i'm relatively new to D&D, only played several versions for a short time in my youth and i played nearly every computer game (EOB 1 (greetings to Xanathar, why is he living again?) til BG 3) of the several versions. I would say, that i'm a very well experienced gamemaster with 25 years of gamemastering in DSA (The Dark Eye) and Vampire. But now we are planing a try in D&D 5e. I have (nearly) every rulebook in my cabinet.
Now here are my questions.
It is obvious, that combat is a huge part of D&D. I would say 75 % of magic are combat centered and a lot of the rest spells are there to prepare the party beter for the next fight or to get faster to the next fight, where it is in TDE ~25-33%. And so it is with feats and general abilities. So combat is important. Check.
But how do you play out your combat encounters? Do you always fight to the end, aka death of one side? Does every encounter makes sense in your eyes and game or do your mindflyer infested ogres spawn in the bedroom of the nobles castles lady bcs the dices roles this way? Do your encounter have reasons (aka have the attackers reasons to do so) or are they pure for "fun" and action and loot? Is it possible to play a "realistic" type of gamestyle with D&D for the long run? Means, in my eyes, combat, especially till death, is really rare and most combats would end more in a surrendering of one side than in an orgy of slaughtering.
How do your groups handle the aftermatch of such a surrendering of foes? Do they let them go? Are they resting in the danger zone for getting their spells and abilities back? How do they prepare for an eventuall reencounter without spells and abilites ready? Or is the way around these game mechanic problems, the complete wipe out of the other side?
Is it possible with D&D to play satisfyingly more the social interacting gamestyle in the long run, even if this means, that 75% of the abilities are useless the most time?
Do you play with the alignment system and how do you use it? What is the basis of the (your) determination, what is good and what is evil in terms of game rules for spells for example? The rulebook? The human view on things?
In the worldview of a beholder, i don't think he sees himself as evil, he acts like it is his nature and this is not a evil thing or even a question of good/evil, it it his inner beeing. Same with demons, they are chaotic of course and do horribly things in the eyes of most living beeings, but they are, in my opinion, not evil in the kind of a meta good/evil morale question. They are like it is their nature.
For example. In The Dark Eye the basis of determination what is seen as good and what not, is how the beeing acts in terms of the existance of life and the world. The world is the oasis of manifestation in the endless sea of chaos. So demons as creatures of the endless sea of chaos, who wants to destoy the world and the pure existance of the world are not evil in form of the meta quetsion good/evil, bcs it is their nature. They do not choose willingly to destroy, they can't do it other. The nameless one, the evil god on the other hand chooses wilingly to currupt the world, so he is determined as evil in sense of creation. In vampire (Dark Ages), the basis is the world view of the religious humans (mostly christians, muslims and jews).
Is it possible, to easy play without the alignment system? (excluding the chained spells for example)
How you handle massiv social interaction gamebreaking spells like read thoughts, speak with dead without houseruling the spells out?
Is it possible in a "realistic" way, means: not every villain has a high lvl anti magic amulet or something. (i think it is not, and maybe i strike these spells or weaken them more like in the way that the success is determined by how good you have passed your ability check (DC: 15, you roll a 16, you only can find a glimpse of something is wrong, you roll a 35, yeah, you read his hole mind (it is a constructed example))
Are there ways of playing with getting away from this "do or die" dice results? Neither me or my players like this black or white thing. We hate it. We love the grey-colered way most things are.
And yea, i know, most questions are depending hugely on the player type, but my players are the more roleplayer type ones. They like to discuss things out than to kill someone.
A try as ingame story.
For preparation, i'm thinking about, how i would play out a encounter as GM and what are my worries about, how i would do it and maybe it is the "wrong way". Maybe i'm overthinking it.
My group will be a group of wannabe heroes, so their alignment will be good with the range from lawful to chaotic. For me, this includes, not to mindless murder living beeing. So let's say, they are traveling the land as a group of 4 young adventurers. A group of hunting gnolls/cobolds/goblins, maybe in search for food for their clan and the upcoming winter discorvers them and they overreach themself by thinking, the group will be easy prey. In the end, a combat occours. They are 6 for example. The group is slashing two of them very simple and very fast by using their spells and one time abilities. In the TDE i now would think about, how this would drastically have an effect on their will to battle. I think, they would surrender and beg for their life, bcs in the end, they do not want to die and they have a responsibility for their clan to find food, even if their. So fine. The goup can't take them to next courthouse bcs there is not enough food for all and taking care of prisoners is nothing, they experienced so far in their lives and they also have no driud in their group, which can argue about the balance of life of hunting and being prey and so on. So, they let them go with pointing the finger on them and saying "do not do this again, it is not nice". Te gnolls/goblins etc with thoughts of shame and vengeance return to their nearby camp. Here their shaman and leader hears their story and they think, it will be worth for the entire clan to overcome this group for their treasures (metal weapons and food and gold and maybe prestige in the eyes of other clans) even if it means to loose 4-5 weaker members. Also the shamam knows, that young adventures will not have any "spells slots" ready (means, they can't cast magic everytime bcs this is exhausting, she knows this, bcs she also can cast healing her buddies only 2 times/long rest). So they hurry up for a reencounter. And the group is now there, beliving, they won and even if they prepare themself, there are no spell slots ready, bcs this is game mechanic.
And now there is my dilemma. For the sake of a "realistic" world, i would argue my thoughts on top of here would be realistic and it also would be realistic that the group will loose their second encounter. On the other hand, i do not want my players to become murderers in the first (and following) encounter only for the reasons of maybe revenge attacks or even worse, bcs the game mechanic metas the players to do so.
Thank you very much for (hopefully) answering some question with your view and letting me get some outside points of view on my thoughts.
Having read you questions, I would suggest picking up the most recent book (Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel). I think that the encounters in it are very well written and good examples of how different fights and social encounters can play out.
Do you always fight to the end, aka death of one side? Sometimes? Depends on what you are fighting. Bandits that are trying to waylay you? They may decide to retreat after a certain number are wounded or dead. A dragon defending its horde? Last man standing time.
Does every encounter makes sense in your eyes and game or do your mindflyer infested ogres spawn in the bedroom of the nobles castles lady bcs the dices roles this way? The encounters usually (almost always) make sense. You generally don't just roll random creatures and locations. As the DM, either the prewritten adventure you are running tells you the location and enemies or you as the DM need to plan out the encounter.
