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

[Charlaquin]

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.

Yeah, this can be a problem with any sort of heavy prep, but especially with VTTs where a big part of the prep work is putting battle maps together. I think grid maps may also have a priming effect on players; I’ve noticed that my players are more likely to try to resolve encounters violently when there’s a map and minis on the table and more likely to try to avoid combat when there isn’t.

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).

Man, I miss Angry’s early work, when he would do super deep dives on fundamental DMing skills. Lately it feels like most of his articles are starts to multi-part series he’ll never finish and apologies for missing his own deadlines on those multi-part series...

 

[Scott Christian]

I have noticed that DMs who focus too much on "story" don't like combats. You can see this a lot in so-called "heavy RP" games where combat is very rare. I think this is because of the stakes. If it's a life-or-death struggle, that could mean the "story" outcome the DM desires won't come to fruition if one or more PCs die. All those subplots they wrote based on the PCs' ponderous backstories would go away. What a waste, right?

The solution is fairly easy: Stop predetermining and then caring about particular story outcomes. Offer hooks and put challenges in the way of the PCs. "Story" emerges all on its own. Just play the game and story will follow. If the players are making fun and memorable choices during play, the resulting story will be exciting and memorable which is the goal of play.

Also, combats can drag because a lot of DMs don't engage the play loop in its entirety. We addressed recently this in another thread, but basically DMs often skip the part of the loop that calls for the DM to describe the environment. So the DM describes the environment once, then calls on a player to declare their actions, narrating the results. Then the next player is asked to do the same, almost like they're in line at the deli - "NEXT!" If the DM, however, pithily describes the scene again as it currently stands, laying out the basic scope of actions, then asking the next player what they do, the pace quickens, players can more easily make decisions, and combat flows more smoothly.

On a related note, many DMs burn out on combat a lot because they are doing the narration for the players. A player might offer very little in the way of description, so many DMs take it upon themselves to essentially describe what the character is doing in the narration part of the play loop. This is basically like having a one-sided conversation which is tedious. Nobody expects flowery language or overwrought descriptions from players (or so I hope), but if the action declaration lacks a goal or approach, it puts the DM in a position of having a harder time adjudicating without assuming or establishing what the character is doing in the narration phase, which isn't the DM's role. Do it enough and you can burn out and start wanting fewer combats. Ask your players to step up and do their part. In my experience, they will.

I have to disagree with your first part. The reason "story" DM's might avoid combat is because they play the combat as it should be played - deadly. The ones I know do not fudge rolls. They don't "alter hit points" when the party is near a TPK. They don't suddenly make the evil enemy have poor choices when they can kill someone. They say, "This demonic dwarf is full of hate, and the unconscious PC at their feet is going to fail their death saves because I want to smash their head in - in front of their friends." They are roleplaying the villain, and thus do it well.
I have known quite a few non-story DM's that do the exact opposite of what I described above. Mostly because they like to see the characters level. Those powers, and how they are used, interest them. They want to try out new creatures with different powers.

I know these are not absolutes. But they have been my experience.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have to disagree with your first part. The reason "story" DM's might avoid combat is because they play the combat as it should be played - deadly. The ones I know do not fudge rolls. They don't "alter hit points" when the party is near a TPK. They don't suddenly make the evil enemy have poor choices when they can kill someone. They say, "This demonic dwarf is full of hate, and the unconscious PC at their feet is going to fail their death saves because I want to smash their head in - in front of their friends." They are roleplaying the villain, and thus do it well.

This certainly describes my approach as someone who does consider myself to be “a story DM.” But in my experience I’m something of an odd duck as story DMs go. I love game mechanics and see them as greatly enhancing the story rather than being at odds with it; I strongly favor emergent storytelling over scripted narratives and to that end generally prefer location-based adventures over event-based adventures; I think most games have a tendency to focus way too much on interacting with NPCs and not enough on adventuring. In my experience most self-described story DMs would disagree with me on those points.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I have to disagree with your first part. The reason "story" DM's might avoid combat is because they play the combat as it should be played - deadly. The ones I know do not fudge rolls. They don't "alter hit points" when the party is near a TPK. They don't suddenly make the evil enemy have poor choices when they can kill someone. They say, "This demonic dwarf is full of hate, and the unconscious PC at their feet is going to fail their death saves because I want to smash their head in - in front of their friends." They are roleplaying the villain, and thus do it well.
I have known quite a few non-story DM's that do the exact opposite of what I described above. Mostly because they like to see the characters level. Those powers, and how they are used, interest them. They want to try out new creatures with different powers.

I know these are not absolutes. But they have been my experience.

There's a bit of hasty generalization here. I don't think that the categories of GM that runs combats as deadly (leaving aside the assertion that this is the correct way to run combats) are contained inside the category of GM that is a "story" GM. The idea that having a heavily pre-plotted game also means that you run only deadly serious, combat-as-war is not well supported (or even just supported), and I've seen plenty of GMs that definitely don't fit this mold (including earlier versions of me that were "story" GMs). I think these categories are, at best, orthogonal, and honestly it's more likely that a "story" GM is less likely to be one that strongly favors deadly combats. The end goals don't align. The end goal of a "story" GM would be the realization of their story in play, while the end goal of the deadly combat running GM would be to have deadly combats that can and reasonably do result in dead PCs. These do not often align, so I'm not sure your stance here is well supported.

That said, I don't think that running combats as deadly serious affairs is in any way bad. I do this, because my job as a GM is to be a fan of the PCs but also to represent the NPCs authentically. And that means NPCs in fights are trying to win, or at least survive, so it's often a deadly affair. I have no concern with killing a PC in my games (these days, it used to be a worry of mine) because I don't have a pre-plotted story.

 

[ClaytonCross]

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

Combat = Tactical combat
Exploration = You allways create a setting and explore it for some cause this is storytelling at is most basic.
Social =Your bring others to the table and they interface with the other two the GM creates using characters.

I am saying the same thing. I just did not use the official terms.

QUOTE="WayOfTheFourElements, post: 8086259, member: 6904757"]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).[/QUOTE]

Your definition of story is DRAMATICALLY more strict than mine. D&D is joint story telling which means Players influence the story. My point of saying authors have been around is only to say story telling has existed for along time one its own. D&D became something better in my opinion because it combine with the other two pillars meaning that none of the 3 pillars in D&D stand on their own and that Tactical Combat and Character driven interaction (Social input) make the story communal effort with tangible risks. Combat games were around but are better with story do drive their purpose and character investment which drives immersion and camaraderie in a way chess for example never could. You can create characters all day but until they join a world and effect it with soicial and combat actions they don't come alive and the mixing of players who think differently and constantly surprise each other and the GM is something you are not likely to see outside of writers room where they attempt pool several authors together but even more so because D&D lays some of the course on the dice which add a randomness that people writing a script would be desperate to avoid.

QUOTE="WayOfTheFourElements, post: 8086259, member: 6904757"]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.
[/QUOTE]
They manifest themselves in the world, change the world with their actions and they change themselves from the world (leveling) and each other by learning t work together to common goals and through struggles. They are the players interface to the world and denying characters to impact your world is the rail roading removal of player agancy you were just talking about. The denial of players is the destruction of D&D from social game to an author's story.

 

[ClaytonCross]

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.

