D&D General GM's are you bored of your combat and is it because you made it boring?

[ClaytonCross]

I feel like dragon example is part of what makes combat boring, not more interesting, actually.

There's nothing more dull and irritating than a monster which won't engage, can't be made to engage, and does stuff like flyby attacks. If you want to make combat dull for both the players and you, by all means have a dragon who won't get on the ground and fight the PCs, but that's causing a problem, not solving it. Sure, having it just stand there and fight is dull, too, but PCs generally just don't have ways to stop a size H or larger dragon from flapping around doing whatever it wants and leaving when it wants.

In every game I have been in as a GM or a player dragons were bosses the party was foreshadowed. D&D absolutely has means "to stop a size H or larger dragon from flapping around doing whatever it wants and leaving when it wants" The second level spell Earthbind immediatly comes to mind since thats what it exists for, Nets and graplling hooks are items in D&D, there is no reason a player can't target a wing and the GM make it fall temporarily or permanently based on the damage. Players have access to fly spell and ranged weapons. so they can reach the target. Even a melee character with a spear or dagger can hold their action to attack when the dragon comes in range. If a party shows up knowing they are fighting flying enemeis of any type without preparation and/or the GM does not allow them to use any of their plans because the rules don't say you can specifically use X to do Y. That's not a problem with flying enemies or D&D, its a problem at that table and its caused by exactly what I am talking about with player expectations of fight everything in 5ft melee. Many people complain about dragons being "weak for CR" while grounding them in boring HP slogs. Preparing to fight as dragon can be fun. the fight itself can be fun. I want my players to bring wagons with baristas mounted on them weighed down with rocks and firing poision tipped harpoons with covered in hooks and trying to bring it to the ground then casting hold moster on it to keep it there. .... that is leaps and bounds more interesting then Ancient intelegnet creatures who can fly desidding the best stratagy for fighting these heroes is to stand there and take it to the face. Flight is a huger part of what justifies their CR and what makes them terrifying. If your taking that away your declawing them and making it boring. If the GM is surprised by a dragon is should be a big event and players should consider running because they are not prepared. Your argument here is exactly the kind of boring fighting I don't want as a player and would be bored to as a GM that would burn me out.

5E has a fundamental issue here, though, which is that compared to damage from moderately or not-really-optimized PCs, all monsters are big HP-bags, and some are really huge ones. Likewise, compared to 4E, a lot of monsters don't have very many interesting things to do in combat, and those that they can do, often feel more annoying or merely like delaying the inevitable than part of a back-and-forth tactical conversation as they could be in 4E.

And awful lot of your suggestions aren't ways to make combat more inherently interesting, tactically or in RP terms, either, just more mechanically complicated.

You do realize you just complained about not having interesting options and then complained because I offered options and now its complicated. If your afraid of complication, run smaller encounter with more options so you have less to track but more flexibility. It's only as complicated as you make it. Your caliming zero tolerance here like their is no middle ground. Adding some fighters with 10ft reach is bearly an adjustment. Archers are barely an adjustment. Casters don't have to have full spell lists. One caster with 3-4 spells in place of five 5ft melee casters is less to track and easier to run with way more variation in combat.

I did not say run 1 CR10 monster against you level 10 party. My advice for boss fights was 2-3 bosses. If your running 2-3 CR 6 monsters instead of one CR10 monster you will notice the HP piles are alot smaller and devided by 3 so it is possible for the party to target on take it down and lower the threat. The "HP Bag problem" is caused by you having one bad guy boss fighting the party and your raising it to the highest CR to create a challenge for your players. Layer actions, terrain, simple tactics like polearm triangles, having just a few ranged units on clifts, or a could of stealthy units disappearing into shadows then attacking a single party member can make lower CR enemies without giant HP bags a serious threat AND it doesn't have to be ton of enemies or complicated.

This was my point from the start. If you look again one of the first things I said is stop running 20 5ft melee goblins because your getting tired of tracking them, your bored, and the end result it uninteresting combat. Run 4 goblins with 4 different ability sets against your party is easier to run, more fun, and with a little variation a real threat to your party. Especially if one is Niblog. Even if its not supper hard for the party they can still feel the tension if you target single party members because even if they know they the party will win they don't want to lose a party member or be the one that drops.