Do your encounter have reasons (aka have the attackers reasons to do so) or are they pure for "fun" and action and loot? Generally yes, the encounters have reasons.
Is it possible to play a "realistic" type of gamestyle with D&D for the long run? Means, in my eyes, combat, especially till death, is really rare and most combats would end more in a surrendering of one side than in an orgy of slaughtering. Yes, it is very possible to play the game this way.
How do your groups handle the aftermatch of such a surrendering of foes? Turning in the opponent to authorities, intimidating them so they won't mess with the party again, magical compulsion to enforce the behavior, bribes, recruiting to the party's cause, etc
Do they let them go? Sometimes? It depends on what the foe is.
Are they resting in the danger zone for getting their spells and abilities back? Sometimes. Depends how mean the DM wants to be. Most parties will use a watch rotation during a long rest so they don't get caught unaware.
How do they prepare for an eventual reencounter without spells and abilities ready? By resting in a safe spot usually, or making sure there won't be a re-encounter.
Or is the way around these game mechanic problems, the complete wipe out of the other side? I don't think these are as much of a problem as you think they are
Is it possible with D&D to play satisfyingly more the social interacting gamestyle in the long run, even if this means, that 75% of the abilities are useless the most time? Yes, but you really need to work for it. As you said, combat is where most of the abilities are focused. That said, the published adventure The Wild Beyond the Witchlight can be played without rolling initiative (minimal combat).
Do you play with the alignment system and how do you use it? In 5th edition, most people do not worry about alignment.
What is the basis of the (your) determination, what is good and what is evil in terms of game rules for spells for example? The rulebook? The human view on things? "Good" and "Evil" are subjective. So you base it on the monster/person's behavior.
Is it possible, to easy play without the alignment system? (excluding the chained spells for example) Yes, nothing in the rules specifically targets "Lawful Good" or "Evil" or "Chaotic Neutral"
How you handle massive social interaction game-breaking spells like read thoughts, speak with dead without house ruling the spells out? Those spells aren't as powerful as you think they are.
Are there ways of playing with getting away from this "do or die" dice results? Neither me or my players like this black or white thing. We hate it. We love the grey-colered way most things are. Maybe? I'm not sure what you mean. Attacks either hit or miss. If you are hiding you are either spotted or not.
1.) Combat has the most rules associated with it because combat needs the most rules associated with it. Combat is the place where the margins are thinnest and the balance of life and death hangs in them. You can emphasize combat as much or as little as you like, some people run D&D with almost no fighting. But much like the other Rules-Lite Narrative Experience games out there? The less you fight, the fewer rules you need.
1a.) This is up to you as the DM. Many groups prefer a more realistic approach to combat – monsters belong where they’re found, they have reasons to attack (or defend – never forget that the PCs can, and often WILL, be the aggressors), and when the battle goes poorly the losing side may flee or surrender. A very good resource for running better, more realistic and tactically fulfilling combats is Keith Ammann’s “The Monsters Know What They’re Doing”, available in both book and blog form here: https://www.themonstersknow.com/ Even if you don’t use the specific tactics for specific critters, Keith also offers pointers on running combat in general.
1b.) You don’t handle surrender, unless the PCs are surrendering to enemies you’re running. The party decides what to do with surrendering foes, and you simply portray those foes reacting to what happens. If the PCs execute surrendered foes to the man, every time? Eventually they’ll gain a reputation as being merciless murderers and enemies will likely start fighting more ferociously against them. Whatever the players do, the world will respond. Always remember, the DM’s primary job is to portray the world as it reacts to the PCs’ tomscrewery.
2.) “Social Intrigue” campaigns are popular, but they’re also for specific people. If your particular players are the type to enjoy long-winded social interactions, skulduggery, and intrigue-heavy political campaigns with only rare combat? Then you can run that sort of game for them and they’ll be thrilled with it. If you have a more typical table of average players, they’ll often get antsy and look for Adventure after a time. This is not to say they won’t enjoy social gameplay, but many players are looking for a balance of different things. A fulfilling day spent in Town interacting with NPCs, then a thrilling trek into the howling wilds to seek Adventure in haunted ruins. Variety, as they say, is the spice of life. But even more important than that is knowing what your players are looking for. Research “Session Zero”, in both Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything and the Internet in general. It’s quite important for getting this sort of thing right.
3.) Alignment is a divisive topic, as a recent 340-post garbage fire of a thread has proven. Generally, alignment is in respect to mortal/kith society. You are correct, a beholder does not see itself as evil, but the game isn’t focused on the beholder’s viewpoint. As traditionally portrayed, alignment concerns itself with the actions of mortals. Fifth Edition in particular only rarely makes any direct mechanical ties to alignment, and in recent years its role has been further de-emphasized. You can use it, and many players/DMs like to use it as a means of quickly determining how different groups of people react to meeting each other (akin to the Reaction/Reputation rules in games like GURPS or Savage Worlds), but while I am exerting my utmost effort to remain neutral in my answer...the system is not perfect, and its flaws can be much more dire for some tables than others.
However you choose to use it, I implore you to remember that players always control the actions and decisions of their characters, regardless of what alignment says. Some DMs have historically forbidden players to take certain actions based on their characters’ alignment; there are quicker ways to lose your players’ trust and respect, but not many of them.
You can also discard alignment completely if you wish, provided your players are all also equally new to D&D. The more experienced your players are in D&D, especially older editions, the more they will want to cleave to alignment, and the more they will expect you to do the same. If you’re running a new game for old hands, you may want to cover this in Session Zero, as well.
4.) “Social gamebreaking” spells like Detect Thoughts and Speak with Dead are not socially gamebreaking spells at all. The key is to remember that the spells do what they say they do and no more. Detect Thoughts in particular is almost worthless; the information Detect Thoughts can give you without a deeper probe that alerts the target and ends the spell is shallow and superficial, often not that much more useful than what a good Insight roll would’ve yielded. The caster can try and steer those thoughts with probing questions, but that leaves the caster vulnerable to the target’s Insight and the target realizing they’re being interrogated somehow. Pushing deeper requires the target to fail a save, and the target is made aware that the caster is trying to zotz their brainhole.
