DnD players! Answer me this....

[Laser Priest]

I personally like to throw combat in as a last resort. I'm running one I've built from the ground up and outside of certain specific points along the main storyline I've presented, I like to always provide a way to get things done without combat. That said, I provide plenty of opportunities when the party is looking for it.

 

[chimeracreator]

I'm of the opinion that a good D&D game needs both RP and combat. As 3.5 was built for battle as it were combat should make up a reasonable chunk of game time, but unless you're a very combat heavy / RP light group it should never make up more than 50% of playtime... except MAYBE near the finale (assuming you have a combat based finale) in which case the fights should also involve some RP as well.

The best moments in my mind come when the two merge seamlessly. A few cases I had in the past as a GM were:

1. D&D 3.5: when the players were attacking a psionic fortress because a Queen told them that they were bandits. After cutting through a half a dozen opponents and launching a fairly stealthy attack they finally made their way to the library. Where they launched there attack... only to realize the the entire place was a university and that they were attacking students who were studying psionics. To make matters worse as they discussed this they realized that they put themselves into a hostage situation because there were real troops there that might be able to beat them. So they stalled for time and used the wonderfully broken powers of an adamantine axe to cut their way through the outer wall and escape.

2. TOCC: After tracking down a group of cannibalistic elven bandits the players waiting until night fell and launched their attack. They were able to take them out quickly, but were injured when the ki using ghoul that they were feeding came out. One amazing bluff check later the players convinced him to try eating things besides humans and became good friends with him before parting ways... it's one way to have a boss fight I guess.

3. TOCC: After being attacked by a group of cavalry in the wilderness the group temporarily incapacitated their ki using leader with a fun combination of powers as they dealt with his men. He wasn't stupid enough to press his luck and surrendered. The group decided to spare him so he led them back to the town he was based in and gave them the supplies they wanted. They met him twice after that once when passing through his territory where he simply said he wanted nothing to do with them so they should just take what they wanted and leave, and a second time where he was in a group that attacked them on the orders of his master. That time they knocked him unconscious because they liked his cynical attitude and told him to defect or else... he did.

TOCC is pretty similar to D&D 3.5 except a bit more rules heavy with pretty much no attention given to equipment or wealth and a completely different magic system. http://chimeragames.org

 

[Starke]

-snip-

Our munchkin is really bad about digging through every Source Book he can find online to make ridiculous characters. Which I understand, making a fun and unique character is a big part of the draw of 3.5. But a little consistency is all I asked for. I had no problem when he wanted to be a Rogue/Assassin. We needed a character like that in the party. But it's when he started going into the "Sandstorm" books and started rooting around in the specialty races and classes there that made it unacceptable. He started saying that his race's "Sand Swim" ability wording meant he could "swim" in any terrain that isn't solid rock. So he started trying to say it let him set up Bullrushes and other full round actions so he could do the Master Thrower tricks to score extra damage. It was the biggest perversion of rules I have seen in a long time. He was REALLY into weird, unnatural races too. I eventually had to make the rule of "No races with natural flying" because every character he made had it.

Yeah, there is a lot of fun to be had in breaking a game six ways to Sunday. Like the ECL+2 I rolled up once that ended up with 74hp at level 1. But, that said, it's not the kind of thing you really want to inflict on other unsuspecting players unless they're already on the same page.

I'd actually argue that most of the transformation PRCs from 3rd and 3.5, like the Dragon Disciple, the Pale Master, and the like really only existed to break the games horribly.

My character was a Cleric/Contemplative. A very obvious natural progression kind of deal. I going Cleric 10/Contemplative 10 saying that he was contacted by his deity as part of his backstory to fulfill the flavor text requirements, which the DM signed off on. But it's really hard to roleplay a Lawful Neutral when some asshole thinks it's totally okay to steal and start bar fights because he says "Lawful is boring, and it's okay to do that because I'm Chaotic".

To which the appropriate response is, "then it's okay to club you over the head, and toss you in the village stocks, because I'm Lawful Neutral."

No offense, but the "It's okay because my alignment is X" usually only works up to the point where you are forcing other players to break alignment in order to go along with the player. When that is happening, it's a bad thing. You can build some good tension if there's a reason the character will be going against their alignment, but more often it's one player going, "it's okay for me to screw over the other players, I'm Chaotic Evil, it's what we do." Of course, group alignment is a major part of putting together parties in any game of D&D.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

-snip-

We had to make the rule that you could only use one Sourcebook outside the Core Books because of this guy. Honestly, it really only affected him because his character used like 3 different books.