6 - Motives - for both the PCs to be in the fight, and the monsters to have the fight, is the only one that consistently makes fights more interesting, not just more fiddly, and is more important than all the other suggestions combined, I'd suggest.

I agree motives is an awesome suggestion I am glad it was mentioned. I disagree that its the only thing that makes fights interesting. You saying that makes you sound like a story GM (which is not a bad thing, its just what you prefer), however, mechanically interesting and varied combat can absolutely be fun for both players and GM as a point of fact the entire tire war games industry is based on that. Mage-Knight, Hero-clicks, Warhammer, Warhammer 4dK, Zombiecide, the Xcom series video games, hero academy, along with every other turn based tactical board game or video game ever made represent multi milion dollar industry based on the fact that varied and more mechanically interesting combat is engaging and fun. I mean chess is over 1500 years old and is exactly that and loved by many this day. No one asks what the motives of the black and white kingdoms are. ... they just enjoy the tactical combat.

D&D is not zombicide or chess, but 1/3 of D&D is based on that concept. Just like Xcom 2 for example, story gives the tactical combat more meaning and tactical combat gives then story more impact. I would argue that D&D is better then any game that only take one of the three pillars. The three pillars of D&D being Story, tactical combat, and character creation. I truly enjoy RPGs more when I get to make my own character and my character impacts the world of the RPG. If your shorting your table one of these your players are suffering a loss. Not every player loves all 3 pillars the same and not all pillers need the same weight at any table, but D&D is greatly hurt when one is too diminished and empowered when all 3 stand strong.

I am also did not say you have to have as many options as a chess board. Only that you have at least 3 different tactical styles if you have more than 2 enemies for your party to fight. If you have two, I recommend them not be the same. My rule #1 is that that you don't have to fallow all the rules all the time. You should just aim to use them as much as you can. You could have 10 enemies with 10 different roles for a single fight, but a minimum of 3 with 3 roles (meaning one or two different abilities different), some terrain, and at least motive for the encounter ... is not a huge ask.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I've been watching this type of discussion go on since I started playing Ad&D. IMO you are trying to fix boring combat with more rules to standardize combat to make it more interesting by the same formula Everytime. Won't work.
my advice to every DM is quit rolling dice in front of your players. I roll mine behind the screen. Most of the time I take what they give me, but I view every fight as part of the story. I fudge thing both in favor of my players and not in favor of my players.
if 30low level archers are blanketing the area with arrows some of em are going to hit. if I build a big bad epic encounter and during the fight realize I over did it and I'm about to wipe my party I fudge down or adjust tactic. What I find makes combat more fun for me is to build the game on players past actions so they aren't just fighting 20 orc 5 with polearms but the clan that's been raiding the city that wiped out the caravan they were escorting . Make as much of the game personal to the party and they'll engage that'll make it more fun for them and for you.

I think "rules" is a bit strong, their really more of guild lines really. The first guideline on the list is ingnore the rest when you need to. "trying to fix boring combat with more rules to standardize combat to make it more interesting by the same formula Everytime." will work when they basic premise of the list don't do the same thing every single encounter every single game. Rule #2 is don't have all your units 5ft melee for every encounter recommending mixtures. The mixtures used are examples but I was able to list 14 with about one minute of thought. Your not going to convince anyone chess would more interesting if you only every used pawns. Even Checkers has two units because it gets kings. So why is it after I have been playing for 30 year and it has always been common to play campaigns that don't have but one or total units including bosses that are not 5ft melee enemies or for example fighting dragons fighting in 5ft melee range when they have 15ft reach and can fly? More evern slightly more varied combat make a huge difference which is why there have been war games (to include but not limited to chess) for over 1500 years and one thing they all have in common is some variation in troops. Why does D&D bother with a monster manual when on page in the DMG could just say "Monster 5ft melee". The answer is simple. Combat variation does and has always make combat more interesting. The "Formula" I made with these rules is only a list of suggestions a guildlines to consider to break up the formula your maybe using every day.

