What is it exactly that we're rushing towards?

[Schwann145]

In many threads covering many topics, the idea of, "X is bad for the game because it takes up valuable time that could be better spent doing other things," occurs a lot.

Well... what exactly are these "other things?" What is it that we're trying to rush towards that is "good gaming" that we need to hurry X along because it is "bad gaming?"

I get the sneaking suspicion that what we're trying to hurry up towards is "more combat," but I'd very much like to be wrong on that. If that's the case, it cheapens the whole TTRPG experience, IMO at least.

[Mastikator]

Killing monsters and taking their loot of course.

[Skrum]

I dunno that I've quite heard this particular thing expressed before. Is this coming from a specific thread?

That said - I'm gonna stick up for the concept of "more combat." Combat is fun! Rolling dice is fun. Using my character sheet is fun. Getting cool magic items is fun. And I dislike pretending otherwise. Like I should feel guilty that I'm looking forward to rolling initiative, or that a "sophisticated" player should be more satisfied with session after session of intrigue with little to no rolls at all.

If yah want to do improv theater, fine. But the majority of DND rules are about combat. I want to play DND. I.e., I want to fight stuff.

[Millstone85]

I'm gonna stick up for the concept of "more combat." Combat is fun! Rolling dice is fun. Using my character sheet is fun. Getting cool magic items is fun. And I dislike pretending otherwise. Like I should feel guilty that I'm looking forward to rolling initiative, or that a "sophisticated" player should be more satisfied with session after session of intrigue with little to no rolls at all.

If yah want to do improv theater, fine. But the majority of DND rules are about combat. I want to play DND. I.e., I want to fight stuff.

This. So much this.

[Elenian]

I enjoy tactical combats against credible opposition. I enjoy a good planning session where we scheme to conquer all of France. I enjoy a quiet interpersonal scene.

I do not enjoy trying to figure out what 'interacting with an illusion' means, or helping Dyscalculic Jo to use pf1s Sacred Geometry feat.

I would like to spend more time doing the former and less doing the latter.

[Kane0]

For me its the next 'point', or item of interest. Whether that be the next combat, interaction or exploration event, even the next batch of downtime. Just anything to get past that-guys turn saying or doing something that invariably takes twice as long as anyone else and as it needs to.

[KorvinStarmast]

I enjoy tactical combats against credible opposition. I enjoy a good planning session where we scheme to conquer all of France. I enjoy a quiet interpersonal scene.

Yes, I also enjoy meeting NPCs and digging information out of them.

I do not enjoy trying to figure out what 'interacting with an illusion' means, or helping Dyscalculic Jo to use pf1s Sacred Geometry feat.

Heh.

I would like to spend more time doing the former and less doing the latter.

Yes. Pacing and rhythm is what is desired.

For me its the next 'point', or item of interest. Whether that be the next combat, interaction or exploration event, even the next batch of downtime. Just anything to get past that-guys turn saying or doing something that invariably takes twice as long as anyone else and as it needs to.

I feel your pain. It needs to be painted in blood: "Be ready for your turn when it comes, up, and for Pete's sake, make a decision!"

[Unoriginal]

In many threads covering many topics, the idea of, "X is bad for the game because it takes up valuable time that could be better spent doing other things," occurs a lot.

Well... what exactly are these "other things?" What is it that we're trying to rush towards that is "good gaming" that we need to hurry X along because it is "bad gaming?"

I get the sneaking suspicion that what we're trying to hurry up towards is "more combat," but I'd very much like to be wrong on that. If that's the case, it cheapens the whole TTRPG experience, IMO at least.

The only times I've ever seen "X is bad for the game because it takes up valuable time" was when X was not playing the game.

Like in games where you need to spend half a session every two sessions figuring out how to modify your character sheet because the character progression system is just not smoothly set up.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I dunno that I've quite heard this particular thing expressed before. Is this coming from a specific thread?

That said - I'm gonna stick up for the concept of "more combat." Combat is fun! Rolling dice is fun. Using my character sheet is fun. Getting cool magic items is fun. And I dislike pretending otherwise. Like I should feel guilty that I'm looking forward to rolling initiative, or that a "sophisticated" player should be more satisfied with session after session of intrigue with little to no rolls at all.

If yah want to do improv theater, fine. But the majority of DND rules are about combat. I want to play DND. I.e., I want to fight stuff.

