One of my players is very conscious that her character is (at least at the moment) not very good at combat. Combat also holds little to no interest for her, and I was asked after a session to include solutions to conflict that doesn't end up in combat.
How would you guys run such a request? I am reticent to include too much 'favour asking', as this will just lead to a chain of sidequests that detract a bit from the main story.
How you do run negotiation and diplomacy as an alternative to combat?
I just do. If they talk their way past/through/out of a situation then there is no need to fight. That’s what persuasion/deception and insight are for. As long as they “overcome the challenge” (killing it is only one solution) they earn the XP for it. Simple as that.
If you as the DM have a firm understanding of who the enemies are and what their goals/desires are, it’s really not any extra work to allow the party to talk their way out of a fight. It’s the players’ responsibility to actually try to do that. You just need to be receptive, and when they say “is there any way I can convince them not to attack?” you just have to figure out a way to get them that information. Then it all comes down to checks, as IamSposta says.
The game is kind of balanced under the assumption that the party isn't going to blindly rush into each battle and dispatch every opponent they see. Think of how many spells and abilities there are in the game that aren't useful in straightforward combat... if a player wants to cleverly use illusions to distract enemies or put a ton of points into persuasion, they should be rewarded for using those abilities intelligently, not punished. I understand the concern, though, that this risks being abused as well. If a character has a +13 for Persuasion, they might try to get out of every situation with it, but it's up to you to decide when and where that's even an option. A player might be able to convince a group of bandits that it's not worth it to try and fight the party, but if the party runs into, say... an angry Beholder, a persuasion check could get it, at best, to maybe not try to kill the party as hard as it was initially planning to.
It's very situational. But look at The Hobbit. Bilbo meets Smaug. This is a NON-COMBAT ENCOUNTER. It can't end any other way than Hobbit flambée. But no amount of Persuasion rolls will cause Smaug to part with treasure. Here, a non-combat encounter looks like a combination of Hide rolls and Deception/Persuasion to get some info from Smaug without giving away too much in return.
How about Performance for the classic "distract the guard while the rogue sneaks in to the building" number? Intimidation for when Han Solo runs screaming at a crowd of stormtroopers and panics them into scattering for a few moments?
Lots of encounters with Beasts have non-violent options, from Animal Handling rolls to just throwing them your dinner.
The problem is not inserting situations where combat can be avoided, but instead why you seem to think combat can not be avoided?
In most of the games I have played combat starts because the PLAYERS want to fight, not the villain. Most humanoids are smart enough not to insist on fighting, all you need to do is to talk to them rather than immediately attack them. Most Fey and Celestials are the same way.
Beasts, Constructs and plants can be tricked, if you know about them ahead of time.
Smart versions of the following: undead, elementals, giants, and fiends can be dealt with, though usually at great cost.
Yeah, you will have to fight dragons, abberations, mindless undead, oozes, stupid fiends, stupid giants, stupid elementals and monstrosities.
Play a couple of adventures in a city and you got your diplomacy.
Or they could sneak past and it’s stealth vs. perception checks. Or find some way to lure/trick the guards away. Invisibility might also work to pass enemies without combat. Or just scare the enemies off with successive intimidation vs. insight checks. The list goes on.
I agree with the rest of the posts here. I set up situations, not combats. If the party gets into a fight, they get into a fight. Some creatures (such as a ghoul in a tomb) will simply NOT negotiate (why would it?). Others may, depending on what the party says and does.
For example, 2 sessions ago I had set up a wolf encounter. Four wolves approached the party looking to eat them. The ranger cast Speak with Animals and tried to negotiate with them. I had her roll Animal Handling (IMO, this is more appropriate than persuasion for a low-INT animal who cannot understand complex concepts to be "persuaded" the way a goblin might), and she succeeded so she convinced the wolves that the party would not make good eating, and the wolves went off.
They still got XP for the encounter. The XP was for "succeeding" in any fashion possible, not for killing wolves.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree with the rest of the posts here. I set up situations, not combats. If the party gets into a fight, they get into a fight. Some creatures (such as a ghoul in a tomb) will simply NOT negotiate (why would it?). Others may, depending on what the party says and does.
