Making Non-combat Encounters Interesting In D&D
Since my new D&D mini-campaign is in its second week, I thought I'd make a post about some of the experimentation I've been making to the rules, so that anyone that likes them can steal them.
I have often heard the not-incorrect remark that D&D is basically about “killing things and taking their stuff.” And, if you look at the rulebook of any edition it is obvious that combat is the main thrust of the game, having an entire chapter devoted to it and that chapter is often the most rules dense section of the book. The rationale is often “its because fighting is fun.” And, given the rules of D&D, this is not false: in D&D combat is concrete, offers numerous risk/rewards, players generally have a good sense for how their tactical actions will work out, and so forth. Whereas with non-combat events, they are vaguely defined, up to the arbitrary whim of the DM at the time, and often boil down to a single skill check...which is, in my opinion, less fun.
Around two and a half years ago, I purchased a massive tome called Spycraft 2.0, which has to be one of the most rules heavy games that I have ever seen and still believe to be run-able (and even then, I wonder). This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the designers seem to have gone back to the basic maths of the d20 system and reconfigured everything to be as coherent and balanced as possible, given their framework to work from. But in the second-to-last chapter of this book is a curiosity, a system that it calls “Dramatic Conflicts.” Born from the chase system of Spycraft 1st-edition (you know, so that spies can be chasing one another in their expensive cars, like at the beginning of Quantum of Solace), it expands that idea to include a number of different non-combat, but still exciting, moments of spy movies: becoming a mole in an enemy organization, running from the cops, hacking into computer networks, and seducing the lovely femme fatale. Sadly, this system feels - at least to me - to be one of the last things really developed before the game was published, and it really could use at least a few more iterations before it reaches the level of polish of the rest of the game.
And then came along D&D 4th-edition, which suspiciously also contains a system to give a bit more pizazz to non-combat encounters, referred to simply as Skill Challenges. Whereas Spycraft made the d20 System more robust (if bloated), D&D 4E streamlined it (perhaps too much so, in some places); as a result, the Skill Challenges system is rather vague and abstract...not to mention that its numbers have been debated by players endlessly since the game's publication. While Skill Challenges definitely provide a simple framework for DM's to create interesting non-combat encounters, they are still given significantly less page count then combat and could definitely have used a few more iterations and play tests before the game was released.
Which brings us to me and my game. I decided when I started working on this campaign that, although I wanted to stick with D&D 3.5, I wanted to make non-combat encounters to be exciting, engaging, and - above all else - dangerous. The players needed interesting things to do, risks to take, and a possibility of failure or in-character bodily harm. If you are still with me, here's basically what I've done:
First, the GM announces that a non-combat encounter (or “conflict” as I've taken to calling them, in honor of Spycraft) has begun. He then tells the players their available “strategies:” what actions will be available to them during this conflict, although I haven't really started telling them specifically what they do (although with strategies like “Run Away!” or “Talk Some Sense Into Him,” they're kind of obvious). Finally, he states how long each turn will last during this conflict.
The players then roll initiative, as per a combat encounter. The GM also rolls initiative, with a modifier equal to the average Hit Dice of all of the player characters. Each player and the GM, in turn, declares and performs their strategy for that turn, just like a combat encounter. Also, players are allowed (nay, even strongly encouraged by the GM, sometimes loudly in the midst of these things) to come up with their own strategies, declaring what they want to happen and what skill they want to use with it; the GM can modify the strategy as he feels is appropriate, if necessary. The GM has his own strategies that he can perform, which make life difficult for the players.
The goal is to collect a particular amount of tokens (determined by the GM when he creates the conflict) by performing strategies that grant them. The number of tokens required to win a conflict basically sets the difficulty: naturally, more tokens required, the longer - and, most likely, harder - the conflict is. I've given the GM certain strategies that can take away tokens, making things even more challenging.
For example, my first conflict was “Cross the Mountains,” which occurred when my troop of intrepid heroes decided to cross a mountain range while perusing a band of barbarian raiders. Their strategies included Climb the Mountain, Follow the Path, and Aid Another, while mine were far more interesting: Blizzard, Cold Snap, Crevasse, Frostbite, Heavy Winds, High Altitude, Precarious Trail, and Cold which I could use once per turn in addition to my strategy to deal damage to everyone. Each turn lasted 1 day, and each player was required to accumulate 3 climb tokens (gained by Climb the Mountain) and the group as a whole had to have 5 trail tokens (gained by Follow the Path). I was told that the damage I was dealing with Cold was a bit much for 3rd-level characters, and it took them 11 days to emerge from the mountain pass (they were lost for 3 of them), but everyone seemed to really enjoy it and breathed a sigh of relief when they won. I took that as a good sign, since I don't think I've ever had players that worried about just climbing a mountain in D&D before!
I hope to make the system increasingly coherent and workable as I play-test it on my ever-so-patient players. So far, I've heard nothing but positive reviews from them (besides the damage thing from the first one); the two from last night - Infiltrate the Alchemist's Tower and Defeat/Persuade the Alchemist - were even bigger hits. So, maybe if one of you runs a D&D game anytime soon, you might consider something like this to add some spice to what might otherwise be a boring section of game between fights.