Speak with Dead is similar – the spell allows players to ask questions of a corpse. The DM – that is, you – gets to decide what the corpse says. The corpse is obligated to answer. It is not obligated to be helpful or truthful in its answers. You’re not speaking to the body’s original soul/mind, you’re speaking to the briefly animated echo of its meat and what lingering information remains in its moldy brain. If the players kill someone, then ask that someone’s corpse questions, you as the DM are fully encouraged to have that corpse do everything in its corpsey power to screw with and hamper the PCs. Because they just killed this person, and the body no doubt feels some kinda way about that.
Read the spell text, then comply with it. Don’t let the PCs have more than their spell allows them to unless they can come up with a damn good reason.
5.) By default/RAW, no. Either someone passes the DC or they don’t. That said, you’re the DM. If someone blows the DC out of the water, passes by some giant margin? Give them whatever bonus you feel their roll warrants. If someone misses the DC by a point or two? You’re empowered to decide that they succeed but at a cost, a’la Genesys’ overly complicated and deeply unnecessary “Story Dice’ system. They get what they want, but in a way that causes them problems or raises the danger they’re in via some manner of complication. Perhaps the party’s artificer manages to succeed at picking the lock on a tough door in a dungeon, but because he missed the DC by a point or two? Part of the mechanism breaks loudly, alerting nearby enemies, and if they shut that door the lock will catch and not be able to be opened again.
You’re the DM. Part of your job is game design. If you don’t like a rule, change it. Try and change it intelligently and responsibly, but you can also simply tell your players “I tried this but it’s not working, we’re going to try a new way to fix an issue”. Don’t be afraid to tell your players that something needs fixing, whether it’s a core rulebooks rule or a house rule that didn’t pan out the way you’d hoped. D&D is not, in truth, a game. It’s a game engine, a system you can use to build your own game with. Part of the DM’s job is to be a game designer. Embrace it, as best you can.
1. But how do you play out your combat encounters? - It depends on the combat encounter. Many of them are traditional combat (two sides facing off at one another) with some terrain elements and such. Sometimes they will take a different form--something else you must do in combat to win, a pursuit, something else not being what it seems, etc. Usually the more story important a given combat is, the more dynamic and interesting it will be.
2. Do you always fight to the end, aka death of one side? - It depends on the fight, objective at any given moment, and on the party. There are times for monsters to fight for the death, times for them to flee, times for them to surrender from the DM perspective; and times for killing them all or times for letting some live or be captured from the player perspective.
3.Does every encounter makes sense in your eyes and game or do your mindflyer infested ogres spawn in the bedroom of the nobles castles lady bcs the dices roles this way? - I never roll random encounters as a DM and have not played in a group with a DM who both rolls for random encounters and would be so attached to the dice role that they would make something nonsensical happen.
4. Do your encounter have reasons (aka have the attackers reasons to do so) or are they pure for "fun" and action and loot? - Both. I like to prep for a session by having planned encounters that are going to be story highlights, but also have a few other, generic encounters (groups of bandits, spiders, etc. depending on what environment the party is in), just in case they get themselves in trouble or they have been roleplaying for a while and the more combat-focused players need their fun.
5. Is it possible to play a "realistic" type of gamestyle with D&D for the long run? Means, in my eyes, combat, especially till death, is really rare and most combats would end more in a surrendering of one side than in an orgy of slaughtering. - Yes. The magic of D&D is it can be played in whatever way players want. If this is what your group is looking for, by all means go for it.
6 (and subparts). How do your groups handle the aftermatch of such a surrendering of foes? Do they let them go? Are they resting in the danger zone for getting their spells and abilities back? How do they prepare for an eventuall reencounter without spells and abilites ready? Or is the way around these game mechanic problems, the complete wipe out of the other side? - It depends on the encounter and the group. Each situation is different and different inputs might lead to different outputs. Need to get some information fast? Perhaps the party might torture the prisoner. Lawful party in an area with an established constabulary? Maybe they leave the prisoner for the authorities. Perhaps an NPC who was released by the party comes back with a vengeance... or perhaps they come back as an ally, having seen the error of their ways. Infinite ways to handle this and there is no "right" way to do so.
7. Is it possible with D&D to play satisfyingly more the social interacting gamestyle in the long run, even if this means, that 75% of the abilities are useless the most time? - Yes. I am currently DMing in a very roleplay heavy campaign where they have not been in a combat encounter for four sessions or so (maybe 12 hours of gameplay), because they are having fun just doing silly things like exploring towns and such. I have DMed for campaigns where there is almost always a challenging, combat focused encounter in every single session because that is what the party wants. Again, there is no real "wrong" way to play D&D, other than a way that makes the party miserable.
8. Do you play with the alignment system and how do you use it? - For myself, I do not use it on my characters or NPCs, instead thinking about how that character/NPC is and designing a more fleshed out personality. As a DM, I let my players know it is an optional and flexible tool they can use if they find it helpful. I also sometimes use it when someone is really struggling to come up with their character's personality to help with laying a foundation for a character that they can build upon.
And, this is probably the most important thing about alignment: NEVER try to force your views of alignment on another player. NEVER tell the DM "well, actually, that creature should be X/X." NEVER as a DM tell a player they are playing the game wrong if they do something off their stated alignment. The "alignment police" player type is one of the most miserable to play with, and generally has a whole bunch of other questionable ideas about the game that make them a bad party member and the kind of person who would rather ruin everyone's fun than just accept other players.
9 What is the basis of the (your) determination, what is good and what is evil in terms of game rules for spells for example? The rulebook? The human view on things? - I don't personally. As I see it, alignment is a tool that an individual player uses to help them come up with their character--they can define the terms in whatever way they find useful, and I am not going to impose my views on something that provides them utility.
10. Is it possible, to easy play without the alignment system? (excluding the chained spells for example) - Yes - mostly. There is no absolute reason you need to use alignment. However, I know some players who find it useful for when they roleplay. From the DM's perspective, it is 100% okay to ignore alignment and say "you can use this on your own character if you want and find it helpful, but it is completely optional and you only have to use it if it makes your play easier."
