D&D General Why are we fighting?

[Thomas Shey]

If, I guess, most people just want random players to fill game seats, sure.

Or, alternatively, they don't have the very--specific--expectations you do.

 

[Hussar]

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.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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