I want to fight stuff if the fight is interesting. 5E's published random encounters are almost entirely not. Walking around the North in Storm King's Thunder as a player bored me to tears. Running Tomb of Annihilation's hexcrawl had me pulling my hair out as a DM. That's what immediately comes to mind as 'takes up valuable time' -- unchallenging random encounters disconnected from any larger objective. Random encounters are tedious and a waste of everyone's valuable time.

As a player, what I want to do is have an objective -> come up with a plan to accomplish the objective -> execute the plan -> see if it's successful. That is the loop that I want happening at the table. If that's combat, fine. If it's not, also fine.

[Skrum]

I want to fight stuff if the fight is interesting. 5E's published random encounters are almost entirely not. Walking around the North in Storm King's Thunder as a player bored me to tears. Running Tomb of Annihilation's hexcrawl had me pulling my hair out as a DM. That's what immediately comes to mind as 'takes up valuable time' -- unchallenging random encounters disconnected from any larger objective. Random encounters are tedious and a waste of everyone's valuable time.

As a player, what I want to do is have an objective -> come up with a plan to accomplish the objective -> execute the plan -> see if it's successful. That is the loop that I want happening at the table. If that's combat, fine. If it's not, also fine.

I agree about the worst version of random encounters - something that pops up without warning, is relatively easily beaten, has no connection to anything whatsoever, and disappears from our minds the second it ends. That's not a good encounter.

But just last night, I was part of a group searching an ancient cursed dungeon looking for a particular item. Lotta time spent getting from place to place, lotta time spent figuring out riddles and puzzles and traps. When we get into an encounter? Yeah it's satisfying. The foes are just monsters; ghosts or bones animated by cursed energy. The don't mean anything in a larger story. But it's deadly, and the sense of accomplishment from knowing we're that much closer to "beating" the dungeon is high. I look forward to getting into these encounters the most of anything, and would enjoy it if there were more of 'em.

[stoutstien]

IMO the balance of focus is table/group dependent so it can't be pinned down as a worth/waste regarding time.

Now the one thing that I entirely think that universally seen as a waste of time is anything that is about the game that isn't the game when you are using game time. For example here is a off the cuff waste list:

- taking the time to draw a map while everybody sitting around.

-fiddling with one digital tool or another to try to get it to work. (Biggest peeve for me)

-flipping to more than one place to verify how it's supposed to work.

-unnecessary bookkeeping for for things that never have an impact.

-game stoppages to hash out how something should be ruled.

-the gap between action declaration and resolution.

- dead air when the players feel like they don't have any direction nor options

- unnecessary descriptive text that may or may not be needed to move forward.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I agree about the worst version of random encounters - something that pops up without warning, is relatively easily beaten, has no connection to anything whatsoever, and disappears from our minds the second it ends. That's not a good encounter.

But just last night, I was part of a group searching an ancient cursed dungeon looking for a particular item. Lotta time spent getting from place to place, lotta time spent figuring out riddles and puzzles and traps. When we get into an encounter? Yeah it's satisfying. The foes are just monsters; ghosts or bones animated by cursed energy. The don't mean anything in a larger story. But it's deadly, and the sense of accomplishment from knowing we're that much closer to "beating" the dungeon is high. I look forward to getting into these encounters the most of anything, and would enjoy it if there were more of 'em.

I see a couple differences (as I'm sure you do too!). First, resting in an ancient cursed dungeon -- probably trickier than on the path from Nolton to Kingsford. So attrition, even from just monsters, is a more pressing concern, so there's more of a sense of jeopardy. Second, a nice straightforward combat encounter is a good reset from puzzles and traps and riddles. It's a palate cleanser and mental reset at a time when you need it. I'm not against combat encounters, even easy ones. I'm not even against random encounters! I just think they're used too often as filler, and filler stinks.

[Ionathus]

Yes. Pacing and rhythm is what is desired.

Well said. I'd like to echo this point.

My D&D time is incredibly valuable -- on a perfect week we only manage 3 hours of it (usually less), but it's almost always my 3 favorite hours of the week. I don't want to spend a second of that on something that's not fun for anyone present. If we spend most of those three hours on pointless lighthearted bull**** so be it, but that would not be time wasted, in my book. As long as we gather with the intention to play D&D and we stick to that goal and we have a good time, it's time well spent.