11. How you handle massiv social interaction gamebreaking spells like read thoughts, speak with dead without houseruling the spells out? - Play them out--NPCs are not stupid and there are ways to game the system. Plus, anything that the players have access to, you can give NPCs access to as a way of leveling the playing field.
12. Are there ways of playing with getting away from this "do or die" dice results? Neither me or my players like this black or white thing. We hate it. We love the grey-colered way most things are. - Actual choices are a way to mitigate dice rolls. A persuasion check accompanies by an actually persuasive speech might have a lower difficulty class, for example. Giving advantage based on actions is another choice. Or the DM could have the check "fail' against one person with a low roll, but someone else in the party or an NPC steps up to mitigate. There are infinite possibilities in D&D, which means infinite ways to mitigate absolutism of the dice rolling system.
I've seen the alignment thread after reading your comment @yurei but puhhh. *laugh I've asked bcs there are some spells like protection from evil for example but here it seems, i've stucked to my information in older versions, wehre it is an alignment based spell. But now it seems to be more clear with target celestials etc pp. and i think, we can live with that. If it comes to specific in game questions my determination about "evil" will depend on the reasons, i think. A beholder, defending his lair and being attacked by a party only of reason because he is a beholder will not be count as the evil part in this fight and so on.
Most other things you both said are nearly equal to the kind of my thoughts. Maybe my fear, that D&D 5e is too simple in terms of rules and game mechanics and that it is to combat-centered as game itself including that we are all (GM and players) forced too often into black and white decision will not occour.
Maybe my fear, that D&D 5e is too simple in terms of rules and game mechanics and that it is to combat-centered as game itself including that we are all (GM and players) forced too often into black and white decision will not occour.
I honestly thought that when I first started playing (I'll admit, I was one one of the few folks who actually liked 4e, which gave you a LOT of different things you could use out of combat). However, in practice, I have found the relative simplicyt of 5e to make for better non-combat situations. Complexity comes at a cost--if you do not intimately know your character sheet and abilities, that can really slow down the social interactions as folks say "wait, I think I might have something for that" *spends a minute looking at a 6-page character sheet*.
As Yurei1453 said, combat has lots of rules because it is the only place where rules really make a difference. Those rules help protect the players from the infinite power of the DM and give order to a situation that otherwise would be rather confusing to run. Out of combat, where the game is more flexible, they do not need a whole bunch of rules, and "okay, roll a [skill] check" is going to be sufficient in pretty much every situation alongside the DM/player describing their actions and DM/other players responding accordingly.
specifically for protection from evil and good, it is very poorly named. Do not think of it as alignment based. Think of it as "Protection from Outsiders". It protects the user from creatures that fall outside of the natural order or are from other planes of existence, regardless of the alignment of the entity. So it would protect from a Beholder but not because its "evil" but because it is the creature type Aberration.
Maybe my fear, that D&D 5e is too simple in terms of rules and game mechanics and that it is to combat-centered as game itself including that we are all (GM and players) forced too often into black and white decision will not occour.
As Yurei1453 said, combat has lots of rules because it is the only place where rules really make a difference. Those rules help protect the players from the infinite power of the DM and give order to a situation that otherwise would be rather confusing to run. Out of combat, where the game is more flexible, they do not need a whole bunch of rules, and "okay, roll a [skill] check" is going to be sufficient in pretty much every situation alongside the DM/player describing their actions and DM/other players responding accordingly.
I would agree with a lot of things, you are writing, but the idea, that rules protects the player from the DM seem flawed from the beginning. I play with my girls and boys, not against them. :-)
In The Dark Eye 4.1 edition, we are playing for years now, we like all our rules. :-D
I also more and more realize, that one "rule" will shine for me as DM and that is the rule, that dice roles only occours if the situation is unclear. So i don't think, that for example i will charge a bard player with a check for a stage encounter, if she/he has a background and a backgroundstory + proficiency in the needed skill. Bcs the chance, he will fail with the standard DC 10 is too high to fit my view on such a charakter. Maybe such check will only show, how good over "has done her/his job" the performance was.
Quote from Houligan >>
specifically for protection from evil and good, it is very poorly named. Do not think of it as alignment based. Think of it as "Protection from Outsiders". It protects the user from creatures that fall outside of the natural order or are from other planes of existence, regardless of the alignment of the entity. So it would protect from a Beholder but not because its "evil" but because it is the creature type Aberration.
Yeah, i think the name is misguiding, especially, when one like myself is stucked in his Baldurs Gate1-2 view of D&D.
I think you be over-concerned about alignment in this edition. There’s a handful of magic items that can only be used by creatures of a specific alignment. Beyond that, it doesn’t come up in terms of game mechanics. How the characters behave will dictate how the world responds to them, you don’t really need to hang a label on it if you don’t want to.
As for fighting to the death, you’re right in that it doesn’t always make sense. Just consider the enemy. A bear walking in the woods might run, where one protecting its cubs likely won’t. This game seems to be full of fanatical cultists who will always fight to the death. But a bandit might surrender or run. Chapter 9 of the DMG offers advice for how to handle morale checks, and if/when something might surrender. As a matter of fact, chapter 9 has a lot of optional rules for making healing more difficult, or sustaining long term injuries which can make combat much less attractive as a way of solving problems.
Actually, the DMG generally has a lot of optional rules that people often complain aren’t in the game. There’s a section for degrees of failure and success. There’s stuff about social interactions. It’s pretty bare bones, but it’s there and explains how to do it without breaking the game.
You might want to try running the people through Lost Mines if Phandelver. Yes, it is combat-heavy. But it’s a good introduction to both players and DMs of how the rules work. And it’s free. After that, you may be better able to homebrew something your table likes.
I also more and more realize, that one "rule" will shine for me as DM and that is the rule, that dice roles only occours if the situation is unclear.
If there are no consequences to doing the action, there's no reason to roll. A bard performing in a tavern doesn't need to roll, unless the quality of their performance affects something, like tips or distracting the audience.
If there are consequences, the DM can set the difficult to any DC they wish. If the DM thinks a bard singing a song in a quiet place is DC 5, make it DC5. If the DM thinks it's more difficult in a crowded bar with a brawl occurring, make it higher. If the bard fails, the DM decides what that means. No effect, less effect, tomatoes are thrown...
