DnD players! Answer me this....

[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)

 

[Indecipherable]

It depends on what we run. Typically ours are fairly combat heavy but it has in the past gone for upwards of 6 or 7 hours of 'doing stuff' without a single fight.

To Witty Name Here: Ehhh yes and no? I think there's a significant barrier to entry if you or your friends have no experience in the game. I'd suggest you find a person who has already played and you'll see the rules have some simple concepts behind them just with many permutations. Our combat flows quite fast but we are most certainly not beginners.

 

[GlorySeeker]

Yeah, a steady group of people is something that isnt easy to come by.

And I agree, but once all the players get used to the rules, it can be very fluid. 4th edition is also great improvement on the combat.
(Never played pathfinder)

Captcha: Hooray Henry....
Is your name henry? lol

 

[GlorySeeker]

It depends on what we run. Typically ours are fairly combat heavy but it has in the past gone for upwards of 6 or 7 hours of 'doing stuff' without a single fight.

Do you enjoy the combat or the RP more? Or does it just all blend well.
Ive been dming for almost as long as Ive played, so its neat to hear opinions on Tables.

 

[Indecipherable]

It depends on what we run. Typically ours are fairly combat heavy but it has in the past gone for upwards of 6 or 7 hours of 'doing stuff' without a single fight.

Do you enjoy the combat or the RP more? Or does it just all blend well.
Ive been dming for almost as long as Ive played, so its neat to hear opinions on Tables.

I hate 4th edition for many of the changes it made but don't want to make this thread an edition war. Suffice to say they are already abandoning 4th and moving on, and their failure is what made Paizo (Pathfinder) a multimillion dollar business.

As for the actual question - Combat without meaning is pointless. It needs a mix of both with a good story behind it, and every group will have their own preferences. I find it impossible to answer your question, I'm afraid, with some arbitrary proportion between combat to RP.

 

[GlorySeeker]

Yeah, 4th edition had its pros and cons. Ive played each edition, and there are things I like and dislike in each.

I agree. Killing monsters is certainly fun, but it needs a direction.

All this about pathfinder, never played it. heard it being compared as DnD 3.75. Whats it like?

 

[Windcaler]

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)

Well at the end of the day every game is going to be different. Some groups completely forgo roleplaying and just want combats, other people forgo combat and focus on the roleplaying, other groups have a healthy mix of the two.

That said a good GM plays to his groups desires and makes the game fun for them and for themself. To do that you usually have to test the waters but eventually you'll figure out what they like.

As for me, I find games where you are dungeoncrawling all the time or being railroaded into a single plot and without any kind of roleplaying to be the pinnacle of boredom. I like a healthy mix of both roleplaying where I can play the character and effect the world but I also like dangerous situations to happen and slaying dangerous monsters or secret societies to keep people safe. I like games that have complex morale choices where the "right" answer isnt always easy to figure out. I like games that have a good story going in them and allow for player freedom, meaning if I want to go exploring I can.

 

[GlorySeeker]

[/Quote]Well at the end of the day every game is going to be different. Some groups completely forgo roleplaying and just want combats, other people forgo combat and focus on the roleplaying, other groups have a healthy mix of the two.

That said a good GM plays to his groups desires and makes the game fun for them and for themself. To do that you usually have to test the waters but eventually you'll figure out what they like.

As for me, I find games where you are dungeoncrawling all the time or being railroaded into a single plot and without any kind of roleplaying to be the pinnacle of boredom. I like a healthy mix of both roleplaying where I can play the character and effect the world but I also like dangerous situations to happen and slaying dangerous monsters or secret societies to keep people safe. I like games that have complex morale choices where the "right" answer isnt always easy to figure out. I like games that have a good story going in them and allow for player freedom, meaning if I want to go exploring I can.[/quote]

At my table, Ive feel that the story im taking them is just like a book, and they are characters participating in it. But even with the main plot sort of decided in my head, the characters are fleshing out there backstories and personal ambitions. They are all doing things that have had repercussions thus far, but the combat has been very nil. Im enjoying it immensly, as are the players.
Sounds you may enjoy what im throwing at them. haha

 

[Lupus80]

I just recently starting gamemastering again after a long hitatus (in my case we're playing the new World of Darkness, Werewolf: The Forsaken). When the players and I were talking about what we wanted to play we made the decision that we would actually [i/]roleplay[/i] and not just a dungeon crawl with lots of monster killing (even though the game is about a werewolf pack kicking butt).

We figured that these days it is pretty easy to get your kick-down-the-door-and-kick-ass fix, with all the simple button-mashing, slashing, shooting video games that are out there. Put aside all the video games, there is a whole bunch of miniture games (like HeroClix) you can get into if you want a simple brawl.