Time wasted, to me, is time spent on anything that the majority of the table has no desire to do. At our table, that includes rules pedantry, spending 20 minutes figuring out a rules interaction, hexcrawl/random encounters, beating your head against one-solution puzzle rooms, and tapping every 5-foot section of floor with a pole to check for traps. At other tables, maybe those activities are rewarding -- but we've learned from years of experience that we all collectively find those activities a chore.

There are activities that, IMO, nearly every table will dislike and should avoid - or should at least treat with significant caution by default. The problem is, that some of these activities are misunderstood as necessary by beginning DMs, who think that in order to be a "good DM," they NEED to do XYZ activity that's only interesting to a specific subset of the hobby. I'd hazard a guess that these are the topics OP was seeing elsewhere (though specific examples would help).

Walking around the North in Storm King's Thunder as a player bored me to tears.

As a player, what I want to do is have an objective -> come up with a plan to accomplish the objective -> execute the plan -> see if it's successful. That is the loop that I want happening at the table. If that's combat, fine. If it's not, also fine.

Real talk: the worst experience I've ever had in D&D was Storm King's Thunder. It was a first-time DM and he was doing his best, but he was clearly lost and didn't know how to provide motivation or guidance. After an opening section that was pretty well-contained and well-paced, he just turned us loose in the world with no direction and not even a hint of guidance. That was bad enough on its own, but he also didn't have the world give us any in-world feedback: we would do things and nothing would change as a result, nobody would indicate whether we'd helped or hurt, and no bigger clues came together. We were all actively trying to find the main plot and we never managed it.

We just...wandered around, trying random actions like rats pulling unmarked levers in a maze, for at least six sessions in a row. Nothing ever happened.

By the end, I was begging every NPC we met to give us a clear goal. I was practically shaking them down for a quest or a plot hook. Nothing. I know for a fact he was trying his best, but he was clearly hampered by the idea that we needed to get to the "right" NPC to get the clues we needed. And he had no skillset for steering us towards whatever magic clue we needed to find. It's the only time I've left a campaign midway through. Amicably, but it was still a sad reason to go.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Real talk: the worst experience I've ever had in D&D was Storm King's Thunder. It was a first-time DM and he was doing his best, but he was clearly lost and didn't know how to provide motivation or guidance. After an opening section that was pretty well-contained and well-paced, he just turned us loose in the world with no direction and not even a hint of guidance. That was bad enough on its own, but he also didn't have the world give us any in-world feedback: we would do things and nothing would change as a result, nobody would indicate whether we'd helped or hurt, and no bigger clues came together. We were all actively trying to find the main plot and we never managed it.

We just...wandered around, trying random actions like rats pulling unmarked levers in a maze, for at least six sessions in a row. Nothing ever happened.

By the end, I was begging every NPC we met to give us a clear goal. I was practically shaking them down for a quest or a plot hook. Nothing. I know for a fact he was trying his best, but he was clearly hampered by the idea that we needed to get to the "right" NPC to get the clues we needed. And he had no skillset for steering us towards whatever magic clue we needed to find. It's the only time I've left a campaign midway through. Amicably, but it was still a sad reason to go.

I endorse the first half of your post -- just wanted to zero in on this.

It's not his fault as a first-time DM. I also had SKT run by a first-time DM, and very early in the campaign he pulled me aside to ask what in the world he was supposed to do to get us going towards our objective. I gave him some general advice, but I didn't realize how bad it was until I started looking at other modules, and eventually SKT itself, sorta through new-DM eyes. There is no guidance for a new DM. Clues only work in linear sequences. They point to specific places, and if any part of the chain is missed, the chain breaks until the players go back to uncover the previous step. For a big open-world sandbox, it's incredibly railroaded. And it relies, like most 5E modules, on the cargo cult adventure design of players giving passwords to NPCs, who tell them where to go next.

The DM wants the players to have agency and decide what to do, but the adventure is written such that only the appearance of a DMPC can move the ball down the field. So DMs, who don't want to get in the way of the players and don't know any better, let the players roam around doing essentially nothing because the alternative is Giant DMPC appears, tells the players exactly what to do, eventually solves the problem in a cutscene. Storm King's Thunder is sold as an adventure but it's main use, IMO, is as a background to things that are occurring in that area of the Realms that your campaign can occasionally interact with but not focus on.