Your past actions of players is motivator for players absolutely. But I didn't say players were engaged or bored. In fact I said its easy to engage players when ever the character they are invested in is threatened or a party member is threatened. That's natural since one of the 3 pillars of D&D is character creation in which players invest and you as a GM using past actions of that character are also investing in. However, that does not mean story will not improve and character creation (which doesn't end when game starts but continues as the level and previous sessions become added backstory) when the third pillar of tatical combat is improved.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Yup. Rules 2 and 3 are particularly prescriptive and if every fight has this same limited number of enemies and specific arrangement of tactics, it's going to be almost as dull as if every fight has a lot of 5' melees. If most boss fights are multi-boss, that's going to get old pretty fast too.

You should re-read rules 1-3 again, by what you wrote you didn't graps what I wrote at all. #1 is ignore as needed these are guidelines not laws. #2 is basically don't us nothing but 5ft melee all the times and uses 16 other options and suggestion of mixing them for variety. Going form using 1 type of unit to 17 is not a restriction its a new world of options. #3 is to avoid the single 5ft melee"HP bag" bosses. That solves some complaints players have and again opens up a world of options. These are not one formula suggestions, they aren't even complete encounters and incredibly vague. How your taking something so huge and calling it a tiny box doesn't even make since.

I mean, one thing I haven't seen clearly mentioned, though forgive me if it has been, is that you shouldn't play every fight the same way. ..smip..

You just announced that you missed the entire point of the thread and just about every post in it..... (0.0) ... what did you read?

The entire thread is about adding variation to tatical encoutners to make them more interesting to run for GM who are bored of tactical encounters. (This also benifits players but that is actually a naturally resulting side benefit.)

 

[ClaytonCross]

The advise here is good enough, but I see one big part missing.

In most modern games combat is an utter waste of time: It's for the players to jump up and around and be all happy that they are the greatest players of the game 4ever....and for the DM to be very bored as they wait for the foes to be automatically defeated. The DM very specifically put zero effort into the combat, because if they did even a tiny amount not only might the characters loose, but they might even die. And worse, if the DM runs the combat and foes even just a bit vaguely average competence, then it becomes just about automatic that the characters will loose and die.

The whole running easy combat for the players wears on a DM fast. Every combat encounter must be simple, with the foes using no tactics or common sense, and really just stand there and wait for the characters to kill them. The DM can just sit there half asleep and ask "oh did you auto win yet?".

So the big answer here is to drop all of the above stuff. Run and play a much more high stakes, hard, fast, and deadly game.

Umm... I hate to break it but GMs can in fact be bored while murdering player characters. I have number of dead character that could vouch for that. My GM was picked a fight with our party then wanted us to rule play because he was not interested then killed my character without a role to stop combat to that he could get back to story telling. ... Because he thinks his encounters are too boring to waste time on. True story. RIP "Torch Bearer" the Draconic Bloodline Fire sorcerer hidding from his mobster dad while working as an adventurer to build his power to eventually take over the family business. He was level 2 and I never got to meta magic.

You having fun running encounters and playing deadly combat with no safeties killing player characters have no bearing on each other unless you just enjoy killing player characters.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Combat is nothing special. We put it on a pedestal because that's what we're used to, but we don't actually need mechanics for it. Think if the roles were reversed, social interactions had HP, AC, Saves, etc. And combat was based purely on how you told the DM you'd do it with a roll or two if the DM is uncertain.

Describe to be how you pick the imaginary lock in my head that only I can see. Don't bother you failed because I didn't want you to succeed. Since their are no rules I am free to be a jerk and even if you showed up to worlds best lock smith you will never pick a lock. No one else in the area plays D&D and you really want to play? Guess your stuck with me. ... seriously. RPGs having rules is how we play with adults you act like 5 year olds and still manage to have fun without strangling them. This is true with every single board game, video game, and sport any of us have ever played. Why would you think it would be different for D&D?

It still works, it just changes the focus of the game. You can absolutely run combat without mechanics. And when you do, it suddenly turns into roleplay. Instead of saying "I attack the ogre." It's more valuable to specify what you do and the DM decides based on how he thinks the combatants can work. Like how you saying "I shoot the orc in his eye" might not convince the DM that you'd land your mark, but saying you sweep his legs may have you progressing in this combat section.