If your group prefer non-combat encounters, you're absolutely free to give them non-combat encounters.
D&D isn't a computer game. Monsters don't "spawn", combat isn't required, and the group gets to decide whether things are black and white or shades of grey.
Try watching something like Critical Role. It shows a viable, non-combat driven play style. Plus it has some combat when violence is deemed necessary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello everyone,
i'm relatively new to D&D, only played several versions for a short time in my youth and i played nearly every computer game (EOB 1 (greetings to Xanathar, why is he living again?) til BG 3) of the several versions.
I would say, that i'm a very well experienced gamemaster with 25 years of gamemastering in DSA (The Dark Eye) and Vampire.
But now we are planing a try in D&D 5e.
I have (nearly) every rulebook in my cabinet.
Now here are my questions.
It is obvious, that combat is a huge part of D&D. I would say 75 % of magic are combat centered and a lot of the rest spells are there to prepare the party beter for the next fight or to get faster to the next fight, where it is in TDE ~25-33%. And so it is with feats and general abilities.
So combat is important. Check.
But how do you play out your combat encounters?
Do you always fight to the end, aka death of one side?
Does every encounter makes sense in your eyes and game or do your mindflyer infested ogres spawn in the bedroom of the nobles castles lady bcs the dices roles this way?
Do your encounter have reasons (aka have the attackers reasons to do so) or are they pure for "fun" and action and loot?
Is it possible to play a "realistic" type of gamestyle with D&D for the long run? Means, in my eyes, combat, especially till death, is really rare and most combats would end more in a surrendering of one side than in an orgy of slaughtering.
How do your groups handle the aftermatch of such a surrendering of foes?
Do they let them go? Are they resting in the danger zone for getting their spells and abilities back? How do they prepare for an eventuall reencounter without spells and abilites ready? Or is the way around these game mechanic problems, the complete wipe out of the other side?
Is it possible with D&D to play satisfyingly more the social interacting gamestyle in the long run, even if this means, that 75% of the abilities are useless the most time?
Do you play with the alignment system and how do you use it?
What is the basis of the (your) determination, what is good and what is evil in terms of game rules for spells for example? The rulebook? The human view on things?
In the worldview of a beholder, i don't think he sees himself as evil, he acts like it is his nature and this is not a evil thing or even a question of good/evil, it it his inner beeing.
Same with demons, they are chaotic of course and do horribly things in the eyes of most living beeings, but they are, in my opinion, not evil in the kind of a meta good/evil morale question. They are like it is their nature.
For example. In The Dark Eye the basis of determination what is seen as good and what not, is how the beeing acts in terms of the existance of life and the world. The world is the oasis of manifestation in the endless sea of chaos. So demons as creatures of the endless sea of chaos, who wants to destoy the world and the pure existance of the world are not evil in form of the meta quetsion good/evil, bcs it is their nature. They do not choose willingly to destroy, they can't do it other. The nameless one, the evil god on the other hand chooses wilingly to currupt the world, so he is determined as evil in sense of creation.
In vampire (Dark Ages), the basis is the world view of the religious humans (mostly christians, muslims and jews).
Is it possible, to easy play without the alignment system? (excluding the chained spells for example)
How you handle massiv social interaction gamebreaking spells like read thoughts, speak with dead without houseruling the spells out?
Is it possible in a "realistic" way, means: not every villain has a high lvl anti magic amulet or something.
(i think it is not, and maybe i strike these spells or weaken them more like in the way that the success is determined by how good you have passed your ability check (DC: 15, you roll a 16, you only can find a glimpse of something is wrong, you roll a 35, yeah, you read his hole mind (it is a constructed example))
Are there ways of playing with getting away from this "do or die" dice results? Neither me or my players like this black or white thing. We hate it. We love the grey-colered way most things are.
And yea, i know, most questions are depending hugely on the player type, but my players are the more roleplayer type ones. They like to discuss things out than to kill someone.
A try as ingame story.
For preparation, i'm thinking about, how i would play out a encounter as GM and what are my worries about, how i would do it and maybe it is the "wrong way". Maybe i'm overthinking it.
My group will be a group of wannabe heroes, so their alignment will be good with the range from lawful to chaotic. For me, this includes, not to mindless murder living beeing.
So let's say, they are traveling the land as a group of 4 young adventurers.
A group of hunting gnolls/cobolds/goblins, maybe in search for food for their clan and the upcoming winter discorvers them and they overreach themself by thinking, the group will be easy prey. In the end, a combat occours. They are 6 for example.
The group is slashing two of them very simple and very fast by using their spells and one time abilities.
In the TDE i now would think about, how this would drastically have an effect on their will to battle. I think, they would surrender and beg for their life, bcs in the end, they do not want to die and they have a responsibility for their clan to find food, even if their.
So fine.
The goup can't take them to next courthouse bcs there is not enough food for all and taking care of prisoners is nothing, they experienced so far in their lives and they also have no driud in their group, which can argue about the balance of life of hunting and being prey and so on. So, they let them go with pointing the finger on them and saying "do not do this again, it is not nice".
Te gnolls/goblins etc with thoughts of shame and vengeance return to their nearby camp. Here their shaman and leader hears their story and they think, it will be worth for the entire clan to overcome this group for their treasures (metal weapons and food and gold and maybe prestige in the eyes of other clans) even if it means to loose 4-5 weaker members. Also the shamam knows, that young adventures will not have any "spells slots" ready (means, they can't cast magic everytime bcs this is exhausting, she knows this, bcs she also can cast healing her buddies only 2 times/long rest). So they hurry up for a reencounter. And the group is now there, beliving, they won and even if they prepare themself, there are no spell slots ready, bcs this is game mechanic.
And now there is my dilemma. For the sake of a "realistic" world, i would argue my thoughts on top of here would be realistic and it also would be realistic that the group will loose their second encounter. On the other hand, i do not want my players to become murderers in the first (and following) encounter only for the reasons of maybe revenge attacks or even worse, bcs the game mechanic metas the players to do so.
Thank you very much for (hopefully) answering some question with your view and letting me get some outside points of view on my thoughts.
Having read you questions, I would suggest picking up the most recent book (Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel). I think that the encounters in it are very well written and good examples of how different fights and social encounters can play out.