To be honest, I really don't care what alignment someone plays as long as the person isn't trying to be obnoxious. He was just beligerent about being Chaotic meant he was allowed to do whatever he wanted without consequence. Really goes back to what I said about him trying to play the game like it was his own personal self-insert anime with zero regard for the other players. He also said that being "lawful anything is just stupid". So he got on my bad side right there. What he forgot was that Clerics of Cuthbert aren't known for taking shit from loud Rogues.

 

[Varil]

My group is mostly hack-and-slash, usually with the DM designing a plot as the backdrop to give the players a reason to do...whatever they're doing. It works fine that way. None of us are particularly talented roleplayers(though at least one of us was a drama student? But never roleplays? Sigh.), so mostly we avoid detailed rp in favor of focusing on our characters from the perspective of attitudes, motivations, and how they interact with each other, rather than NPCs.

 

[Starke]

-snip-

We had to make the rule that you could only use one Sourcebook outside the Core Books because of this guy. Honestly, it really only affected him because his character used like 3 different books.

Well, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't Sandstorm infamous in some circles for being loaded with munchkin bait?

I ask because I never actually got around to it. Then again, the only (non-campaign setting) splatbooks I have for 3e/3.5 are Draconomicon, Manual of the Planes, and Faiths and Pantheons.

To be honest, I really don't care what alignment someone plays as long as the person isn't trying to be obnoxious. He was just beligerent about being Chaotic meant he was allowed to do whatever he wanted without consequence.

Yeah, I know I'm repeating myself, but really, this is what the GM exists to put a stop to. Though, I also know I'm saying what you already know.

With D&D there are certainly enough tools in the box to crush a player pretty brutally, if the other players don't back him up. From "misreading" a challenge rating, to simply using the rules for deities. I've yet to see a single munchkin build that can go toe to toe with a level 40 avatar, that will critically strike every attack roll, deal maximum possible damage every time, and will pass every skill and save check.

Really goes back to what I said about him trying to play the game like it was his own personal self-insert anime with zero regard for the other players. He also said that being "lawful anything is just stupid". So he got on my bad side right there. What he forgot was that Clerics of Cuthbert aren't known for taking shit from loud Rogues.

Maybe I'm conflating here, I'm not sure. But a player that acts like a dick just to be a troll, and then goes "but it's what my character would do" as an excuse, is, usually, not someone worth keeping around. I get the feeling there was something else going on in the dynamics that prevented you from simply jumping DMs to someone else, and excluding the problematic player. But, I'm not going to pry if you don't want to get into it.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

-snip-

Sandstorm is one of the few books I don't have from 3.5. So the situation was further exacerbated by us having to go by HUS recollection of what his stupid race, class, and all his feats could do. So in the VERY short time we played with that character, we all knew something wasn't quite right.

Our DM was the guy who says that the game is "meant to be fun" so he shouldn't tell anyone what they can and can't make as a character. But unfortunately, we were spending whole sessions fixing this guy's fuck ups. So he got exactly what he wanted, he got the spotlight at the expense of our entire session. He also complained about the DM trying to screw him over when there was an encounter that didn't cater specifically to his entirely out of control character. But it was a fight (which he instigated) inside a crowded building, so his Raptoran couldn't go up high enough to do his Diving Spear charge on anything and was forced to fight on the ground.

The reason our trouble player was allowed to stay for as long as he did was because of how small of a group we actual had who wanted to put in the time to play. Sure, there were always people who said they wanted to play, but they were never willing to put the time necessary to set up anything. Our DM was just the one who REALLY wanted to do it. He is VERY big aversion to confrontation, so he would always concede to our munchkin's complaining.

 

[Starke]

-snip-

Sandstorm is one of the few books I don't have from 3.5. So the situation was further exacerbated by us having to go by HUS recollection of what his stupid race, class, and all his feats could do. So in the VERY short time we played with that character, we all knew something wasn't quite right.

Okay, well dredging through what I remember, which isn't much. Sandstorm inherited a lot of the Darksun critters and content for 3.5. Now, back in it's day, Darksun was a hideously lethal campaign setting. IIRC new players in AD&D were told to roll up level 3 characters at creation, as nothing lower level was viable. (For 3.5 this would be, I think roughly level 5-6 characters, but don't quote me.)

What I don't know (and I'm not 100% Sandstorm pulled stuff from Darksun), is if Sandstorm had access to all the ways you could beef up characters to survive in that setting.

I also kinda remember the other two harsh environment books were similarly insane at times. Ice Ages and Jungles, but I can't remember the names. The intent was, of course, that characters in these environments would be in constant peril from the environment itself, and psychotic feats and races were just leveling the playing field a bit.