You can until their is a problem or disagreement. Then when you don't have rules so you make them to prevent future argments and thats how games are made.

Mechanics tend to remove the roleplay aspect of whatever part of the game has them.

....What?... that doesn't even make since. Even playing dress up has mechanics. Even putting on your underwear has mechanics. I bet everyone reading this puts the front in the front and the back in the back. If you don't your hurting yourself because they will go on but they will not comfortable and they may chaff. I know this ... because reasons.

Lets assume your the best D&D role playing group ever.. one of your player's says the pull out a light saber cuts off your villains head.... what do you do? I know its stupid and it shouldn't happen but it does and now we have mechanics that define how you properly use a light saber and the clearly state you have to make the noise when you swing or its turned off.

If a player must perform the persuasion action to reduce the merchant's price by 10%, instead of saying what they want from the merchant, they'll just tell the DM they're taking the persuasion action and only say how if they feel into it, since their "how" doesn't really change the RNG chance. As opposed to basically needing to roleplay a sensible solution enough to convince the DM.

As a member of The Historical Sword Fighting Okinawa Club. I would like to play your group. I feel that since the characters in the game are defined by only by the people who play them I feel I have really good chance of slaying a tarask with a long sword. I have visual aids to help with my descriptions you will hold my rotella shield and I will use my favor sparing long sword.

I have no authority to tell you what's correct or incorrect in terms of balancing these mechanics. I only wish to remind everyone that combat shouldn't be worshipped as a sacred cow of successful TTRPG.

Its not worshipped or a sacred cow. All joking aside. Its one of the three pillars that make D&D meaning its esactly 1/3 of the game. It always has been if your play theater of the mind or using your using battle mats. D&D was actually originally created from a War game adding role play elements. At its heart, mechanics and combat were first front and center. Role play was the add on and the dream to make combat more. Character creation being the third pillar ties players into the role play through the mechanics.

The GM's story is 1/3 of a D&D game. Author's and story tellers have been around as long as poeple could speak.
The Tactical Combat is 1/3 of D&D game. War games have always existed without characters or story... Chess is 1500 year old game of two armies.
The Creation of Characters is 1/3 of D&D. Players are not showing up to watch a play or be themselves. The characters represent who they want to be in world of imagination.

If your not using mechanics and judging players by their actions and abilities every player who is foolish must play a fool because they can not increase that wisdom stat, Every ignorant player must be ignorant because they can not raise there intelligence, every awkward gamer who wants to be leader of face can't because they lack the charisma. Do you check for to see if your players can swing swords or pick locks or do you let them role their characters stats? Do you make them search your house for that key you hide in the attic before you let them open the door in the game world dungeon? .... if no to these then why do you make players persuade you with their arguments instead of roll? .... and this are not combat.

Combat is a pillar of D&D and just like character creation and role-play which skills based off those characters, combat also uses mechanics and rules.

If your not using the D&D mechanics and rules... your not playing D&D. You might be role playing. You might be running tactical combat. But when players show up to Play D&D they are showing up with the intent of playing at game of D&D and using the rules it provides. Its no different than inviting people over to play chess but you have decided that your not using the chess pieces just the board because you don't like those complicated moving pieces. Some people might play this new game you have created using a chess board others will be annoyed because they came to play chess not checkers.

I hope you get the happy checker players in your RPG sessions with no mechanics or rules and everyone has fun. I really do.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

The GM's story is 1/3 of a D&D game. Author's and story tellers have been around as long as poeple could speak.
The Tactical Combat is 1/3 of D&D game. War games have always existed without characters or story... Chess is 1500 year old game of two armies.
The Creation of Characters is 1/3 of D&D. Players are not showing up to watch a play or be themselves. The characters represent who they want to be in world of imagination.

I think you got the three pillar mixed up.

Moreover, judging by your posts, I feel like you've had some unfortunate experiences with the game. I hope you have better luck finding groups in the future.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I think you got the three pillar mixed up.

Could you clarify because that doesn't make since without context.