[Rynjin]

The next thing that actually matters and is interesting to experience.

Bookkeeping isn't especially interesting. It's part of why people hate Encumbrance rules. Which is why that phrase often comes up in regards to that mechanic.

Just about anything else at the table is interesting. Plot exposition. Character interaction. Combat. Skill challenges. Something I can engage with in a meaningful fashion beyond "Yep. Those sure are numbers.".

Travel time is another good one. If there ain't nothing happening while we're walking, we don't need to play this **** out round by round and hour by hour.

[clash]

For me the answer is group engagement. Anything that engages only one or two player should be expedited in favor of things that engage all the players. Sometimes that's a characters turn in combat taking too long. Sometimes it's a scouting mission. Sometimes it's general shenanigans. If it's not engaging to the majority of the players then let's move on to something that is.

Generally the thing that engages most players at my table funny enough is shenanigans that make no progress in the story or progress it in a very unorthodox way. As I built my campaign now I make sure to add elements that can be engaged for shenanigans.

Generally the thing that takes too long it's combat and we have taken several measures to speed that along including displaying enemy stats so players don't have to ask if they hit or not.

Bear in mind all of this is taking place in a campaign that has advanced into epic levels (level 23 equivalent right now)and there is a lot characters can do in a single turn. So the past might be biased in that sense but the campaign did begin at level 1 so it was a natural evolution.

[JellyPooga]

I dunno that I've quite heard this particular thing expressed before. Is this coming from a specific thread?

That said - I'm gonna stick up for the concept of "more combat." Combat is fun! Rolling dice is fun. Using my character sheet is fun. Getting cool magic items is fun. And I dislike pretending otherwise. Like I should feel guilty that I'm looking forward to rolling initiative, or that a "sophisticated" player should be more satisfied with session after session of intrigue with little to no rolls at all.

If yah want to do improv theater, fine. But the majority of DND rules are about combat. I want to play DND. I.e., I want to fight stuff.

Oh no. No no no. Not for me.

- Rolling dice isn't what's fun; the action performed and the outcome of the roll is fun. It's not that I get to roll Strength (Athletics) or that I have a +7 bonus with advantage that I enjoy, it's that I'm grappling an Ogre and whether or not I succeed or fail.
- Using the character sheet isn't what's fun; knowing what your character is good at or is able to achieve is what's fun. It doesn't matter that I have three uses of 2nd level slots, it's the specific three spells I cast using them and the ends I achieve as a result.
- Cool magic items are fun because of the goals they allow you to score, not because of what they do. Who cares that I have a wand that turns into a snake, it's that my wand-snake managed to steal the guards keys without waking him so we can escape the gaol.

The storytelling comes first every single time and most combat, as presented in most published modules or that I hear about in the majority of games...it's just boring filler. If it's there just to deplete the party resources, or be the second combat encounter of the day, or just for the sake of pushing the buttons on the PC's character sheet because "rolling dice is fun" (it's really not...if it was, you wouldn't need an RPG to give you an excuse to do it; you'd be playing Craps or Yahtzee, which even then the dice rolling is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself), then that combat is as much a waste of time as watching paint dry on a wall scheduled for demolition.

I do not play D&D, or any RPG for that matter, just to "fight stuff". It's often a prominent feature of games I play and have played, but it's by far the least interesting part of any game I've ever played by a significant margin.

Maybe that's just me.

[Millstone85]

- Rolling dice isn't what's fun; the action performed and the outcome of the roll is fun. It's not that I get to roll Strength (Athletics) or that I have a +7 bonus with advantage that I enjoy, it's that I'm grappling an Ogre and whether or not I succeed or fail.
- Using the character sheet isn't what's fun; knowing what your character is good at or is able to achieve is what's fun. It doesn't matter that I have three uses of 2nd level slots, it's the specific three spells I cast using them and the ends I achieve as a result.
- Cool magic items are fun because of the goals they allow you to score, not because of what they do. Who cares that I have a wand that turns into a snake, it's that my wand-snake managed to steal the guards keys without waking him so we can escape the gaol.

Okay but aren't these a package deal? A session where I don't get to roll dice, add modifiers, spend spell slots, or use magic items, is also a session where I don't get to grapple orcs or be creative with magic. Instead I make lot of story choices like who to talk to first in the city, and then bring what we learned to who, and what will we have for dinner which is apparently core to setting the ambiance, and so on.