Regardless, one solid piece of advice is never, ever let a player pick from a splatbook you don't have access to.

Our DM was the guy who says that the game is "meant to be fun" so he shouldn't tell anyone what they can and can't make as a character.

Yeah... *Headdesk*

But unfortunately, we were spending whole sessions fixing this guy's fuck ups. So he got exactly what he wanted, he got the spotlight at the expense of our entire session.

I suppose murdering his character and dumping his corpse in a ditch wouldn't have been a viable option?

He also complained about the DM trying to screw him over when there was an encounter that didn't cater specifically to his entirely out of control character. But it was a fight (which he instigated) inside a crowded building, so his Raptoran couldn't go up high enough to do his Diving Spear charge on anything and was forced to fight on the ground.

Sounds like the perfect time to strip down and join the locals. Kill the munchkin!

The reason our trouble player was allowed to stay for as long as he did was because of how small of a group we actual had who wanted to put in the time to play. Sure, there were always people who said they wanted to play, but they were never willing to put the time necessary to set up anything. Our DM was just the one who REALLY wanted to do it. He is VERY big aversion to confrontation, so he would always concede to our munchkin's complaining.

It's kinda like a perfect storm.

Admittedly I came out of a cluster where the GM responsibilities got passed around fairly frequently.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

I'll admit i haven't played anywhere near as much D&D as i'd like to but for me i like there being something to guide what we're doing but i don't want it to be so scripted that we can't direct the flow of the game.

As for not having enough combat i actually much prefer the non combat challenges, although i'm someone who always prefers talking in games like Mass Effect and Deus Ex so maybe that isn't surprising.

 

[lord.jeff]

I'm not overly huge on combat myself, the most fun I've had was solving a murder mystery and we only had two encounters through the whole adventure.

 

[chimeracreator]

With D&D there are certainly enough tools in the box to crush a player pretty brutally, if the other players don't back him up. From "misreading" a challenge rating, to simply using the rules for deities. I've yet to see a single munchkin build that can go toe to toe with a level 40 avatar, that will critically strike every attack roll, deal maximum possible damage every time, and will pass every skill and save check.

While the DM can always kill a character by simply stating "dead", there does exist one build that is broken enough to beat any "fair" challenge even divine ones. His name is Pun-Pun and he is the most powerful 3.5 build ever created or that can be created and the kicker is he's only a level 5 Kobold who happens to have effectively infinite ability scores, hitpoints, saving throws, every ability in the entire game including the divine ones, divine rank and so on. http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Pun-Pun_%283.5e_Optimized_Character_Build%29

So if you follow the rules to the letter it is very possible to completely break the game, but that's why the DM sometimes has to say no.

 

[Aprilgold]

Puzzles, always throw in a good puzzle in there to mix up the paste. Combat should be as a point of climax, rather then something to reach a goal. Also, give your players choices like sneaking around the monsters or fighting them, this will give you a good indication of how to design the campaign to fit them.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

-snip-

The big issue with the specialty setting books like Sandstorm is that they aren't meant to be used outside a campaign with that setting. So when someone uses the crazy feats and races from those books outside that setting, they become game breaking.

Both in a fortunate and unfortunate situation, me and our other players delivered an ultimatum to our DM, either reign in the trouble character or find a new group. None of us were having fun being this guy's back up singers, and it was HIS job to fix it, not our job to just deal with it.

But, all in all, our DM had some pretty good ideas. We all had a kind of "nemesis" that could end up being a particularly difficult random encounter. My Cleric's was another Cleric and former colleague who had secretly started worshiping Nerul and dabbling in Necromancy. We had a Druid who's nemesis was an entire pack of Werewolves, which was a VERY long session to take care of. I had a Samurai I played with who I modeled after Gilgamesh from FF4 who's nemesis was an evil version of Bartz.

 

[Starke]

With D&D there are certainly enough tools in the box to crush a player pretty brutally, if the other players don't back him up. From "misreading" a challenge rating, to simply using the rules for deities. I've yet to see a single munchkin build that can go toe to toe with a level 40 avatar, that will critically strike every attack roll, deal maximum possible damage every time, and will pass every skill and save check.

While the DM can always kill a character by simply stating "dead", there does exist one build that is broken enough to beat any "fair" challenge even divine ones. His name is Pun-Pun and he is the most powerful 3.5 build ever created or that can be created and the kicker is he's only a level 5 Kobold who happens to have effectively infinite ability scores, hitpoints, saving throws, every ability in the entire game including the divine ones, divine rank and so on. http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Pun-Pun_%283.5e_Optimized_Character_Build%29

So if you follow the rules to the letter it is very possible to completely break the game, but that's why the DM sometimes has to say no.