The one thing pen-and-paper games can offer over the video games these days is the depth of character and detail you can get into. Even the most interactive and detailed video game RPGs can't match the spontaneity you get with pen-and-paper.

 

[Rack]

There's a definite appeal to character advancement in roleplaying games that the odd combat helps along but mostly combat gets really boring, especially in 3.5 D&D. When it comes to story it's still very hard for an RPG to match even a mediocre book, so for me the appeal is all about the freedom of interaction, the way a story changes with my decisions and the ability to send it spinning off the rails.

 

[TheCommanders]

Yeah, 4th edition had its pros and cons. Ive played each edition, and there are things I like and dislike in each.

I agree. Killing monsters is certainly fun, but it needs a direction.

All this about pathfinder, never played it. heard it being compared as DnD 3.75. Whats it like?

It's essentially a copy paste of 3.5 with a few elements of 4th edition added in and somehow sold as a new product. I really don't know, legally, how they got away with it. I think it's all a mismatched unbalanced nightmare personally, and that the only reason people think they like it is that they didn't like 4th edition. If you didn't like 4th edition, stick with 3.5, all pathfinder does is manage to break it. Oh, and add some terrible looking artwork.

OT-
It depends on the group and the edition. 3.5 had slightly more complex combat, but it was poorly optimized for longer dungeon crawls, so I usually had less, but more significant combat. 4th edition worked better with spreading the combat out over the entire dungeon (or whatever location you are at) and for more tactical combat. My group liked to screw around a lot in between dungeons, so it usually ended up being about 50-50 between role playing and combat, but that was mostly because (as someone mentioned) combat in tabletop RPGs takes a long time. If you think D&D is lengthy, you should see how long 3 seconds can take in Shadowrun Then again, shadowrun is usually more about planning well to make those 3 seconds count, but still.

 

[Mafoobula]

Oddly enough, the few times I played D&D I fairly well reveled in the non-actiony stuff. The combat sequences were alright, when a high-risk maneuver worked out alright, but it wasn't too terribly fun.
However, at one point, we were forced to forego paper, pencil and random numbers, and our DM simply turned all combat into a grand story-telling, using input from us players. Suddenly, instead of rolling numbers and being told what the minotaur was doing, the DM was acting out the actions. Combat became far more enjoyable then, and if/when I ever DM a game, I think I'll try to incorporate this dynamic story-telling into the game.

Buh-hwuh? Oh right, the topic question. I play for the story, and less for the combat. The way I see it, combat is just a means to get XP so the players can do bigger and cooler things in the narrative. Need to secretly talk to a king? Level up your assassin so you can sneak right up to his ear. That kind of thing.

 

[WaReloaded]

When I run my DND game I try to balance the narrative and the combat (I know it sounds like I'm stating the obvious). Try adding some boss battles, the fights take longer and they can aid the narrative/story. For instance, if you're setting is a forest, you could create a story where the forest is run by a Troll warlord, or something along those lines, and he can send waves of enemies after the adventurers until they reach his lair.

 

[MahouSniper]

It depends a lot on the game. I've had some awesome games that were just lots of combat, like a 4e game where I spent the entire campaign fighting a revolution against eldritch horrors. I've also had some great campaigns with nothing but roleplay, like an Exalted game I played where we didn't roll any dice the entire first session. I've also had some great times with campaigns that balance both, like a 3.75 Pathfinder game where we killed a goblin tribe, then convinced the survivors that we were prophets from their god and they should follow us and do our bidding.

So I'd say if your party is having a lot of fun, just give them the world and the story. If they want combat, they'll find it.

 

[Rblade]

balance is vital. Good RP opertunity makes for some of the most memorable adventures but every player at some point wants to get their blades dirty. I think it's generaly best to provide the players with options.

Hint at the fact there is a dungeon somewhere, if they decide to follow that lead they can go down and beat the crap out of mythical creatures for gold and jewels. They can however also help out in town while only every now and then knocking a petty thief on the head.

I'm a firm believer that campaign needs to every now and then have at least a little bit of the following.

