say you house rule a lot, so that takes at least some portion of the rules out of the calculation presumably. And D&D 5e players aren't a monolith, so we're back to you. Obviously, I don't have perfect insight into your game, but productive introspection is a good thing and I heartily recommend it.

And we're back to: Yes, I expect the game to be challenging, the players don't want a challenge, therefore I'm the problem.

How productive. Tschüss.

 

[overgeeked]

overgeeked already clarified the 1s&2s not mass point but I've seen a couple with the threat used as veto much more common. Things play out like this

• GM:"This next game is going to have x rule (ie roll stats in order, rests modified as follows, healing word is gone, whatever)."
• players ab&c: "cool sure"
• playerD: I'm not playing with that unplayable nerf. I just won't play. I can't believe you guys would be ok with that
• playerD: continues trying to force the veto by pressuring any player who doesn't really have any strong feelings

Yeah. I have zero patience for school-yard threats. When players try that BS with me I boot them first and ask questions later. Player D would be without a seat at my table.

In past editions there were things that the gm could offer like a feat/magic item/etc because there were more dials & those dials were generally set to a much lower level. 5e has such a high % of the dials it didn't remove or remove as an option for this by simply declaring them ToTaLY "OpTiOnAL" in a ruleset that doesn't account for their added power. The GM has no cards to play in that discussion & the system ensures it

Exactly. It's the Monty Haul edition of D&D. The players are just superheroes and the player base seems trained to expect exactly that. Anything less than and they lose their minds.

 

[iserith]

And we're back to: Yes, I expect the game to be challenging, the players don't want a challenge, therefore I'm the problem.

How productive. Tschüss.

Yeah. I have zero patience for school-yard threats. When players try that BS with me I boot them first and ask questions later. Player D would be without a seat at my table.

Exactly. It's the Monty Haul edition of D&D. The players are just superheroes and the player base seems trained to expect exactly that. Anything less than and they lose their minds.

The brush you paint with is so broad. I'll see your 200 D&D 5e players who you say don't like challenge and raise you hundreds more that I've DMed for who do. But do continue to blame supposed generational change, the rules of the game itself, the players of the game, or whatever external explanation you can imagine. Anything to keep from examining whatever responsibility you may bear for the outcomes you are seeing. It's certainly easier.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And we're back to: Yes, I expect the game to be challenging, the players don't want a challenge, therefore I'm the problem.

How productive. Tschüss.

Okay. You are 100% right, they are terrible and you should leave them.

Good?

The advice is the same. If both sides aren't happy they should stop being together.

 

[Lanefan]

I didn't vote, as I don't run 5th edition D&D. If I had voted, I'd have gone for "yes".

Despite the tag, the question asked is edition-agnostic and I answered it as such.

 

[Lanefan]

If the players are using the hut and taking long rests all the time to avoid getting winnowed down on resources, maybe they're stating their preferences and it isn't 'more challenging'.

You often jump to this conclusion, and I yet again disagree with it.

No matter how much challenge the game presents, it's still 100% in the players' interests to mitigate or reduce or avoid those challenges when-where possible. In-character, the PCs would reasonably do likewise when-where they could.

As a player I (usually) do what I can in-character to reduce or mitigate or avoid challenges presented by the game, but that by no means implies any preference saying I don't want thosse challenges to be there.

 

[iserith]

You often jump to this conclusion, and I yet again disagree with it.

No matter how much challenge the game presents, it's still 100% in the players' interests to mitigate or reduce or avoid those challenges when-where possible. In-character, the PCs would reasonably do likewise when-where they could.

As a player I (usually) do what I can in-character to reduce or mitigate or avoid challenges presented by the game, but that by no means implies any preference saying I don't want thosse challenges to be there.

Right. It could be that they don't like those elements and want to bypass them to focus on things they do like. But it could be they do like it and bypassing them is part of the fun of playing. One would hope the DM isn't presenting them content they don't like and they have to spend time trying to skip past it, but that's not always the case.

 

[Lanefan]

It is for me. It's a simple enough house rule to ban the spell and fix long rests. But according to my players you'd think I lit their houses on fire.

My players disagree. They love anything that makes the game less challenging and hate anything that makes the game more challenging.

My only suggestion is to vet your potential players more carefully.

Tell them these things right up front before inviting them into your game:

--- I don't run 5e as written; if you're looking for a by-the-book game you're in the wrong place
--- bad things can and will - not might, will - happen to your characters; if you don't accept this you're in the wrong place
--- the game-world is neutral, uncaring, and out to ruin your day, and it's on you and your characters to find a way to survive and thrive. If this is not your style of play you're in the wrong place.

Now, I should ask: are you running for friends, or store games, or organized-play? The latter two of these carry certain expectations the first does not, and I think attract a different and more serious (or hardcore) type of player. It's also harder to turn players away in the latter two scenarios.

 

[Lanefan]

Like when I banned Leomund's Tiny Hut. The players abused the hell out of it. I let it slide until it became clear that they were never going to stop abusing it as long as it was an option, so I banned it. Players complained and quit.