Do you always fight to the end, aka death of one side?
Sometimes? Depends on what you are fighting. Bandits that are trying to waylay you? They may decide to retreat after a certain number are wounded or dead. A dragon defending its horde? Last man standing time.
Does every encounter makes sense in your eyes and game or do your mindflyer infested ogres spawn in the bedroom of the nobles castles lady bcs the dices roles this way?
The encounters usually (almost always) make sense. You generally don't just roll random creatures and locations. As the DM, either the prewritten adventure you are running tells you the location and enemies or you as the DM need to plan out the encounter.
Do your encounter have reasons (aka have the attackers reasons to do so) or are they pure for "fun" and action and loot?
Generally yes, the encounters have reasons.
Is it possible to play a "realistic" type of gamestyle with D&D for the long run? Means, in my eyes, combat, especially till death, is really rare and most combats would end more in a surrendering of one side than in an orgy of slaughtering.
Yes, it is very possible to play the game this way.
How do your groups handle the aftermatch of such a surrendering of foes?
Turning in the opponent to authorities, intimidating them so they won't mess with the party again, magical compulsion to enforce the behavior, bribes, recruiting to the party's cause, etc
Do they let them go?
Sometimes? It depends on what the foe is.
Are they resting in the danger zone for getting their spells and abilities back?
Sometimes. Depends how mean the DM wants to be. Most parties will use a watch rotation during a long rest so they don't get caught unaware.
How do they prepare for an eventual reencounter without spells and abilities ready?
By resting in a safe spot usually, or making sure there won't be a re-encounter.
Or is the way around these game mechanic problems, the complete wipe out of the other side?
I don't think these are as much of a problem as you think they are
Is it possible with D&D to play satisfyingly more the social interacting gamestyle in the long run, even if this means, that 75% of the abilities are useless the most time?
Yes, but you really need to work for it. As you said, combat is where most of the abilities are focused. That said, the published adventure The Wild Beyond the Witchlight can be played without rolling initiative (minimal combat).
Do you play with the alignment system and how do you use it?
In 5th edition, most people do not worry about alignment.
What is the basis of the (your) determination, what is good and what is evil in terms of game rules for spells for example? The rulebook? The human view on things?
"Good" and "Evil" are subjective. So you base it on the monster/person's behavior.
Is it possible, to easy play without the alignment system? (excluding the chained spells for example)
Yes, nothing in the rules specifically targets "Lawful Good" or "Evil" or "Chaotic Neutral"
How you handle massive social interaction game-breaking spells like read thoughts, speak with dead without house ruling the spells out?
Those spells aren't as powerful as you think they are.
Are there ways of playing with getting away from this "do or die" dice results? Neither me or my players like this black or white thing. We hate it. We love the grey-colered way most things are.
Maybe? I'm not sure what you mean. Attacks either hit or miss. If you are hiding you are either spotted or not.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
1.) Combat has the most rules associated with it because combat needs the most rules associated with it. Combat is the place where the margins are thinnest and the balance of life and death hangs in them. You can emphasize combat as much or as little as you like, some people run D&D with almost no fighting. But much like the other Rules-Lite Narrative Experience games out there? The less you fight, the fewer rules you need.
1a.) This is up to you as the DM. Many groups prefer a more realistic approach to combat – monsters belong where they’re found, they have reasons to attack (or defend – never forget that the PCs can, and often WILL, be the aggressors), and when the battle goes poorly the losing side may flee or surrender. A very good resource for running better, more realistic and tactically fulfilling combats is Keith Ammann’s “The Monsters Know What They’re Doing”, available in both book and blog form here: https://www.themonstersknow.com/ Even if you don’t use the specific tactics for specific critters, Keith also offers pointers on running combat in general.
1b.) You don’t handle surrender, unless the PCs are surrendering to enemies you’re running. The party decides what to do with surrendering foes, and you simply portray those foes reacting to what happens. If the PCs execute surrendered foes to the man, every time? Eventually they’ll gain a reputation as being merciless murderers and enemies will likely start fighting more ferociously against them. Whatever the players do, the world will respond. Always remember, the DM’s primary job is to portray the world as it reacts to the PCs’ tomscrewery.
2.) “Social Intrigue” campaigns are popular, but they’re also for specific people. If your particular players are the type to enjoy long-winded social interactions, skulduggery, and intrigue-heavy political campaigns with only rare combat? Then you can run that sort of game for them and they’ll be thrilled with it. If you have a more typical table of average players, they’ll often get antsy and look for Adventure after a time. This is not to say they won’t enjoy social gameplay, but many players are looking for a balance of different things. A fulfilling day spent in Town interacting with NPCs, then a thrilling trek into the howling wilds to seek Adventure in haunted ruins. Variety, as they say, is the spice of life. But even more important than that is knowing what your players are looking for. Research “Session Zero”, in both Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything and the Internet in general. It’s quite important for getting this sort of thing right.
3.) Alignment is a divisive topic, as a recent 340-post garbage fire of a thread has proven. Generally, alignment is in respect to mortal/kith society. You are correct, a beholder does not see itself as evil, but the game isn’t focused on the beholder’s viewpoint. As traditionally portrayed, alignment concerns itself with the actions of mortals. Fifth Edition in particular only rarely makes any direct mechanical ties to alignment, and in recent years its role has been further de-emphasized. You can use it, and many players/DMs like to use it as a means of quickly determining how different groups of people react to meeting each other (akin to the Reaction/Reputation rules in games like GURPS or Savage Worlds), but while I am exerting my utmost effort to remain neutral in my answer...the system is not perfect, and its flaws can be much more dire for some tables than others.
However you choose to use it, I implore you to remember that players always control the actions and decisions of their characters, regardless of what alignment says. Some DMs have historically forbidden players to take certain actions based on their characters’ alignment; there are quicker ways to lose your players’ trust and respect, but not many of them.
You can also discard alignment completely if you wish, provided your players are all also equally new to D&D. The more experienced your players are in D&D, especially older editions, the more they will want to cleave to alignment, and the more they will expect you to do the same. If you’re running a new game for old hands, you may want to cover this in Session Zero, as well.