PS: As always, comments, concerns, and criticisms are appreciated and encouraged. Anything that makes a better game is alright by me!
I have often heard the not-incorrect remark that D&D is basically about “killing things and taking their stuff.” And, if you look at the rulebook of any edition it is obvious that combat is the main thrust of the game, having an entire chapter devoted to it and that chapter is often the most rules dense section of the book. The rationale is often “its because fighting is fun.” And, given the rules of D&D, this is not false: in D&D combat is concrete, offers numerous risk/rewards, players generally have a good sense for how their tactical actions will work out, and so forth. Whereas with non-combat events, they are vaguely defined, up to the arbitrary whim of the DM at the time, and often boil down to a single skill check...which is, in my opinion, less fun.
Around two and a half years ago, I purchased a massive tome called Spycraft 2.0, which has to be one of the most rules heavy games that I have ever seen and still believe to be run-able (and even then, I wonder). This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the designers seem to have gone back to the basic maths of the d20 system and reconfigured everything to be as coherent and balanced as possible, given their framework to work from. But in the second-to-last chapter of this book is a curiosity, a system that it calls “Dramatic Conflicts.” Born from the chase system of Spycraft 1st-edition (you know, so that spies can be chasing one another in their expensive cars, like at the beginning of Quantum of Solace), it expands that idea to include a number of different non-combat, but still exciting, moments of spy movies: becoming a mole in an enemy organization, running from the cops, hacking into computer networks, and seducing the lovely femme fatale. Sadly, this system feels - at least to me - to be one of the last things really developed before the game was published, and it really could use at least a few more iterations before it reaches the level of polish of the rest of the game.
And then came along D&D 4th-edition, which suspiciously also contains a system to give a bit more pizazz to non-combat encounters, referred to simply as Skill Challenges. Whereas Spycraft made the d20 System more robust (if bloated), D&D 4E streamlined it (perhaps too much so, in some places); as a result, the Skill Challenges system is rather vague and abstract...not to mention that its numbers have been debated by players endlessly since the game's publication. While Skill Challenges definitely provide a simple framework for DM's to create interesting non-combat encounters, they are still given significantly less page count then combat and could definitely have used a few more iterations and play tests before the game was released.
Which brings us to me and my game. I decided when I started working on this campaign that, although I wanted to stick with D&D 3.5, I wanted to make non-combat encounters to be exciting, engaging, and - above all else - dangerous. The players needed interesting things to do, risks to take, and a possibility of failure or in-character bodily harm. If you are still with me, here's basically what I've done:
First, the GM announces that a non-combat encounter (or “conflict” as I've taken to calling them, in honor of Spycraft) has begun. He then tells the players their available “strategies:” what actions will be available to them during this conflict, although I haven't really started telling them specifically what they do (although with strategies like “Run Away!” or “Talk Some Sense Into Him,” they're kind of obvious). Finally, he states how long each turn will last during this conflict.
The players then roll initiative, as per a combat encounter. The GM also rolls initiative, with a modifier equal to the average Hit Dice of all of the player characters. Each player and the GM, in turn, declares and performs their strategy for that turn, just like a combat encounter. Also, players are allowed (nay, even strongly encouraged by the GM, sometimes loudly in the midst of these things) to come up with their own strategies, declaring what they want to happen and what skill they want to use with it; the GM can modify the strategy as he feels is appropriate, if necessary. The GM has his own strategies that he can perform, which make life difficult for the players.
The goal is to collect a particular amount of tokens (determined by the GM when he creates the conflict) by performing strategies that grant them. The number of tokens required to win a conflict basically sets the difficulty: naturally, more tokens required, the longer - and, most likely, harder - the conflict is. I've given the GM certain strategies that can take away tokens, making things even more challenging.
For example, my first conflict was “Cross the Mountains,” which occurred when my troop of intrepid heroes decided to cross a mountain range while perusing a band of barbarian raiders. Their strategies included Climb the Mountain, Follow the Path, and Aid Another, while mine were far more interesting: Blizzard, Cold Snap, Crevasse, Frostbite, Heavy Winds, High Altitude, Precarious Trail, and Cold which I could use once per turn in addition to my strategy to deal damage to everyone. Each turn lasted 1 day, and each player was required to accumulate 3 climb tokens (gained by Climb the Mountain) and the group as a whole had to have 5 trail tokens (gained by Follow the Path). I was told that the damage I was dealing with Cold was a bit much for 3rd-level characters, and it took them 11 days to emerge from the mountain pass (they were lost for 3 of them), but everyone seemed to really enjoy it and breathed a sigh of relief when they won. I took that as a good sign, since I don't think I've ever had players that worried about just climbing a mountain in D&D before!
I hope to make the system increasingly coherent and workable as I play-test it on my ever-so-patient players. So far, I've heard nothing but positive reviews from them (besides the damage thing from the first one); the two from last night - Infiltrate the Alchemist's Tower and Defeat/Persuade the Alchemist - were even bigger hits. So, maybe if one of you runs a D&D game anytime soon, you might consider something like this to add some spice to what might otherwise be a boring section of game between fights.
PS: As always, comments, concerns, and criticisms are appreciated and encouraged. Anything that makes a better game is alright by me!