For example, 2 sessions ago I had set up a wolf encounter. Four wolves approached the party looking to eat them. The ranger cast Speak with Animals and tried to negotiate with them. I had her roll Animal Handling (IMO, this is more appropriate than persuasion for a low-INT animal who cannot understand complex concepts to be "persuaded" the way a goblin might), and she succeeded so she convinced the wolves that the party would not make good eating, and the wolves went off.
They still got XP for the encounter. The XP was for "succeeding" in any fashion possible, not for killing wolves.
It helps that I do not give out XP per kill. I use milestone XP. So the goal is "get to the haunted castle." However they get there, when they arrive on the doorstep, they get the XP for it (as either a major or minor milestone, depending). Rules for how to do this are laid out in the DMG.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You should check how much combat other players want. If everyone's fine with low combat, go low combat. If not, you may have an issue running things that everyone will like.
It helps that I do not give out XP per kill. I use milestone XP. So the goal is "get to the haunted castle." However they get there, when they arrive on the doorstep, they get the XP for it (as either a major or minor milestone, depending). Rules for how to do this are laid out in the DMG.
I use XP, but it’s for the overall challenge, not the kills. Sneaking/talking/killing/tricking/whatevering past an enemy are just alternative ways to overcome the challenge.
I think that's a good thing to keep in mind... I reward full XP for when the team successfully passes a conflict, whether through defeating their opponent or successfully getting their way through it with diplomacy (or deception, or whatever else they figure out). Although in some cases I'm careful not to award that XP until they're clearly safe from the issue. For example, in a recent game the group was able to negotiate with a mad aberration and were able to safely pass it... but it was still there and a potential threat the whole time, because it's still an insane monster, so they never got the full XP until they were safely out of the dungeon and were certain they wouldn't have to face off against it if they say the wrong thing in front of it (and it did have several triggers that would have turned it against them in an instant, despite the party feeding it and giving it a nickname).
Anyway, I went off on a bit of a tangent there, but what I wanted to emphasize was that the party shouldn't feel like they're getting "less" because they choose to resolve problems with anything other than combat. If anything, in many situations, sparing an opponent should give them more.
You should check how much combat other players want. If everyone's fine with low combat, go low combat. If not, you may have an issue running things that everyone will like.
Yeah, gotta find the right mix for that particular group so that everyone feels like they get enough of what they want. One of the tough parts of DMing when it’s not a long-running group.
Even stupid monsters can be tricked. At one point I convinced 2 ogres to go get honey from a large bee hive. The bees attacked them and stung them so badly they fled from the area. Another time s fellow player bought a buffalo and used it to bribe a hill giant that was attacking a village. It apparently was just really hungry.
Mainly the GM can give the players the option for non-combat solutions, but the players have to be willing to do them. An insight check becomes important in the cases where the players have no idea what to do. Or they could just hit things.
How you do run negotiation and diplomacy as an alternative to combat?
The first thing you have to do is determine the goal of each encounter. After all, people (well, most people, yes I'm looking at you, barbarian!) don't engage in combat simply for the sake of engaging in combat. They are fighting to achieve something. Perhaps to gain some treasure. Maybe to stop attacks on a village. Possibly to stop a horrible ritual.
Once you know the goal of an encounter, let the players work out how to solve it. If they come up with a half-way decent plan involving diplomacy (or trickery or anything else), then great, they achieve the goal and get full XP. Sometimes violence is the only answer, but most of the time there are alternatives. As a GM, you need to be willing to support the players in this.
Facing a wild animal? Yes, you could fireball it, but you could also feed it, or talk to it, or just go around it.
Band of kobolds attacking a town? Find out why. If the kobolds are just resentful of the prosperous town then work to broker a peace. If the kobolds are bored then redirect them. If they are following the instructions of an evil leader then force a regime change. If they are hungry then feed them (or, better, get them working for the town in return for food). Of course, they might just genuinely be a band of little —ers, in which case slaughter is the only option.
In summary, the GM should understand the goal of each encounter and support multiple methods for achieving the goal.
How you do run negotiation and diplomacy as an alternative to combat?
The first thing you have to do is determine the goal of each encounter. After all, people (well, most people, yes I'm looking at you, barbarian!) don't engage in combat simply for the sake of engaging in combat. They are fighting to achieve something. Perhaps to gain some treasure. Maybe to stop attacks on a village. Possibly to stop a horrible ritual.
