I feel like I'm getting conflicting information and ideas about having the goal shutting down combat. I think whether having the goal of shutting down combat is desirable or not (and fun or not), might depend on context (and I might be missing some of that).
I've heard that combat shouldn't last very many rounds (like maybe 3 or 4) and if it does, players are likely doing something wrong.
It also seems like sometimes DM build a whole session that is mainly intended to be one long combat or several that are one after another and kind of run into each other and that they may have worked really hard on designing such sessions that involve long combat session - I guess those might be big boss fights and that's part of the context thing. Maybe it's not fun for the DM and maybe the party misses out too, if the party manages to either end the combat really quickly or circumvent the combat altogether, when it is some sort of special combat session. like a big boss fight. But then finding ways to to shut things down quickly or circumvent altogether usually requires creativity and teamwork and it is the less risky option, so in some sense, rational.
I think the “HOW” part might matter: It seems like shutting down combat often involves exploiting a spell that might be overpowered or that has kind of infamous exploits maybe sometimes that's smart and fun, maybe sometimes it's kind of cringy (or possibly metagame-y) and takes away from the fun. But then it's also not fun (I don't think) to hold back in combat or to hold back on trying to solve problems in ways that don't involve combat.
On being metagame-y:
I think also I get anxious about combat and about what the DM has in store for us for the next session. I think I might think about that and think about possible solutions too much in-between sessions. I can kind of tell that that’s going in a bad direction when I notice that I’m trying to make it so my character can be responsible for solving all possible problems (I get into this way of thinking when I am choosing spells). When I get this way I at least try to think of ways that my character can help the whole party solve problems as a team instead of trying to make my character responsible for everything.
The beauty of this game is that there is no "right" answer to this other than, "what works best and is the most fun for your group" (dm included)? That conversation should start in a session 0, but can happen multiple times as everyone learns what feels right to them.
As for being anxious about combat or perhaps over-analyzing tactics, look at those as opportunities for your character development. Based on things such as class and background or even leaning into the ideals/flaws of your character. What knowledge do you possess? What do you lack? Are you fast and loose at planning, or exacting and detailed? If you can establish a baseline for yourself it might help you better understand how to roleplay your reactions during sessions.
I like games where the players think of ways to avoid combat, though it can often involve a skill check. If the party want to try to venture of the road to avoid the bandits robbing people that is fine ("though I might have them hear in the inn that night someone complaining about being robbed and that travellers that are better armed than hom don't deal with them"). Spells are limited resources if a level one party cast sleep on the three kobolds at the entrance to their lair, that is one spell less for the tougher (unavoidable) fights inside.
I dislike "murder hobo" groups who kill everything, or even everything they think might be threatening without asking questions. I have enjoyed games wherre the DM might do something like have an NPC ask us to kill some smugglers bringing (say) whisky into the citywhen in fact they are legitimate traders and competitors to the quest giver.
As Yrigan said different players (including the DM) want different things from the game and the nature of the campaign should be agreed in session 0.
I think a mix is good. While you don`t want every encounter ending in a brawl, not all encounters have to end in trying to lay the BBEG (i`m looking at you bards). The game is mostly combat orientated, so a mix is good. Generally 60% fighting/40% not-fighting is good.
I think a mix is good. While you don`t want every encounter ending in a brawl, not all encounters have to end in trying to lay the BBEG (i`m looking at you bards). The game is mostly combat orientated, so a mix is good. Generally 60% fighting/40% not-fighting is good.
Agreed I also tihnk that one particular method of avoiding combat should work only rarely. To avoid combat in 50% of (hostile) encounters you might need to use stealth 10% of the time, face skills 10% of the time and a variety of magic the other 30% (suggestion, fear, hold person, turn undead etc)
The mechanics of the game are focused almost exclusively on combat. Personally I find everything but combat to be the most interesting parts of a game. Find out what your players enjoy and focus on those things.
If one is playing a group of thieves [not all of them need be of the rogue class] in a city setting, then a perfectly successful job may involve no combat, no alarms raised, no traps sprung, and no city guard alerted until the building/business owner discovers the theft later. If done well, these types of adventures can be quite exciting. The tension of trying to remain undetected, while committing the crime, can keep the fun level high. I personally have only encountered a couple of DMs/GMs who could run these sessions well, and I enjoyed them immensely.
As a recently returning GM, I'm working on such an adventure for the player group. We'll see how that one goes, as one player has already hinted that, in such a session, they might "screw up", just to shift the mission into a combat/chase scene instead of focusing on obtaining the item of interest. Some players live for having their character become the focus of attention, be it positive or negative attention. Hard to play a sneaky [Edit] campaign session, when one or more players want their character to be noticed.