You do make characaters in D&D, GMs do run a story, and every character is built on rules that support tactical combat and role play actions. Player agency (character creation), Power balance (tactical combat), and rail roading (story) are all topics the developers talk about as the negatives of these 3 pillars. All 3 of these have existed in every version of D&D. That at least is not debatable because it is provable fact.

So what do you mean by "mixed up"? Are you talking about them all being equally 1/3 of the game? if so what do you consider less than 1/3?
Are you saying players characters and player's agency don't matter that much?
Are you saying Tactical combat is a focus with AC, HP, saves, damage spells, attacks, and overpowered or pacifist characters will not effect how the game?
Are you saying story is not important or a focus when D&D is often defined as group story telling and many character skills are not about combat?

Moreover,

I am not sure how me having bad experience is supposed to extend your point through your use of "Moreover". I am not make my statements about parts of the game based on personal experience. These 3 pillars are the basis of everything clearly defined by the rules and if you remove any one of these pillars you will be ignoring large chunks of the rule books that are not their by accident. Taking away one of these pillars means the game doesn't function as intended. If your gauging them as unequal in wight, that might could very likely table dependent as long as they are their but the saying I "got the three pillar mixed up" doesn't make since since a table designed with 3 legs might have have legs of different sizes but will still become unstable and fall with the thinest leg removed because it was designed knowing that leg was needed or it would not be there.

judging by your posts, I feel like you've had some unfortunate experiences with the game. I hope you have better luck finding groups in the future.

I have had some bad experiences but I have also had some really good experiences and I am in a good group now. This thread and the thoughts about it are the result of my GM suffering and me trying to figure out why. Then realizing when I struck on answer that it was something that had happened to all of my previous GMs and something I did in my games but not long enough to be a problem for me yet. You can also tell by the responses in this thread, that this is not unique to my table and I am not the first to think of this or to look for some way to prevent the GM burn out that it causes. Ether when I play or for my GM when I play under him.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Could you clarify because that doesn't make since without context.

You do make characaters in D&D, GMs do run a story, and every character is built on rules that support tactical combat and role play actions. Player agency (character creation), Power balance (tactical combat), and rail roading (story) are all topics the developers talk about as the negatives of these 3 pillars. All 3 of these have existed in every version of D&D. That at least is not debatable because it is provable fact.

Officially, the three pillars are combat, exploration, and social.

While, I might agree that all D&D games have stories, they don't have stories in the same ways novels do. Novels are written by an author, often with a specific message he/she wants to convey. In D&D, the story is a result of player character encountering elements of the DM's world and making choices. They can only be organized into a plot in retrospect only (even in a heavily planned, railroaded game).

As for character creation, I see it as preparation for the game, not as part of the game itself. The game only starts after the characters have been created and manifest themselves in the game world.

 

[Asisreo]

Describe to be how you pick the imaginary lock in my head that only I can see. Don't bother you failed because I didn't want you to succeed. Since their are no rules I am free to be a jerk and even if you showed up to worlds best lock smith you will never pick a lock. No one else in the area plays D&D and you really want to play? Guess your stuck with me. ... seriously. RPGs having rules is how we play with adults you act like 5 year olds and still manage to have fun without strangling them. This is true with every single board game, video game, and sport any of us have ever played. Why would you think it would be different for D&D?

I'm not against rules in TTRPG's. I think there should be a balance, though, between rules forcing predictable outcomes that may end up not making sense, like a professional slipping on random banana peels in a combat (crit fail punishments) or talking your way into someone's bed when they despised your guts and everything you've represented 5 seconds ago (rolls to charm). No rules do foster disagreements and misunderstandings, though, and rules help have everyone on the same page.

However, if your fear of "lack of rules" is because the DM is a jerk...no amount of rules will fix that without removing the DM entirely. So long as the DM's running the show, they can be a jerk all they want and nothing stops them. So the amount of rules won't fix a poor DM's behavior.

Lets assume your the best D&D role playing group ever.. one of your player's says the pull out a light saber cuts off your villains head.... what do you do? I know its stupid and it shouldn't happen but it does and now we have mechanics that define how you properly use a light saber and the clearly state you have to make the noise when you swing or its turned off.