[JellyPooga]

Okay but aren't these a package deal? A session where I don't get to roll dice, add modifiers, spend spell slots, or use magic items, is also a session where I don't get to grapple orcs or be creative with magic. Instead I make lot of story choices like who to talk to first in the city, and then bring what we learned to who, and what will we have for dinner which is apparently core to setting the ambiance, and so on.

I'm quite happy to play a session where I don't roll even a single die, yes, but I can very easily spend a highly unsatisfying session rolling lots of dice and activating options on my character sheet. That's why I play roleplaying games. If I want the satisfaction of a detailed combat simulator, I'll play a game specifically designed just for that, such as a tabletop skirmish game or a fighting or FPS game on my PC. Yes, D&D has a high focus on combat as a primary focus of character options, but I don't play it to be a combat simulator; I play it to be an RPG.

[Skrum]

Oh no. No no no. Not for me.

- Rolling dice isn't what's fun; the action performed and the outcome of the roll is fun. It's not that I get to roll Strength (Athletics) or that I have a +7 bonus with advantage that I enjoy, it's that I'm grappling an Ogre and whether or not I succeed or fail.
- Using the character sheet isn't what's fun; knowing what your character is good at or is able to achieve is what's fun. It doesn't matter that I have three uses of 2nd level slots, it's the specific three spells I cast using them and the ends I achieve as a result.
- Cool magic items are fun because of the goals they allow you to score, not because of what they do. Who cares that I have a wand that turns into a snake, it's that my wand-snake managed to steal the guards keys without waking him so we can escape the gaol.

The storytelling comes first every single time and most combat, as presented in most published modules or that I hear about in the majority of games...it's just boring filler. If it's there just to deplete the party resources, or be the second combat encounter of the day, or just for the sake of pushing the buttons on the PC's character sheet because "rolling dice is fun" (it's really not...if it was, you wouldn't need an RPG to give you an excuse to do it; you'd be playing Craps or Yahtzee, which even then the dice rolling is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself), then that combat is as much a waste of time as watching paint dry on a wall scheduled for demolition.

I do not play D&D, or any RPG for that matter, just to "fight stuff". It's often a prominent feature of games I play and have played, but it's by far the least interesting part of any game I've ever played by a significant margin.

Maybe that's just me.

Ok I want to be clear about something: I like smashing stat blocks together and seeing what's left standing. No story, no rp, just make the most insane killer I can possibly make under X Y Z build restraints, throw them in an arena or whatever contrived scenario where everything is trying to kill me, and see how well I do. I will have fun doing that.

I will also have fun making a complex character and acting as that character within a story and world. Ideally, there's lots of story where I get to express that character through roleplay, and within that story a ton of fights break out.

I think we're talking about the same thing. With some margin of error where I perhaps want 3 combats per 5 hours of game play and you would be satisfied with 2. Or something. There can be cruddy games where the bad story ruins the combats, and vice versa. But my point is if I'm playing DND, I want dice rolls, my character sheet, and the mechanics of the game to be quite central to outcomes. Like I said, I'm here to roleplay - but if I'm *only* roleplaying, that's not DND. That's collaborative storytelling. A DM being able to give the players opportunities to use the mechanics of their character is equally important to telling a good story. While a single session of all roleplaying and not a single dice rolled can be fun, I will very quickly lose interest if the game as a whole is bent too far in that direction. What's too far? Idk. I know it when I see it.

[rel]

For me, base 5e is a good fit for the following:

A game heavy in GM rulings on specific situations; If the PC's come up to a wall and I as the GM can't say 'The thief climbs the wall with no roll needed, the knight must roll a strength ability check (applying the athletics proficiency) vs DC 15, the knights horse fails to climb the wall with no roll needed' without violating the games social contract then I should be using a different system.

A game in which the world is not simulated from first principles using the mechanics. If I as a GM feel the need to stop and calculate whether the draft animals can actually pull the cart given the weight of the cargo, their strength, the rules for encumbrance and a special table for terrain or whether the village being beset by orcs actually needs the PC's help or should have fallen long ago the once again, I need a different system.