In fairness, if you suddenly banned it mid-campaign then yes your players had every right to complain.

Between campaigns/settings is the time to make changes like this.

 

[overgeeked]

My only suggestion is to vet your potential players more carefully.

Other than literally holding their hands and spoon-feeding them info I don't know how I could be. Maybe I should try lab-grown players next. I wonder how cool CRISPR is now...

Tell them these things right up front before inviting them into your game:

--- I don't run 5e as written; if you're looking for a by-the-book game you're in the wrong place
--- bad things can and will - not might, will - happen to your characters; if you don't accept this you're in the wrong place
--- the game-world is neutral, uncaring, and out to ruin your day, and it's on you and your characters to find a way to survive and thrive. If this is not your style of play you're in the wrong place.

Yeah, I'm absolutely up front about my expectations.

"Character death is a very real possibility. Bad things can and will happen to your character. If you cannot accept that, don't play."

And still people gleefully join...only to complain and rage quit when they take damage. It's really weird. It's almost like they just ignore me or assume I'm joking or something.

Now, I should ask: are you running for friends, or store games, or organized-play? The latter two of these carry certain expectations the first does not, and I think attract a different and more serious (or hardcore) type of player. It's also harder to turn players away in the latter two scenarios.

The biggest hit of players joining up then freaking out was my online West Marches game. VTT, voice, and video. Post the kind of game I ran, chat with people and make sure they understood and agreed (session zero), then start play. And a mountain of problems. But this stuff was present from the beginning of 5E for me. Some games with friends, or friends-of-friends, face-to-face in the before times. Basically the same issues at a smaller scale, and more politely discussed because it was people I knew or people who knew people I knew.

 

[Charlaquin]

Then we must define challenging differently. Because the long rest RAW and Leomund's Tiny Hut prevents the game from being challenging. Which is why I house ruled both. For me, challenging is risk of character death which forces the players to actually think things through and plan and use their resources wisely rather than blindly charge into every fight and burning every resource possible to make every fight a steamroll. RAW long rests and LTH utterly remove that risk except for edge cases. My players did basically the same thing every time. Get into one fight, find a place they can secure for 11 minutes, ritual cast LTH, take a long rest in perfect safety, lather rinse repeat. Whatever timers I put in they ignored. Whatever enemies I put at the door when the LTH ends, they complained and quit. Anything I did to break that pattern, they complained and quit. House ruled long rests, players complained and quit. Banned LTH, players complained and quit. Every version of "hey, could you not" was met with "it's legally allowed as per RAW, so LOL." So I house ruled...players complained and quit.

The players I've had in 5E do not want challenge. They want LOL easy mode. I'm not interested in that. I make that known. The players seem to not grok that and agree to play anyway...then cheese everything they can. This is not my experience with one group of 4-5 players. It's my experience with literally every single 5E group I've played or run with in the last decade. I've burned through well north of 200 players in total trying to find one that doesn't want to cheese everything and just LOL win all the time. Still haven't found a single one. Statistically insignificant compared to the whole community, granted, but not insignificant to me. My recently ended West Marches game had, at its peak, 37 players. Every. Single. Player. Cheesed every single thing they could to make the game as non-challenging as possible. Anything I did to prevent cheese was met with complaints and rage quits.

I did similar. A few times. I got yelled at and players quit. They didn't learn anything. I did. I learned to not run 5E.

Reading this, I can’t help but wonder if you have a very different idea of what “cheesing everything” means than most people, and even players who are down for an old school “give no quarter, expect none in return” type of experience - perhaps even especially such players - are wont to discover this discrepancy in conception of “cheesing” and then leave because they realize they had the wrong idea of the kind of game you were offering.

 

[Charlaquin]

Other than literally holding their hands and spoon-feeding them info I don't know how I could be. Maybe I should try lab-grown players next. I wonder how cool CRISPR is now...

Yeah, I'm absolutely up front about my expectations.

"Character death is a very real possibility. Bad things can and will happen to your character. If you cannot accept that, don't play."

And still people gleefully join...only to complain and rage quit when they take damage. It's really weird. It's almost like they just ignore me or assume I'm joking or something.

The biggest hit of players joining up then freaking out was my online West Marches game. VTT, voice, and video. Post the kind of game I ran, chat with people and make sure they understood and agreed (session zero), then start play. And a mountain of problems. But this stuff was present from the beginning of 5E for me. Some games with friends, or friends-of-friends, face-to-face in the before times. Basically the same issues at a smaller scale, and more politely discussed because it was people I knew or people who knew people I knew.

Yeah, it really sounds to me like your focus on “this is going to be a CHALLENGING game where death is a REAL POSSIBILITY is attracting players who are excited for a game where they get to to use all the tools at their disposal to try to meet that challenge. Then when you take away those tools because you consider them “cheesing,” they lose interest.

 

[overgeeked]

Reading this, I can’t help but wonder if you have a very different idea of what “cheesing everything” means than most people, and even players who are down for an old school “give no quarter, expect none in return” type of experience - perhaps even especially such players - are wont to discover this discrepancy in conception of “cheesing” and then leave because they realize they had the wrong idea of the kind of game you were offering.