4.) “Social gamebreaking” spells like Detect Thoughts and Speak with Dead are not socially gamebreaking spells at all. The key is to remember that the spells do what they say they do and no more. Detect Thoughts in particular is almost worthless; the information Detect Thoughts can give you without a deeper probe that alerts the target and ends the spell is shallow and superficial, often not that much more useful than what a good Insight roll would’ve yielded. The caster can try and steer those thoughts with probing questions, but that leaves the caster vulnerable to the target’s Insight and the target realizing they’re being interrogated somehow. Pushing deeper requires the target to fail a save, and the target is made aware that the caster is trying to zotz their brainhole.
Speak with Dead is similar – the spell allows players to ask questions of a corpse. The DM – that is, you – gets to decide what the corpse says. The corpse is obligated to answer. It is not obligated to be helpful or truthful in its answers. You’re not speaking to the body’s original soul/mind, you’re speaking to the briefly animated echo of its meat and what lingering information remains in its moldy brain. If the players kill someone, then ask that someone’s corpse questions, you as the DM are fully encouraged to have that corpse do everything in its corpsey power to screw with and hamper the PCs. Because they just killed this person, and the body no doubt feels some kinda way about that.
Read the spell text, then comply with it. Don’t let the PCs have more than their spell allows them to unless they can come up with a damn good reason.
5.) By default/RAW, no. Either someone passes the DC or they don’t. That said, you’re the DM. If someone blows the DC out of the water, passes by some giant margin? Give them whatever bonus you feel their roll warrants. If someone misses the DC by a point or two? You’re empowered to decide that they succeed but at a cost, a’la Genesys’ overly complicated and deeply unnecessary “Story Dice’ system. They get what they want, but in a way that causes them problems or raises the danger they’re in via some manner of complication. Perhaps the party’s artificer manages to succeed at picking the lock on a tough door in a dungeon, but because he missed the DC by a point or two? Part of the mechanism breaks loudly, alerting nearby enemies, and if they shut that door the lock will catch and not be able to be opened again.
You’re the DM. Part of your job is game design. If you don’t like a rule, change it. Try and change it intelligently and responsibly, but you can also simply tell your players “I tried this but it’s not working, we’re going to try a new way to fix an issue”. Don’t be afraid to tell your players that something needs fixing, whether it’s a core rulebooks rule or a house rule that didn’t pan out the way you’d hoped. D&D is not, in truth, a game. It’s a game engine, a system you can use to build your own game with. Part of the DM’s job is to be a game designer. Embrace it, as best you can.
Hopefully that’s a start.
Please do not contact or message me.
1. But how do you play out your combat encounters? - It depends on the combat encounter. Many of them are traditional combat (two sides facing off at one another) with some terrain elements and such. Sometimes they will take a different form--something else you must do in combat to win, a pursuit, something else not being what it seems, etc. Usually the more story important a given combat is, the more dynamic and interesting it will be.
2. Do you always fight to the end, aka death of one side? - It depends on the fight, objective at any given moment, and on the party. There are times for monsters to fight for the death, times for them to flee, times for them to surrender from the DM perspective; and times for killing them all or times for letting some live or be captured from the player perspective.
3.Does every encounter makes sense in your eyes and game or do your mindflyer infested ogres spawn in the bedroom of the nobles castles lady bcs the dices roles this way? - I never roll random encounters as a DM and have not played in a group with a DM who both rolls for random encounters and would be so attached to the dice role that they would make something nonsensical happen.
4. Do your encounter have reasons (aka have the attackers reasons to do so) or are they pure for "fun" and action and loot? - Both. I like to prep for a session by having planned encounters that are going to be story highlights, but also have a few other, generic encounters (groups of bandits, spiders, etc. depending on what environment the party is in), just in case they get themselves in trouble or they have been roleplaying for a while and the more combat-focused players need their fun.
5. Is it possible to play a "realistic" type of gamestyle with D&D for the long run? Means, in my eyes, combat, especially till death, is really rare and most combats would end more in a surrendering of one side than in an orgy of slaughtering. - Yes. The magic of D&D is it can be played in whatever way players want. If this is what your group is looking for, by all means go for it.
6 (and subparts). How do your groups handle the aftermatch of such a surrendering of foes? Do they let them go? Are they resting in the danger zone for getting their spells and abilities back? How do they prepare for an eventuall reencounter without spells and abilites ready? Or is the way around these game mechanic problems, the complete wipe out of the other side? - It depends on the encounter and the group. Each situation is different and different inputs might lead to different outputs. Need to get some information fast? Perhaps the party might torture the prisoner. Lawful party in an area with an established constabulary? Maybe they leave the prisoner for the authorities. Perhaps an NPC who was released by the party comes back with a vengeance... or perhaps they come back as an ally, having seen the error of their ways. Infinite ways to handle this and there is no "right" way to do so.
7. Is it possible with D&D to play satisfyingly more the social interacting gamestyle in the long run, even if this means, that 75% of the abilities are useless the most time? - Yes. I am currently DMing in a very roleplay heavy campaign where they have not been in a combat encounter for four sessions or so (maybe 12 hours of gameplay), because they are having fun just doing silly things like exploring towns and such. I have DMed for campaigns where there is almost always a challenging, combat focused encounter in every single session because that is what the party wants. Again, there is no real "wrong" way to play D&D, other than a way that makes the party miserable.
8. Do you play with the alignment system and how do you use it? - For myself, I do not use it on my characters or NPCs, instead thinking about how that character/NPC is and designing a more fleshed out personality. As a DM, I let my players know it is an optional and flexible tool they can use if they find it helpful. I also sometimes use it when someone is really struggling to come up with their character's personality to help with laying a foundation for a character that they can build upon.
And, this is probably the most important thing about alignment: NEVER try to force your views of alignment on another player. NEVER tell the DM "well, actually, that creature should be X/X." NEVER as a DM tell a player they are playing the game wrong if they do something off their stated alignment. The "alignment police" player type is one of the most miserable to play with, and generally has a whole bunch of other questionable ideas about the game that make them a bad party member and the kind of person who would rather ruin everyone's fun than just accept other players.
9 What is the basis of the (your) determination, what is good and what is evil in terms of game rules for spells for example? The rulebook? The human view on things? - I don't personally. As I see it, alignment is a tool that an individual player uses to help them come up with their character--they can define the terms in whatever way they find useful, and I am not going to impose my views on something that provides them utility.