RP adventure - An encounter designed to be solved without ever rolling for initiative.
The dungeon crawl - Epic combat, probably as either part of some main quest or a "supply" run.
The "Job" - an encounter in an urban enviroment that can be solved either mostly with RP or by killing everyone. Resulting in different rewards and consiquences. Theses tend to make players feel most like what they do matters, and lessens the railroad feeling. Can lead to interesting new directions for a campaign cause players can screw up without dying (like getting thrown in jail, or angering a crime lord or something)
Personal growth - Give the players complete free reign, allowing them to suggest something they want to do with their lives. Maby something with their character history, or hell setting up a small business to generate some steady income. You do need to have your world pretty well planned out and be prepared to wing it for this to really work. This is where a list of stock names and locations comes in really handy if they wander somewhere you haven't written out before hand, to make it seem natural. If they decide to just hang in the Inn and drink alot throw the next prepared encounter at them the next morning.
The roflstomp - I personally am a fan of this, just a little random encounter that is no problem for the players. Don't expect to challange them just let them have fun and assert their dominance. It will allow you to pressure and challenge players in the main quest and dungeon crawls without making them feel like they don't stand a chance.

The last one is very personal, and overal it's just my experience on what a campaign needs. What you do most should depend on the players not you, your there to entertain them. Ask for feedback regularly and work with it. Players will like it if they notice their advice is being taken to hearth and nothing is more fun then seeing something from your backstory making it into the game world.

Variety will keep people interested, be prepared to change if stuff doesn't work. Thats how our game has evolved for the better

 

[RN7]

The most randomiest shit ever. My friends' and my own goal is always to horridly derail the GM and make something strange happen. Just add a bit of craziness into the adventure and it will always turn out fun. Like the time when we invoked a child fire god to ignite the flame of love between 2 men.



Sometimes the campaigns run like this don't turn out well, as you might imagine, so just...be careful.

 

[DoPo]

Well, to repeat stuff from above - it depends on the group. I've played D&D games with little combat and ones which were kick in the door style. Whatever works for the group, I guess. I'd personally not worry that there is too little combat. If you're unsure, though, just ask your players after the session for some feedback - what they liked best, what they want more of.

And Pathfinder is...nice, if you're into that sort of thing, I guess. Definitely brings some changes to 3.5 but whether they are good or not would really depend on you. I personally see it as 3.5 + a bunch of house rules made official. Some of them good, others, not so much, but overall it's a waste of money - house rules aren't hard to come by, after all. But that might just be me - there are lots of people who love Pathfinder. Still, if you're interested, look up the Pathfinder SRD [http://www.d20pfsrd.com/], that should give you a taste and you'll decide whether you like it or not. Overall, it seems that it appeals more to 3.5 fans (the ones who don't like 4e). I personally prefer Epic 6 [http://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Epic_6] and 3.5, so I'll not miss the chance to plug it.

 

[Estranged180]

If you're really concerned about combat being too scarce, I'll suggest something that you should already know about. The 'Random Encounter' table on pg. 78 of your DM's Guide. Good guidelines for wandering encounters depending on setting type are in there. The types of 'wandering monsters' is on pg. 79, and dealt with by %d.

A good way of finding out how the players will respond is to do something so insanely obvious that it's actually hard to see. Ask them. Or just surprise them with a zombie minotaur.

In the end, it's going to be completely up to you how you run your campaigns.

 

[Alexias_Sandar]

Whatever RPG I play, be it D&D, Exalted, Alternity, Cyberpunk 2020, Mechwarrior, d20 Modern, Star Wars SAGA edition (I've played previous editions and even the West End Games version too, I just prefer SAGA there)... World of Darkness...what have you... it's story primary. Sure, combat can be fun... but generally I'd rather there be a point to it. A goal, a need, some REASON to fight. Sometimes that's survival, sometimes it's because I'm seeking to conquer X or Y, sometimes it's to protect something, whatever... but there needs to be an actual purpose to it, beyond just TO FIGHT, or even 'To get the shiney thing'.

I don't play D&D that often anymore... most local group shifted to 4E, which... I'm less than fond of, and...tended to also shift to a more 'lets kill the monsters' tone, more a miniatures game or war game than a roleplaying game, with a primary focus on battle. I'm not saying 4e HAS to be that way, but it's how it effected many around here. I've stuck more with Exalted and SAGA. While Exalted you'll certainly want to be ABLE to fight, to keep your rear from being handed to you when the first major antagonist shows up... plenty of other solutions, if you choose to use them...and XP isn't handed out for enemies killed or defeated at all. It's given out for sessions, and for superior roleplay or big events, or for doing something awesome...whether that be some awesome action in battle...or the awesome speech you gave, or the training montage for your order of ninja assassins or your awesome stunt for how you're crafting the magitech arm you're replacing your own missing limb with or what have you.

Mainly, I enjoy a good story, and doing something interesting. I can do that in D&D, but found 4e to be less helpful there. I enjoyed a number of good stories in 2nd ed and 3rd ed and 3.5. Less so in 4th Edition.