Once you know the goal of an encounter, let the players work out how to solve it. If they come up with a half-way decent plan involving diplomacy (or trickery or anything else), then great, they achieve the goal and get full XP. Sometimes violence is the only answer, but most of the time there are alternatives. As a GM, you need to be willing to support the players in this.
Facing a wild animal? Yes, you could fireball it, but you could also feed it, or talk to it, or just go around it.
Band of kobolds attacking a town? Find out why. If the kobolds are just resentful of the prosperous town then work to broker a peace. If the kobolds are bored then redirect them. If they are following the instructions of an evil leader then force a regime change. If they are hungry then feed them (or, better, get them working for the town in return for food). Of course, they might just genuinely be a band of little —ers, in which case slaughter is the only option.
In summary, the GM should understand the goal of each encounter and support multiple methods for achieving the goal.
Yeah, that’s it.
I don’t “write a campaign.” I populate a world, give the individuals who make up that population goals and objectives, plop the party in the middle of it, give them a nudge to get the ball rolling and then they (the players) “write the campaign” through their choices. I’m just the guy who knows the population and the people motivations, so that puts me in the position to say what happens as the results of their choices.
Hey people - New DM here.
One of my players is very conscious that her character is (at least at the moment) not very good at combat. Combat also holds little to no interest for her, and I was asked after a session to include solutions to conflict that doesn't end up in combat.
How would you guys run such a request? I am reticent to include too much 'favour asking', as this will just lead to a chain of sidequests that detract a bit from the main story.
How you do run negotiation and diplomacy as an alternative to combat?
Thanks for your help.
I just do. If they talk their way past/through/out of a situation then there is no need to fight. That’s what persuasion/deception and insight are for. As long as they “overcome the challenge” (killing it is only one solution) they earn the XP for it. Simple as that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If you as the DM have a firm understanding of who the enemies are and what their goals/desires are, it’s really not any extra work to allow the party to talk their way out of a fight. It’s the players’ responsibility to actually try to do that. You just need to be receptive, and when they say “is there any way I can convince them not to attack?” you just have to figure out a way to get them that information. Then it all comes down to checks, as IamSposta says.
The game is kind of balanced under the assumption that the party isn't going to blindly rush into each battle and dispatch every opponent they see. Think of how many spells and abilities there are in the game that aren't useful in straightforward combat... if a player wants to cleverly use illusions to distract enemies or put a ton of points into persuasion, they should be rewarded for using those abilities intelligently, not punished. I understand the concern, though, that this risks being abused as well. If a character has a +13 for Persuasion, they might try to get out of every situation with it, but it's up to you to decide when and where that's even an option. A player might be able to convince a group of bandits that it's not worth it to try and fight the party, but if the party runs into, say... an angry Beholder, a persuasion check could get it, at best, to maybe not try to kill the party as hard as it was initially planning to.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
It's very situational. But look at The Hobbit. Bilbo meets Smaug. This is a NON-COMBAT ENCOUNTER. It can't end any other way than Hobbit flambée. But no amount of Persuasion rolls will cause Smaug to part with treasure. Here, a non-combat encounter looks like a combination of Hide rolls and Deception/Persuasion to get some info from Smaug without giving away too much in return.
How about Performance for the classic "distract the guard while the rogue sneaks in to the building" number? Intimidation for when Han Solo runs screaming at a crowd of stormtroopers and panics them into scattering for a few moments?
Lots of encounters with Beasts have non-violent options, from Animal Handling rolls to just throwing them your dinner.
The problem is not inserting situations where combat can be avoided, but instead why you seem to think combat can not be avoided?
In most of the games I have played combat starts because the PLAYERS want to fight, not the villain. Most humanoids are smart enough not to insist on fighting, all you need to do is to talk to them rather than immediately attack them. Most Fey and Celestials are the same way.
Beasts, Constructs and plants can be tricked, if you know about them ahead of time.
Smart versions of the following: undead, elementals, giants, and fiends can be dealt with, though usually at great cost.
Yeah, you will have to fight dragons, abberations, mindless undead, oozes, stupid fiends, stupid giants, stupid elementals and monstrosities.
Play a couple of adventures in a city and you got your diplomacy.