I feel like I'm getting conflicting information and ideas about having the goal shutting down combat. I think whether having the goal of shutting down combat is desirable or not (and fun or not), might depend on context (and I might be missing some of that).
I've heard that combat shouldn't last very many rounds (like maybe 3 or 4) and if it does, players are likely doing something wrong.
It also seems like sometimes DM build a whole session that is mainly intended to be one long combat or several that are one after another and kind of run into each other and that they may have worked really hard on designing such sessions that involve long combat session - I guess those might be big boss fights and that's part of the context thing. Maybe it's not fun for the DM and maybe the party misses out too, if the party manages to either end the combat really quickly or circumvent the combat altogether, when it is some sort of special combat session. like a big boss fight. But then finding ways to to shut things down quickly or circumvent altogether usually requires creativity and teamwork and it is the less risky option, so in some sense, rational.
I think the “HOW” part might matter: It seems like shutting down combat often involves exploiting a spell that might be overpowered or that has kind of infamous exploits maybe sometimes that's smart and fun, maybe sometimes it's kind of cringy (or possibly metagame-y) and takes away from the fun. But then it's also not fun (I don't think) to hold back in combat or to hold back on trying to solve problems in ways that don't involve combat.
On being metagame-y:
I think also I get anxious about combat and about what the DM has in store for us for the next session. I think I might think about that and think about possible solutions too much in-between sessions. I can kind of tell that that’s going in a bad direction when I notice that I’m trying to make it so my character can be responsible for solving all possible problems (I get into this way of thinking when I am choosing spells). When I get this way I at least try to think of ways that my character can help the whole party solve problems as a team instead of trying to make my character responsible for everything.
The beauty of this game is that there is no "right" answer to this other than, "what works best and is the most fun for your group" (dm included)? That conversation should start in a session 0, but can happen multiple times as everyone learns what feels right to them.
As for being anxious about combat or perhaps over-analyzing tactics, look at those as opportunities for your character development. Based on things such as class and background or even leaning into the ideals/flaws of your character. What knowledge do you possess? What do you lack? Are you fast and loose at planning, or exacting and detailed? If you can establish a baseline for yourself it might help you better understand how to roleplay your reactions during sessions.
I like games where the players think of ways to avoid combat, though it can often involve a skill check. If the party want to try to venture of the road to avoid the bandits robbing people that is fine ("though I might have them hear in the inn that night someone complaining about being robbed and that travellers that are better armed than hom don't deal with them"). Spells are limited resources if a level one party cast sleep on the three kobolds at the entrance to their lair, that is one spell less for the tougher (unavoidable) fights inside.
I dislike "murder hobo" groups who kill everything, or even everything they think might be threatening without asking questions. I have enjoyed games wherre the DM might do something like have an NPC ask us to kill some smugglers bringing (say) whisky into the citywhen in fact they are legitimate traders and competitors to the quest giver.
As Yrigan said different players (including the DM) want different things from the game and the nature of the campaign should be agreed in session 0.
I think a mix is good. While you don`t want every encounter ending in a brawl, not all encounters have to end in trying to lay the BBEG (i`m looking at you bards). The game is mostly combat orientated, so a mix is good. Generally 60% fighting/40% not-fighting is good.
Studded Leather: He does exactly what I do
Natural Armor: But better
Agreed I also tihnk that one particular method of avoiding combat should work only rarely. To avoid combat in 50% of (hostile) encounters you might need to use stealth 10% of the time, face skills 10% of the time and a variety of magic the other 30% (suggestion, fear, hold person, turn undead etc)
The mechanics of the game are focused almost exclusively on combat. Personally I find everything but combat to be the most interesting parts of a game. Find out what your players enjoy and focus on those things.
If one is playing a group of thieves [not all of them need be of the rogue class] in a city setting, then a perfectly successful job may involve no combat, no alarms raised, no traps sprung, and no city guard alerted until the building/business owner discovers the theft later. If done well, these types of adventures can be quite exciting. The tension of trying to remain undetected, while committing the crime, can keep the fun level high. I personally have only encountered a couple of DMs/GMs who could run these sessions well, and I enjoyed them immensely.
As a recently returning GM, I'm working on such an adventure for the player group. We'll see how that one goes, as one player has already hinted that, in such a session, they might "screw up", just to shift the mission into a combat/chase scene instead of focusing on obtaining the item of interest. Some players live for having their character become the focus of attention, be it positive or negative attention. Hard to play a sneaky [Edit]
campaignsession, when one or more players want their character to be noticed.