I mean, I'm the DM, I get to say what happens. If I'm a good DM, I'll recognize that this is a fun and dramatic scene and I might just let them do it. I might also decide that they can't, to add tension. Whatever my ruling, I don't really need the rules. The rules are just there to make the game more predictable.

Its not worshipped or a sacred cow. All joking aside. Its one of the three pillars that make D&D meaning its esactly 1/3 of the game. It always has been if your play theater of the mind or using your using battle mats. D&D was actually originally created from a War game adding role play elements. At its heart, mechanics and combat were first front and center. Role play was the add on and the dream to make combat more. Character creation being the third pillar ties players into the role play through the mechanics.

The GM's story is 1/3 of a D&D game. Author's and story tellers have been around as long as poeple could speak.
The Tactical Combat is 1/3 of D&D game. War games have always existed without characters or story... Chess is 1500 year old game of two armies.
The Creation of Characters is 1/3 of D&D. Players are not showing up to watch a play or be themselves. The characters represent who they want to be in world of imagination.

If your not using mechanics and judging players by their actions and abilities every player who is foolish must play a fool because they can not increase that wisdom stat, Every ignorant player must be ignorant because they can not raise there intelligence, every awkward gamer who wants to be leader of face can't because they lack the charisma. Do you check for to see if your players can swing swords or pick locks or do you let them role their characters stats? Do you make them search your house for that key you hide in the attic before you let them open the door in the game world dungeon? .... if no to these then why do you make players persuade you with their arguments instead of roll? .... and this are not combat.

Combat is a pillar of D&D and just like character creation and role-play which skills based off those characters, combat also uses mechanics and rules.

If your not using the D&D mechanics and rules... your not playing D&D. You might be role playing. You might be running tactical combat. But when players show up to Play D&D they are showing up with the intent of playing at game of D&D and using the rules it provides. Its no different than inviting people over to play chess but you have decided that your not using the chess pieces just the board because you don't like those complicated moving pieces. Some people might play this new game you have created using a chess board others will be annoyed because they came to play chess not checkers.

I hope you get the happy checker players in your RPG sessions with no mechanics or rules and everyone has fun. I really do.

Not all TTRPG's are focused on combat like D&D, though. CoC is mostly mystery based and uses skills alot as well as sanity. Combat in CoC is only serviceable and doesn't come close to the amount of details or options in D&D.

That's my point. Combat isn't the end-all-be-all of a TTRPG. I believe you need rules somewhere to really enforce the game aspect, but there is no real reason any general TTRPG must follow the D&D formula.

Heck, there's TTRPG's that don't even use D20's.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Another useful tip is not to plan “combats.” The moment you decide a combat is going to happen, you shut yourself off from the possibility of alternate resolution methods. You might tell yourself you’re open to that possibility, but you’re still putting the players in the position of having to convince you to let them “bypass” a combat you have decided is going to happen.

Instead, give monsters and NPCs goals that conflict with the PCs goals and treat combat as one valid means among many of resolving that conflict. If the PCs want something and the monsters want something that is mutually exclusive with what the players want, combat becomes a way to decide which side is going to get what they want.

I find that setting up a scene in Roll20 pushes me towards planning "combat". The tool has started guiding the play rather than helping facilitate it. I need to be more conscientious about being sure to let the players dictate the course of action - most of the time. Certain groups (player groups and in-world bad guy groups) just want to drop the hammer early and often, of course, and that's ok. But in the "combat breaking out most of the time" campaigns, the DM would be wise to watch for those openings where one PC hesitates in an effort to engage the opposition in parley. Grab those opportunities so the game ceases to be "combat-samey". Even if you do run interesting, varied combats, it is nice to demonstrate the other possibilities on conflict resolution.

I'm sure many of you have seen Angry's Three Shocking Things You Won’t Believe About D&D Combat - the first of which is: Combat is not an Encounter, it's simply one means of encounter resolution (as you state above, @Charlaquin). One that certainly has a lot of structure that you can choose to utilize, but that structure doesn't make it necessary. (Now that I revisit that Angry article, the second point he makes would have been a good one to break out for this thread... but I'm sure there will be another chance in 6-8 months to revisit that topic, but I digress).