Or they could sneak past and it’s stealth vs. perception checks. Or find some way to lure/trick the guards away. Invisibility might also work to pass enemies without combat. Or just scare the enemies off with successive intimidation vs. insight checks. The list goes on.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I agree with the rest of the posts here. I set up situations, not combats. If the party gets into a fight, they get into a fight. Some creatures (such as a ghoul in a tomb) will simply NOT negotiate (why would it?). Others may, depending on what the party says and does.
For example, 2 sessions ago I had set up a wolf encounter. Four wolves approached the party looking to eat them. The ranger cast Speak with Animals and tried to negotiate with them. I had her roll Animal Handling (IMO, this is more appropriate than persuasion for a low-INT animal who cannot understand complex concepts to be "persuaded" the way a goblin might), and she succeeded so she convinced the wolves that the party would not make good eating, and the wolves went off.
They still got XP for the encounter. The XP was for "succeeding" in any fashion possible, not for killing wolves.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
^^^This^^^
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It helps that I do not give out XP per kill. I use milestone XP. So the goal is "get to the haunted castle." However they get there, when they arrive on the doorstep, they get the XP for it (as either a major or minor milestone, depending). Rules for how to do this are laid out in the DMG.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You should check how much combat other players want. If everyone's fine with low combat, go low combat. If not, you may have an issue running things that everyone will like.
I use XP, but it’s for the overall challenge, not the kills. Sneaking/talking/killing/tricking/whatevering past an enemy are just alternative ways to overcome the challenge.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think that's a good thing to keep in mind... I reward full XP for when the team successfully passes a conflict, whether through defeating their opponent or successfully getting their way through it with diplomacy (or deception, or whatever else they figure out). Although in some cases I'm careful not to award that XP until they're clearly safe from the issue. For example, in a recent game the group was able to negotiate with a mad aberration and were able to safely pass it... but it was still there and a potential threat the whole time, because it's still an insane monster, so they never got the full XP until they were safely out of the dungeon and were certain they wouldn't have to face off against it if they say the wrong thing in front of it (and it did have several triggers that would have turned it against them in an instant, despite the party feeding it and giving it a nickname).
Anyway, I went off on a bit of a tangent there, but what I wanted to emphasize was that the party shouldn't feel like they're getting "less" because they choose to resolve problems with anything other than combat. If anything, in many situations, sparing an opponent should give them more.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Yeah, gotta find the right mix for that particular group so that everyone feels like they get enough of what they want. One of the tough parts of DMing when it’s not a long-running group.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Even stupid monsters can be tricked. At one point I convinced 2 ogres to go get honey from a large bee hive. The bees attacked them and stung them so badly they fled from the area. Another time s fellow player bought a buffalo and used it to bribe a hill giant that was attacking a village. It apparently was just really hungry.
Mainly the GM can give the players the option for non-combat solutions, but the players have to be willing to do them. An insight check becomes important in the cases where the players have no idea what to do. Or they could just hit things.
The first thing you have to do is determine the goal of each encounter. After all, people (well, most people, yes I'm looking at you, barbarian!) don't engage in combat simply for the sake of engaging in combat. They are fighting to achieve something. Perhaps to gain some treasure. Maybe to stop attacks on a village. Possibly to stop a horrible ritual.
Once you know the goal of an encounter, let the players work out how to solve it. If they come up with a half-way decent plan involving diplomacy (or trickery or anything else), then great, they achieve the goal and get full XP. Sometimes violence is the only answer, but most of the time there are alternatives. As a GM, you need to be willing to support the players in this.
Facing a wild animal? Yes, you could fireball it, but you could also feed it, or talk to it, or just go around it.
Band of kobolds attacking a town? Find out why. If the kobolds are just resentful of the prosperous town then work to broker a peace. If the kobolds are bored then redirect them. If they are following the instructions of an evil leader then force a regime change. If they are hungry then feed them (or, better, get them working for the town in return for food). Of course, they might just genuinely be a band of little —ers, in which case slaughter is the only option.
In summary, the GM should understand the goal of each encounter and support multiple methods for achieving the goal.
I tend towards a quest model for xp -- you get xp for accomplishing the objective, which might or might not require killing monsters.
Yeah, that’s it.
I don’t “write a campaign.” I populate a world, give the individuals who make up that population goals and objectives, plop the party in the middle of it, give them a nudge to get the ball rolling and then they (the players) “write the campaign” through their choices. I’m just the guy who knows the population and the people motivations, so that puts me in the position to say what happens as the results of their choices.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting