D&D General Why are we fighting?

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
I wonder if monsters would run someone through if they get downed….

Like on a medieval battlefield, would you deliver a killing blow or let the enemy crawl away to engage someone else?
According to French legend the Tarasque wasnt killed outright instead St Martha (cleric) subdued it with holy water, tied her girdle to it and led it into town where she handed it over to the townsfolk.
Same thing with Francis of Assissi and his encounter with a Wolf

So those stories at least give precedent for clerics and paladins being merciful in Medival times and favouring capture over killing outright
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar

Legend
But “sit out” after being paralyzed might not be “a couple of minutes”. It might be an hour as the three remaining players grind their way at 2/3rds speed through the encounter.

This is why almost all effects have a save at the end of your turn rider. Because it’s almost never “a couple of minutes”. It’s very often much longer.

Three hours to do two combats in my last session. And the biggest, by far, thing me sink is a couple of players who dither over every freaking action.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Character death in an RPG is anything except boring. You will see lots of drama and plenty of players just flip out.
And this is a positive thing to you?
Your saying that for people to be insipred to play a RPG they have to know they will win/succeed? A fun game is where the players all know they will complete the quest 100%? Like really "well we will automatically save the princess no matter what...wow, I can't wait to see how we save her, lets start the game".
Before the dark age, how many Fantasy stories ended with a Shaggy Dog story of the heroes dead out somewhere, having accomplished nothing?
Morale is a bit more complicated mechanical then you might think. But also you might have forgotten the OP was talking about ending long boring combats. One answer to that IS for a foes morale to break and for them to run away from the fight.
Which does it without killing players and even allowing a win.
I guess you could go the route of "we need 100 pages of house rules to fix combat" or really just "a whole other RPG" if you want to, and you think that will fix things.
Who said 100 pages? There's plenty of good combat systems and schemes that are not 100 pages.
I'm just suggesting a couple changes to the game play style.
Which abandons the core of the playstyle.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
But “sit out” after being paralyzed might not be “a couple of minutes”. It might be an hour as the three remaining players grind their way at 2/3rds speed through the encounter.

This is why almost all effects have a save at the end of your turn rider. Because it’s almost never “a couple of minutes”. It’s very often much longer.

Three hours to do two combats in my last session. And the biggest, by far, thing me sink is a couple of players who dither over every freaking action.
Maybe make sure they're the ones who, in-character, get targeted with paralysis effects? :)
 


tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
How else does a good DM gain experience points, if not by inducing rage-quits?
I mean this isn't the old school dark ages when DMs just outright killed players. That would be barbaric.
Funny but I don't think it's that simple. I killed a PC last game simply by not bluffing when I laid out the stakes. The players are chasing a bbeg into an eldritch machine that involves undead. Long story short I told them flat out that if they go down while in there they simply skip past death saves & outright die . Most of the players acted logically but the one who died decided that the most effective solution was to recklessly feystep past the front line to start 1v1 the bbeg while cut off from the rest of the party stuck behind the front line mooks & choosing to stay there even as his HP was whittled away. When the player dropped like 2 or 3 rounds into the fight the player turned to me and was surprised when "$PCName is dead, I guess they could raise dead.. later" was the shrugged answer to the player asking "well what now, can he healing word me?". I didn't even do all that much damage to the PC with monsters, maybe 15-25 of the PC's 60-80ish HP, the rest was because the downed player had previously encouraged a caster to drop fireballs on him to get the most number of targets.

A lot of this can be blamed squarely on how 5e stacks the odds so far towards success & removal of stakes. Players get to where they don't consider losing the only remaining stake (PC death) possible & act accordingly till they can try to force the GM to take some responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
 

And this is a positive thing to you?
As an Old School Method gamer I do think feeling and acting out those feelings is a positive thing, yes.


Before the dark age, how many Fantasy stories ended with a Shaggy Dog story of the heroes dead out somewhere, having accomplished nothing?
THIS is the major problem with "popular fiction content": it's mostly just happy fluff and the heroes always win and live happily ever after. And sure people will sit down to watch Batman or Ironman AUTOMATICALLY "save the day" every single time. That is just people. Of course, there is content with downer endings.

And one of the BIG points of an RPG is "anything can happen". Watch nearly any show or movie and you will know how it will turn out: the good guys will always win..again. Play an RPG and anything can happen....if you let it.
Which does it without killing players and even allowing a win.
Very true! See the point: The players do not always win.

Who said 100 pages? There's plenty of good combat systems and schemes that are not 100 pages.
I just picked a number....
Which abandons the core of the playstyle.
Well, yes, that is what I'm talking about: abandoning that playstlye.

How else does a good DM gain experience points, if not by inducing rage-quits?
I mean this isn't the old school dark ages when DMs just outright killed players. That would be barbaric.
Well, the DM could just play foes even with average intelligence and tactics; and just follow the rules too.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
As an Old School Method gamer I do think feeling and acting out those feelings is a positive thing, yes.
Most people want more people to come to the hobby, not storm out of it in a rage.
THIS is the major problem with "popular fiction content": it's mostly just happy fluff and the heroes always win and live happily ever after. And sure people will sit down to watch Batman or Ironman AUTOMATICALLY "save the day" every single time. That is just people.
People who are trying to play D&D.
And one of the BIG points of an RPG is "anything can happen".
I feel like this is usually expressed as the very popular lie: 'you can do anything'.
Watch nearly any show or movie and you will know how it will turn out: the good guys will always win..again. Play an RPG and anything can happen....if you let it.
Including things that waste your time and make you not want to do it again, apparently.
I just picked a number....
Again, a bold strategy.
Well, yes, that is what I'm talking about: abandoning that playstlye.
So the entire argument is a non-starter. Great.
 

Oofta

Legend
But “sit out” after being paralyzed might not be “a couple of minutes”. It might be an hour as the three remaining players grind their way at 2/3rds speed through the encounter.

This is why almost all effects have a save at the end of your turn rider. Because it’s almost never “a couple of minutes”. It’s very often much longer.

Three hours to do two combats in my last session. And the biggest, by far, thing me sink is a couple of players who dither over every freaking action.
Yeah, we call the dithering "analysis paralysis", frequently accompanied by asking for clarification of exactly what's going on at the start of their turn. Every turn. It's followed closely by spell amnesia where the caster needs to reread every spell before casting. Doesn't matter if they actually have the spell slot to cast the spell available. Don't forget one-die-at-time-itis where that two-weapon battlemaster fighter Knocks someone prone with their first attack so they have advantage, action surge to get five attacks that round and then roll 1 die at a time. Bonus if they have a flametongue weapon and must roll weapon and fire damage separately while using a calculator to add all their numbers.

Admittedly, that last one is just my pet peeve because I have color coded dice and roll them all at once. Could be worse of course, in 3.5 I had a two weapon fighter who did 6 attacks per round (unless I was hasted, which happened frequently) and each weapon had multiple energy damage types. There were times when I had to roll twice because I couldn't hold enough dice.

But yes if people knew their characters, paid attention, used multiple dice at a time (or used averages for damage which I'm also okay with) for damage, combat could be much quicker especially at higher levels.
 



Hussar

Legend
Yeah, we call the dithering "analysis paralysis", frequently accompanied by asking for clarification of exactly what's going on at the start of their turn. Every turn. It's followed closely by spell amnesia where the caster needs to reread every spell before casting. Doesn't matter if they actually have the spell slot to cast the spell available. Don't forget one-die-at-time-itis where that two-weapon battlemaster fighter Knocks someone prone with their first attack so they have advantage, action surge to get five attacks that round and then roll 1 die at a time. Bonus if they have a flametongue weapon and must roll weapon and fire damage separately while using a calculator to add all their numbers.

Admittedly, that last one is just my pet peeve because I have color coded dice and roll them all at once. Could be worse of course, in 3.5 I had a two weapon fighter who did 6 attacks per round (unless I was hasted, which happened frequently) and each weapon had multiple energy damage types. There were times when I had to roll twice because I couldn't hold enough dice.

But yes if people knew their characters, paid attention, used multiple dice at a time (or used averages for damage which I'm also okay with) for damage, combat could be much quicker especially at higher levels.
LOL. As I was reading your first paragraph, my blood pressure was just steadily climbing. Aaaugh.

Granted, the absolute worst I ever saw it was years ago, we had a player with a dwarven fighter. 4th level. I mean, you couldn't possibly play a simpler character. It was so bad that one session I actually timed it and he took more time than the entire table COMBINED, including the DM.

Some day I will be rich and famous when I invent a way to stab people over an Internet connection.
 

Admittedly, I think there is something inherently problematic about the expectation that we're going to gamify lethality as a narrative conceit without the risk of character death.

I don't think you can resolve the ludo-narrative dissonance of that without a medium (submedium?) shift that entirely reframes what parts of the game are being gameified and given high resolution by the rules, or at least a tone shift, and many players won't be interested in either of those things.

I'd rather teach players healthier habits surrounding character mortality and their investment in the story.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
So, I finally had the time to watch the video in the OP.

Here's my take:

First, combat is just one means to get past an encounter. The point of depleting resources is to encourage players to find other means of getting past it. Yes, combat is supposed to be exciting, but it isn't where the players "win". D&D is never (or shouldn't be) about "winning", it is about the adventure, and combat is just one part of that. Success (victory, "winning") is when the adventure is complete, and the next is ready to begin.

Second, most DMs IME create encounters which are designed for the players to be able to "win" (i.e. get past to continue the adventure) according to the rules of combat. Creatures are nearly always "level appropriate" to give the players a chance to defeat them by combat.

Third, DND assigns "death" as the defeat condition, as where 0 hit points could mean automatic morale failure (surrender or retreat), unconsciousness (where the players can decide to "kill", allow to bleed out or stabilize, or save them), negotiate, bribe, or whatever. Players often have this fear that if they don't kill a creature, that creature will return (often with friends) to exact revenge. I have often found this a strange concept, personally, as if unless the creature genuinely thinks it can defeat the PCs, why would it risk death again after getting away???