A game with little focus on the character building minigame. If the players all want to spend hours carefully constructing the stat blocks for their characters by cross referencing all the various splat books trying to find the most powerful combination before the game starts then I should be using a different system

A game where the tactical combat minigame can be circumvented by player creativity and quick thinking. If a PC dropping a chandelier on the enemies head or pushing a bookcase over onto them is never a substantially better option than casting sleep or swinging a big sword or what have you, then you guessed it; I need a different system.

A game where the specific tone and theme is supported by extensive modifications to the games rules via the judicious application of optional rules and the addition of a healthy 3 ring binder of house rules. If at any point I'm feeling like the rules aren't going to help the game and I can't change them, see above. Different system.

[Blatant Beast]

I think we're talking about the same thing..

I really do not think you are.

There is a difference between roll-play, and role-play.

I’m not saying one style is better than the other, and most games have a mixture of both, but a roleplayer wants different things than a rollplayer out of the game.

(Please forgive the gross generalization, most people of course are not just a roleplayer or a rollplayer, but want both; but often have a clear preference between the two styles).

[JellyPooga]

I think we're talking about the same thing. With some margin of error where I perhaps want 3 combats per 5 hours of game play and you would be satisfied with 2. Or something.

Blatant Beast about has the right of it; I don't think we're playing the same game at all. No disparagement. You do you, but I'd be satisfied with zero combats for multiple sessions in a row. In many respects, my ideal game avoids combat altogether. That's not to say I want to avoid conflict; that's another thing altogether and a great source of tension and excitement, but even when I'm playing heavily combat focused characters or games, actual combat is a fail-state for me.

Like I said, I'm here to roleplay - but if I'm *only* roleplaying, that's not DND. That's collaborative storytelling.

I disagree. D&D is more than collaborative storytelling just as much as it's more than it's just rolling dice or vancian-ish spellcasting. Even, perhaps especially, when dice aren't being rolled. It's guided by the rules, assumptions about playstyle, campaign settings and mindsets familiar to the game, just as CyberPunk 2020 or Traveller have their own assumptions and styles based on their rules and settings that will shine through regardless of whether the rules are actually being engaged through dice, combats or character abilities.

True collab storytelling is not bound by such things and why would or should it be? Conflict, or more accurately combat, is much harder to adjudicate in CS and as such, games or exercises in it often avoid such direct confrontation in favour of slice-of-life, romance or indirect conflict such as political or intrigue scenarios and stories. At least in my experience.

[Skrum]

I disagree. D&D is more than collaborative storytelling just as much as it's more than it's just rolling dice or vancian-ish spellcasting. Even, perhaps especially, when dice aren't being rolled. It's guided by the rules, assumptions about playstyle, campaign settings and mindsets familiar to the game, just as CyberPunk 2020 or Traveller have their own assumptions and styles based on their rules and settings that will shine through regardless of whether the rules are actually being engaged through dice, combats or character abilities.

True collab storytelling is not bound by such things and why would or should it be? Conflict, or more accurately combat, is much harder to adjudicate in CS and as such, games or exercises in it often avoid such direct confrontation in favour of slice-of-life, romance or indirect conflict such as political or intrigue scenarios and stories. At least in my experience.

Ok maybe I don't know what you're talking about. You like conflict but not combat and you adjudicate the conflicts without rolls but in the style of DND. Idk what that is, but I'm glad you're having fun lol.

[Ionathus]

I endorse the first half of your post -- just wanted to zero in on this.

It's not his fault as a first-time DM. I also had SKT run by a first-time DM, and very early in the campaign he pulled me aside to ask what in the world he was supposed to do to get us going towards our objective. I gave him some general advice, but I didn't realize how bad it was until I started looking at other modules, and eventually SKT itself, sorta through new-DM eyes. There is no guidance for a new DM. Clues only work in linear sequences. They point to specific places, and if any part of the chain is missed, the chain breaks until the players go back to uncover the previous step. For a big open-world sandbox, it's incredibly railroaded. And it relies, like most 5E modules, on the cargo cult adventure design of players giving passwords to NPCs, who tell them where to go next.

The DM wants the players to have agency and decide what to do, but the adventure is written such that only the appearance of a DMPC can move the ball down the field. So DMs, who don't want to get in the way of the players and don't know any better, let the players roam around doing essentially nothing because the alternative is Giant DMPC appears, tells the players exactly what to do, eventually solves the problem in a cutscene. Storm King's Thunder is sold as an adventure but it's main use, IMO, is as a background to things that are occurring in that area of the Realms that your campaign can occasionally interact with but not focus on.