10. Is it possible, to easy play without the alignment system? (excluding the chained spells for example) - Yes - mostly. There is no absolute reason you need to use alignment. However, I know some players who find it useful for when they roleplay. From the DM's perspective, it is 100% okay to ignore alignment and say "you can use this on your own character if you want and find it helpful, but it is completely optional and you only have to use it if it makes your play easier."
11. How you handle massiv social interaction gamebreaking spells like read thoughts, speak with dead without houseruling the spells out? - Play them out--NPCs are not stupid and there are ways to game the system. Plus, anything that the players have access to, you can give NPCs access to as a way of leveling the playing field.
12. Are there ways of playing with getting away from this "do or die" dice results? Neither me or my players like this black or white thing. We hate it. We love the grey-colered way most things are. - Actual choices are a way to mitigate dice rolls. A persuasion check accompanies by an actually persuasive speech might have a lower difficulty class, for example. Giving advantage based on actions is another choice. Or the DM could have the check "fail' against one person with a low roll, but someone else in the party or an NPC steps up to mitigate. There are infinite possibilities in D&D, which means infinite ways to mitigate absolutism of the dice rolling system.
Thanks so far for the answering.
I've seen the alignment thread after reading your comment @yurei but puhhh. *laugh
I've asked bcs there are some spells like protection from evil for example but here it seems, i've stucked to my information in older versions, wehre it is an alignment based spell. But now it seems to be more clear with target celestials etc pp. and i think, we can live with that.
If it comes to specific in game questions my determination about "evil" will depend on the reasons, i think. A beholder, defending his lair and being attacked by a party only of reason because he is a beholder will not be count as the evil part in this fight and so on.
Most other things you both said are nearly equal to the kind of my thoughts.
Maybe my fear, that D&D 5e is too simple in terms of rules and game mechanics and that it is to combat-centered as game itself including that we are all (GM and players) forced too often into black and white decision will not occour.
I honestly thought that when I first started playing (I'll admit, I was one one of the few folks who actually liked 4e, which gave you a LOT of different things you could use out of combat). However, in practice, I have found the relative simplicyt of 5e to make for better non-combat situations. Complexity comes at a cost--if you do not intimately know your character sheet and abilities, that can really slow down the social interactions as folks say "wait, I think I might have something for that" *spends a minute looking at a 6-page character sheet*.
As Yurei1453 said, combat has lots of rules because it is the only place where rules really make a difference. Those rules help protect the players from the infinite power of the DM and give order to a situation that otherwise would be rather confusing to run. Out of combat, where the game is more flexible, they do not need a whole bunch of rules, and "okay, roll a [skill] check" is going to be sufficient in pretty much every situation alongside the DM/player describing their actions and DM/other players responding accordingly.
specifically for protection from evil and good, it is very poorly named. Do not think of it as alignment based. Think of it as "Protection from Outsiders". It protects the user from creatures that fall outside of the natural order or are from other planes of existence, regardless of the alignment of the entity. So it would protect from a Beholder but not because its "evil" but because it is the creature type Aberration.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
I would agree with a lot of things, you are writing, but the idea, that rules protects the player from the DM seem flawed from the beginning.
I play with my girls and boys, not against them. :-)
In The Dark Eye 4.1 edition, we are playing for years now, we like all our rules. :-D
I also more and more realize, that one "rule" will shine for me as DM and that is the rule, that dice roles only occours if the situation is unclear.
So i don't think, that for example i will charge a bard player with a check for a stage encounter, if she/he has a background and a backgroundstory + proficiency in the needed skill. Bcs the chance, he will fail with the standard DC 10 is too high to fit my view on such a charakter. Maybe such check will only show, how good over "has done her/his job" the performance was.
Quote from Houligan >>
specifically for protection from evil and good, it is very poorly named. Do not think of it as alignment based. Think of it as "Protection from Outsiders". It protects the user from creatures that fall outside of the natural order or are from other planes of existence, regardless of the alignment of the entity. So it would protect from a Beholder but not because its "evil" but because it is the creature type Aberration.
Yeah, i think the name is misguiding, especially, when one like myself is stucked in his Baldurs Gate1-2 view of D&D.
I think you be over-concerned about alignment in this edition. There’s a handful of magic items that can only be used by creatures of a specific alignment. Beyond that, it doesn’t come up in terms of game mechanics. How the characters behave will dictate how the world responds to them, you don’t really need to hang a label on it if you don’t want to.
As for fighting to the death, you’re right in that it doesn’t always make sense. Just consider the enemy. A bear walking in the woods might run, where one protecting its cubs likely won’t. This game seems to be full of fanatical cultists who will always fight to the death. But a bandit might surrender or run.
Chapter 9 of the DMG offers advice for how to handle morale checks, and if/when something might surrender. As a matter of fact, chapter 9 has a lot of optional rules for making healing more difficult, or sustaining long term injuries which can make combat much less attractive as a way of solving problems.
Actually, the DMG generally has a lot of optional rules that people often complain aren’t in the game. There’s a section for degrees of failure and success. There’s stuff about social interactions. It’s pretty bare bones, but it’s there and explains how to do it without breaking the game.
You might want to try running the people through Lost Mines if Phandelver. Yes, it is combat-heavy. But it’s a good introduction to both players and DMs of how the rules work. And it’s free. After that, you may be better able to homebrew something your table likes.
If there are no consequences to doing the action, there's no reason to roll. A bard performing in a tavern doesn't need to roll, unless the quality of their performance affects something, like tips or distracting the audience.
If there are consequences, the DM can set the difficult to any DC they wish. If the DM thinks a bard singing a song in a quiet place is DC 5, make it DC5. If the DM thinks it's more difficult in a crowded bar with a brawl occurring, make it higher. If the bard fails, the DM decides what that means. No effect, less effect, tomatoes are thrown...
If your group prefer non-combat encounters, you're absolutely free to give them non-combat encounters.
D&D isn't a computer game. Monsters don't "spawn", combat isn't required, and the group gets to decide whether things are black and white or shades of grey.
Try watching something like Critical Role. It shows a viable, non-combat driven play style. Plus it has some combat when violence is deemed necessary.