Yeah, it really sounds to me like your focus on “this is going to be a CHALLENGING game where death is a REAL POSSIBILITY is attracting players who are excited for a game where they get to to use all the tools at their disposal to try to meet that challenge. Then when you take away those tools because you consider them “cheesing,” they lose interest.

I don't see why you'd come to that conclusion, much less why you'd come to that conclusion for other people.

Picking a race with darkvision isn't cheesing. If it's an available option there's nothing wrong with picking it. What I'm talking about is things like abusing Leomund's Tiny Hut and making it into Leomund's Tiny Bunker and turtling within to avoid any and all risks. That's pure cheese. The game has so few actual risks baked into the game, why is there a need amongst players to remove what little risks remain? What's the pleasure in a game without risks? I mean, obligatory "everyone's fun is equally valid" but I want no part of that drudgery. Do players really want to just win all the time without end? What's the point of that?

Resource management is part of the game. Spell slots are used, you run out, and resources get low. Cool. So what's the point of cheesing spell slots with things like the coffee-lock? So you don't have to engage with resource management? Okay...so then why play a game with resource management baked in? The point of the game is risk-reward, resource management, heroic action, etc. Not some kind of weird spreadsheet calculations where you set up the perfect statistical probability of winning everything all the time. The fun is in the challenge. In overcoming the obstacles. In narrow escapes. There's no fun in "yep, we win again...huzzah."

In my West Marches game I told the players that I wanted light to be a challenge and a struggle so I banned light and dancing lights. The players complained. Because they heard me say I wanted it to be a challenge and their first thought was not "cool, that sounds fun" it was, apparently "nah, I don't want to deal with that." I house ruled rangers and outlanders so getting lost and having to find food was an actual challenge. The players complained about that, too. Because when I said I wanted it to be a challenge their first thought was "nah, I don't want to deal with that" rather than "oh, sounds cool." But...weirdly...at no point in the process of me telling them these things did they stop and think "maybe I don't want to play in this game." They pushed ahead and waited until the game was well under way and they learned in game that yep, light will be a challenge and you can't just turtle all the time to bug out.

When I say I want something to be a challenge, I...weirdly...actually mean it. I want that thing to be difficult. It will be a big part of the game and it will not be easy. To which the players responded with trying to find every possible way to obviate those things as challenges. The game's already so wildly easy and tilted in the PCs favor...why the need to remove what little challenges there are? If it was a mismatch of expectations, then it was the players not actually wanting to play the game I offered to run. But for some reason instead of acknowledging that up front, they insisted on playing anyway, and made the game a drag for everyone.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Some of my best plot advances have come about from pointless encounters.

For example, my group is currently playing a hexcrawl. When they entered a hex, I rolled a random encounter; in this case it was a corpse hanging from the inside of a cabin out in the woods (I am using a random encounter table made of about 1000 entries I've combined via various tables I've found online). I thought to myself, why on earth would that be there? Obviously a cult was summoning a demon. That turned into a 3 session mini adventure and now the players are investigating Zuggmytoy's latest incursion into the material plane and actively fear fungus or fungus creatures.

All of this happened because of a pointless encounter.

 

[Sabathius42]

There are never pointless combat.
I use random encounter most of the time, they are there to fill the 6-8 encounters per day. But...

Random encounters are always integrated into the narrative.
Sometimes, it is to show them that getting a break while assaulting a base/lair is not really a good idea.
Sometimes, it is to make the players feel that their character are powerful.
Sometimes, it is to remember them that the world does live and that things happens outside of the PCs' influence.
Sometimes, it is to put some pressure on the PC to go forward.
Sometimes, it is for comical relief. (Low level bandits ambushing a high level party then realizing who they are, the PC hears: "FLEE! IT IS THEM! THE (insert the group's name if any or the leader's name)! WE ARE DOOMED!" Even before a single bow shot was fired.
Sometimes, it is to provide them with a possible prisoner to learn about what they are about to face.
Sometimes, it is just to inspire my self to push the story forward into new territory.

To put it simple. I fill the narrative with both the players' agencies and the adventure in mind.

In your bandit example...that is indeed an encounter....but it isn't a combat. There is a difference between the two. The poll was asking about pointless combat.

I find constant and relentless random encounters harm the "realness" of most settings. If a wandering party is consistently getting attacked multiple times a day then so should everything else in the world, including the wandering monsters themselves. The roads of the world would be piled hip deep with dead rotting bandit, goblin, and orc carcasses as no entity could travel along them even an hour without being harassed.

Roads=civilization=some degree of safety.

 

[jgsugden]

Every combat has a purpose, but the purpose is not always obvious. Sometimes you have to see clues from a few different situations to see why there was significance to each combat ... and sometimes that significance only has a very short period of relevance, such as revealing clues about a tougher encounter yet to come in the dungeon (to give the PCs clues to help them prepare for the tougher challenge).