In modern games, many players question the morality of just killing others to further their own ends.

Fourth, when combat is necessary, alternatives exist to keep players more engaged instead of just waiting for their turn to come. That is the primary reason I developed Cinematic Initiative, which shortens players' turns, but allows them more of them.

Finally, movies are a poor comparison. Films like Indiana Jones often involve only 1-2 characters trying to overcome a challenge instead of a party of 4-5 or potentially several more.
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
snip

Third, DND assigns "death" as the defeat condition, as where 0 hit points could mean automatic morale failure (surrender or retreat), unconsciousness (where the players can decide to "kill", allow to bleed out or stabilize, or save them), negotiate, bribe, or whatever. Players often have this fear that if they don't kill a creature, that creature will return (often with friends) to exact revenge. I have often found this a strange concept, personally, as if unless the creature genuinely thinks it can defeat the PCs, why would it risk death again after getting away???
snip
This is, I believe, a result of a bad habit among DMs and Module designers of the traitorous NPC. Where many of the NPC turn on the party and this is extended by DMs to combat NPCs. The idea is to create a recurring villain but the execution is lacking since the it encourages a "kill 'em all let God sort it out " attitude among the players that reduces the engagement with the world.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I have often found this a strange concept, personally, as if unless the creature genuinely thinks it can defeat the PCs, why would it risk death again after getting away???

Strange conceit or not, its not like its not something GMs sometimes do, and players have either encountered or heard about; the former in particular is exactly the sort of thing that forms mental scar tissue in a player about the subject.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Players often have this fear that if they don't kill a creature, that creature will return (often with friends) to exact revenge. I have often found this a strange concept, personally, as if unless the creature genuinely thinks it can defeat the PCs, why would it risk death again after getting away???
In the adventure I'm running right now, one of the wandering monster possibilities in the forest is a hunting party of half a dozen Orcs. They're out hunting game animals to augment the diet for people at the main base (the PCs' initial goal), and if on sighting or encountering the PCs even one of the Orcs is able to flee back to base to report, the PCs' job just got a lot more difficult as the place will be on high alert: there's invaders in the woods.

All of which seems perfectly reasonable on the Orcs' part; meanwhile it's very much in the PCs' interests to make sure none of the Orcs get away should they meet any.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
In the adventure I'm running right now, one of the wandering monster possibilities in the forest is a hunting party of half a dozen Orcs. They're out hunting game animals to augment the diet for people at the main base (the PCs' initial goal), and if on sighting or encountering the PCs even one of the Orcs is able to flee back to base to report, the PCs' job just got a lot more difficult as the place will be on high alert: there's invaders in the woods.

All of which seems perfectly reasonable on the Orcs' part; meanwhile it's very much in the PCs' interests to make sure none of the Orcs get away should they meet any.
Sure, I never said it wasn't possible to have such a scenario, more that it is strange (IMO) for player to always think that is the case and become bound and determined to kill everything for the fear something might come back to "get them" later on.

But I am a bit confused by your scenario: are the PCs also hunting for game to help the people at the main base, or is that the Orc you are talking about?

Either way, if the PCs see one orc and it runs away, unless they suspect there are many more orcs in the area, why would it bother them? Wouldn't it make sense for an orc, fearing for its life when it meets "adventurers" fear for its life and flee?

Also, would it be possible for the PCs to work with the orcs, possibly taking down even bigger game with neither alone could handle?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Sure, I never said it wasn't possible to have such a scenario, more that it is strange (IMO) for player to always think that is the case and become bound and determined to kill everything for the fear something might come back to "get them" later on.

But I am a bit confused by your scenario: are the PCs also hunting for game to help the people at the main base, or is that the Orc you are talking about?
No. The Orcs are hunting game, the PCs are more or less hunting Orc as part of dealing with a bigger threat.
Either way, if the PCs see one orc and it runs away, unless they suspect there are many more orcs in the area, why would it bother them? Wouldn't it make sense for an orc, fearing for its life when it meets "adventurers" fear for its life and flee?
A single Orc, yes. They travel in groups, though, as adventurers aren't the only dange rin the woods.
Also, would it be possible for the PCs to work with the orcs, possibly taking down even bigger game with neither alone could handle?
Given that the PCs' mission is, in part, to take out the Orcs (ultimately it's to take out the boss behind them, but the Orcs are in the way), that would be a very unexpected outcome. :)
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
No. The Orcs are hunting game, the PCs are more or less hunting Orc as part of dealing with a bigger threat.
yeah if the PCs are in hostile territory I’d expect stealth with the main objective being avoid the hunting party and carry on to the Base - stealth check resolves encounter, move on.

If they cant stealth their way pass then is the objective to kill all the orcs in the area? Or do the PCs capture an orc in order to get information on the base defences? - as DM in this scenario I’d make sure the hunting orcs have a bit of useful information, so PCs learn that not killing monsters might be more useful than wholesale slaughter
 
Last edited:

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top