Ah yes, Pun-Pun, I remember him. I kinda remember there being another one like him, but I can't remember the details of that.

Also, something about a spectral paragon badger that would float around causing everyone to explode when their hitpoints hit twice their normal limit.

 

[DJ_DEnM]

Well it depends on how big the party is. You don't want an overly large party stuck in combat for more than 1 session against, say, bandits. Could take forever. I personally prefer a campaign to be story driven. Another reason I prefer GURPS.

 

[Elamdri]

Ok, I am currently running a table with some good friends, with a mix of experienced and new players. They are rather enjoying the sessions, and the world thats being fleshed out, and the story that they are slowly unraveling. But as Im running it, Ive begun to notice how little combat I throw at them. (There are of course, other ways to challenge the players) So my question is this;

What do you like in a DnD adventure? Do you like a combat dungeon sprawler? Or more like being guided along in a story? What are your thoughts?

(Its a 3.5 adventure, just to answer that question)

I try to keep my games about 50/50 between combat and RP. I've played all types of games, games that are very combat heavy and games that are very RP heavy.

First things first, you gotta know your players. If they're all super interested in delving into dungeons and fighting monsters, then give them that. If they want to run around town, talk to people and make connections and solve mysteries, then that's fine too! But give them what they want. If your players are having fun, I guarantee you they will do stuff that will in turn be very entertaining for you, the DM.

Second, look at your party composition. Make sure that your story doesn't leave someone out because of the class they chose to play. Nothing makes me more unhappy than being unable to participate in a game because I'm playing a class where I rarely get to do what I'm good at. For some this could be a fighter stuck in an RP game, or someone who's chosen a very skill based class in a combat scenario. That doesn't mean that everyone has to be center stage all the time of course, but the longer someone goes without feeling like they are participating, the more unfun a game can be.

EDIT: How long have you been running?

 

[jimbob123432]

I personally prefer the more "random" style of gameplay. Set up a goal at the start, and then let the players decide how you're going to get there. I write one session at a time, and if my players don't accomplish the goal in time (it's happened before), bad stuff goes down.

I once had a party decide to enter a dungeon because they were bored (they didn't want to talk with the guy who would advance the plot) just to come out 5 sessions later with the oppressive regime of the bad guy starting to take shape. They smartened up and killed him, but it cost them 3 characters because it was a ton harder by that point.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

Ok, I am currently running a table with some good friends, with a mix of experienced and new players. They are rather enjoying the sessions, and the world thats being fleshed out, and the story that they are slowly unraveling. But as Im running it, Ive begun to notice how little combat I throw at them. (There are of course, other ways to challenge the players) So my question is this;

What do you like in a DnD adventure? Do you like a combat dungeon sprawler? Or more like being guided along in a story? What are your thoughts?

(Its a 3.5 adventure, just to answer that question)

You should be asking your players this question, not us. That being said, you need to understand what your players want. There are a wide variety of players out there, and I gotta tip my hat to 4th Ed for clearly illustrating this point. Below are the basic outlines of most -if not all- players:

Actor: Players of this type make very distinct and imaginative characters. They flesh they avatars out to be living, breathing things with hopes, dreams, fears and uncertainties. They enjoy social encounters where they can illustrate their hard work at creating a rich character. Please them by incorporating their character's backstory into the campaign, having good social encounters and emphasizing their personality choices. Beware of them become chatter-boxes with the NPCs or disrupting the flow of the game with the justification of "that's what my character would do!"

Instigator: These players need the campaign to move and move right now! They enjoy taking risks "just because" and are often the catalysts of those wild stories you'll be telling for years to come. They're often the explorers of the party and want to see what's over the horizon. Please them by putting the party at risk because of their actions (but never kill them), by having encounters that encourage experimentation and having another location or quest just around the corner to keep them moving. Be careful of making sure they don't get the party killed or bullrush through a more delicate moment.

Power Gamer: They relish in power, hence their name. They enjoy climbing the XP ladder and getting all those cool abilities and magic items that make them unstoppable badasses of legend. Feed a Power Gamer by putting emphasis on the rewards of completing a task, having plenty of options open for character advancement and tailor certain encounters to their specialties. Try to make sure their power doesn't get out of hand, however. While I'm one to believe that having a more effective character than the rest of the party is fine (you can have an ace in the hole to make sure they don't die or crush them to emphasize how powerful a bad guy is) make sure it doesn't get too out of hand that everyone else is useless.