Dang, that's awful. Poor guy was basically doomed to fail by the module he was running.

I had a sneaking suspicion this was the case, and as a first-time DM he was terrified of intervening and "breaking" the module in case it ruined the plot somehow. Good to have confirmation that he was, indeed, practically being held hostage by the material.

[JellyPooga]

Ok maybe I don't know what you're talking about. You like conflict but not combat and you adjudicate the conflicts without rolls but in the style of DND. Idk what that is, but I'm glad you're having fun lol.

Heh. I'm sure you have a blast doing your thing too and all power to you

To explain, let me put it this way. D&D has orcs. Warhammer 40k also has orks. Lord of the Rings has orcs. Cyberpunk 2020 has orcs too, in its own fashion (in the form of people with cybernetics or other mods to make them "orcish"). None of these orcs are the same, though they might share some similarities. If I'm playing D&D, the only orc that matters is D&D orcs and there's assumptions I can make about who and what they are, their culture, so on and so forth. The same goes for spellcasting and magic, how multicultural D&D assumes things to be, etc. etc. If I'm playing D&D, even when I'm not looking at my character sheet or rolling dice, all those assumptions are still in play because those are the things that make the game D&D, way more than rolling the ol' math rocks, because while the d20 dice rolling system isn't unique to D&D, D&D style orcs are.

[Pex]

The idyllic image of playing the game, not just the combat part. Social interaction, exploration, combat, the physical and mental moments of play. Anything that stops the play is thus bad for existing. The irony is idolizing this image makes you forget it is just a game. The moments that happen that aren't directly playing are also important. Not everything and things that are need proper proportion, but they matter. Don't talk about the latest movie for 30 minutes, but do talk about it while setting up because you're friends having a social interaction in real life. Don't spend 30 minutes arguing over the rules, but do take the 30 seconds to look it up so that everyone understands how it works. Rules are necessary to play the game. Also, the DM has a lot to think about. He doesn't have to memorize every minutiae of detail, so take the 30 seconds to look up a statistic when it matters for the game, like the DC of something on a table.

[Theodoxus]

I hate running combat with a passion, and my players know it - so they don't expect amazing depth when it comes to monsters I run. I'm far more tactical running one character than a mob, so I enjoy playing in other people's combat reindeer games...

I'd love to co-DM sometime, where I can create campaigns and deep histories and get a plot going, and then let my buddy run the combat. I could play the BBEG or something... and then when I'm running the social and environmental parts, he could be setting up the next combat encounter (keeps that 'drawing out a map while everyone waits' problem from popping up).

About the only thing that really bugs me at the table though, is having to repeat myself because someone was reading something on their phone (or during our virtual games, playing Diablo or something in the background and not paying attention). It got to the point where I was just having them auto fail perception checks. If the human driver isn't paying attention, the elven character wasn't either. I don't have any issues with folks who can multitask though. Killing zombies online while still knowing what's going on in game? Perfectly fine.

[tokek]

I think my answer is that I don't want to get hung up on just one thing.

I don't want a single combat to last the whole session

I don't want to get stuck on some puzzle forever

etc.

For me D&D is relatively light entertainment - if its a book its a page-turner not the the sort of literature where you sit and admire the wonderful prose of a passage.

I want to be able to progress and I want the freedom to progress in interesting and surprising ways to exist.

[Schwann145]

A game with little focus on the character building minigame. If the players all want to spend hours carefully constructing the stat blocks for their characters by cross referencing all the various splat books trying to find the most powerful combination before the game starts then I should be using a different system

To be fair, this is already true for D&D. If you're a full spellcaster, there are hundreds of spells across various different books that all require consideration. If you're a Cleric or Druid it's even worse, as all your spells are always available to be prepared; at least Bard, Sorcerer, and Wizard are limited.

A game where the tactical combat minigame can be circumvented by player creativity and quick thinking. If a PC dropping a chandelier on the enemies head or pushing a bookcase over onto them is never a substantially better option than casting sleep or swinging a big sword or what have you, then you guessed it; I need a different system.

Another one where D&D has failed. The falling chandelier will do 1-2d6 falling damage, probably fail to make much of an impact at all outside of levels 1-3, and the casting sleep and/or swinging a big sword will need to commence.