Slayer: They like killing stuff. They're your typical door basher that just wants a steady stream of monsters to put a sword to. Arguably the easiest players to deal with. Keep them happy by having interesting combat mechanics come into play, springing combat suddenly onto the party and vividly describing what their character does in battle. Keep them reigned in, however, lest they turn the campaign into a meat grinder.

Storyteller: At the opposite end of the story spectrum from the Actor, a Storyteller enjoys the overarching plot as opposed to any single character. They enjoy a rich narrative and a well thought out world. Keep them engaged by using their character's background as some groundwork for an adventure or two, have recurring characters they can watch evolve and make sure to keep every quest at least plot related. Make sure that they don't hog the spotlight, though, or force other characters to curb their ideas to fit the story exactly.

Thinker: The problem solver of the group. They prefer to make cool and collected decisions that solve a problem with minimal risk and wasting the least amount of resources. They take their time to make actions to consider every possibility. Reward their planning with in game benefits, let a scenario become one sided in their favour due to planning and add puzzle solving sections to encounters to keep them happy. Ensure they don't start bossing other players around or stall the game by taking too long to act or you might be in trouble.

Watcher: These players aren't necessarily interested in the game, more so that they're interested in just being with the people at the table for the social aspects. They'll put as much effort as they need to, but aren't terribly invested in the mechanics or story. These players are great to have to help calm other, more invest, players down when things get heated, fill gaps in a party's glaring weaknesses and is generally a reliable player because they don't want to let the people playing down. Make sure you prompt them when need be but accept the fact they won't be as engaged as everyone else to keep them happy. Don't let them become a distraction, however, by letting their wandering attention distract other players.

Identify or ask your players which role they identify with the most and you can start to construct the game towards what they want to see out of it.

As for your question? I'm a bit of an instigator with a healthy dose of power gamer and slayer mixed in, so I enjoy large quests with exotic locations with many interesting battles that can test the limits of my character's abilities. As long as I can keep exploring and have a steady stream of challenge, especially combat, I'm a pretty happy camper and the rest of the traits -such as actor and storyteller- will flow from there.

 

[scotth266]

Ideally you want people to be role-playing all the time, even in combat. Sometimes that's just not possible though: some people enjoy divorcing their combat from their role-playing, and if it works for them, all the more power to em.

My players for instance enjoy a separated system: they don't role-play much while in combat, but outside of combat they've never failed to surprise me with how strange they can be.

"Can I dip him (the dwarven cleric) in the drake nutrient sludge and use him as bait?"
"Can I steal the armor from my team-mate and then plant it on someone else?"
"Can I hit on the blacksmith?"

Well, perhaps that last one was to be expected.

 

[GlorySeeker]

Ok, I am currently running a table with some good friends, with a mix of experienced and new players. They are rather enjoying the sessions, and the world thats being fleshed out, and the story that they are slowly unraveling. But as Im running it, Ive begun to notice how little combat I throw at them. (There are of course, other ways to challenge the players) So my question is this;

What do you like in a DnD adventure? Do you like a combat dungeon sprawler? Or more like being guided along in a story? What are your thoughts?

(Its a 3.5 adventure, just to answer that question)

I try to keep my games about 50/50 between combat and RP. I've played all types of games, games that are very combat heavy and games that are very RP heavy.

First things first, you gotta know your players. If they're all super interested in delving into dungeons and fighting monsters, then give them that. If they want to run around town, talk to people and make connections and solve mysteries, then that's fine too! But give them what they want. If your players are having fun, I guarantee you they will do stuff that will in turn be very entertaining for you, the DM.

Second, look at your party composition. Make sure that your story doesn't leave someone out because of the class they chose to play. Nothing makes me more unhappy than being unable to participate in a game because I'm playing a class where I rarely get to do what I'm good at. For some this could be a fighter stuck in an RP game, or someone who's chosen a very skill based class in a combat scenario. That doesn't mean that everyone has to be center stage all the time of course, but the longer someone goes without feeling like they are participating, the more unfun a game can be.

EDIT: How long have you been running?

This game has been going on for at least a few months now. Everybody started at level 1, and I sorta power leveled them, but were going by the EXP table now.
Consist of a Bard, whose prestiging to a Seeker of the Song
A Monk, who will become a Dragon Disciple.
A Druid. (Shes still fairly new to the game and keeping it simple)
A Duelist,
And a Fighter/Theif, who I think want to be a shadowdancer.