Rules don't force predictable outcomes. Players and GMs make choices, dice make the out comes variable, and rule/mechanics temper the level of variability. Sure a crit fail in combat means you miss but it only means a Banana peel if the GM chooses to make it so. The rules do not allow for"talking your way into someone's bed when they despised your guts and everything you've represented 5 seconds ago (rolls to charm)" because by the rule players don't get to roll unless the GM calls for it. If the GM says it can't happen. It doesn't. If the GM allows for the role he is surrendering to variability not being forced into predictability. If the GM is telling a rogue with expertise in thieves tools, gloves of thievery, and reliable talent he needs to role to see it it unlocks its not because the outcome is assured, its because the GM has decided the lock is not impossible for the rogue and its not guaranteed based on the DC the GM set that the rogue will succeed. The role means near the GM nor the player knows what is next. Your never going to be free of individuals having disagreements and misunderstandings because our differences will create them however rules helping to have everyone on the same page is about the best starting point for conflict resolution you can have. The problems you stated are not caused by the rules but your table. Rolling a 1 in combat is simply to allow some change of failure the problems your adding to it are not from the rules.

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.

Players can be jerks too. More to the point disagreements and misunderstandings don't have to come from jerks. It is most often just the conflict created by two individual points of view. Get any two poeple to gether and they will disagree on something eventually. The rules helping to have everyone on the same page is about the best starting point for conflict resolution you can have. Nothing more. Nothing less.

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.

The rules say you let them do it or decide they can't without a roll. The rules are only there to moderate uncertain out comes. This adds variably in place of possible or perceived bias. It sounds like your allowing players to force rolls on you that the rules don't allow them to do. GMs call for rolles not players. Your creating your own problems then blaming it on the rules your not following. No where is there or has there ever been a rule that says if your GM says you can't do something role anyway and if you succeed tell him YES I CAN! ....or that you have to roll when your passive skill is above the DC of the test. Passive skill exist to the GM can hand wave unnecessary rolls. .... if you want you you can use 10 + attack bonus to say that a player automaticly hits a target with their sword... I don't recomend it because it makes combat more predictabel and boring... which is your complaint.

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.

True, but D&D was orginally created a rule expansion for a war game adding Roleplay. Combat is one of the three pillars of D&D. If you don't want to play with combat... maybe D&D is not the right game for you.

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.

True. But it is one of three pillars of D&D. If you invite people over to play D&D it is expected and a lot of what the game is built around. You can minimize it and try to turn it into something else if you want but make sure your players know because even if you don't like combat that does mean they don't. The point of this thread is not to make players happy with combat or to turn D&D into a wargame. Its intended as a list of suggestions to make combat less painful for GMs who have started to feel like its the worst part of D&D while there players are loving it. If your players don't mind having little or no combat and you don't want combat...than have little or no combat. If your players do want combat and your feel required to run some but hate it, I hope these suggestions can make it less painful for you.

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

Good for them. ? D&D does. Do your players want to remove D20s or combat? It don't know, but guessing bu your complaints they love them both and also push you around by calling their own rolls you did not call for as GM. I would maybe fix that at the table before worrying about combat. They can request a roll and you should consider it based on merit, but if you decide no.. no means no roll that character can make will effect the out come.

 

[Lanefan]

@Esbee wow. The DM rolling behind the screen... That was blattant. If I would have ever done that... my players would have simply left. I roll on the open. Every single player can see the dice and I would never break that rule. You were right to do as you did, but it wpuld have been better to call the DM to roll on the open.

I've been rolling behind the screen for 35 years now. They know well enough that if my dice want to kill them they're gonna die...

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Combat = Tactical combat
Exploration = You allways create a setting and explore it for some cause this is storytelling at is most basic.
Social =Your bring others to the table and they interface with the other two the GM creates using characters.

I think we differ there too.

Exploration is the act of characters interacting with and thereby learning about the world. When organizing the events of a night's gaming session into a story, much of the exploration pillar is emitted from for brevity, as is the case when reading the Lord of the Rings or every other fantasy novel. That is because stories are rarely about exploration; instead, they are about the conflict and resolution of completing priorities. I therefore differentiate exploration from story.

As far as the Social pillar is concerned, I agree that characters are used - both by the players and the DM. Nevertheless, I still believe character creation and character sheet maintenance happens before or between periods of gameplay. I see leveling up (character sheet maintenance) as a consequence of gameplay, not part of the gameplay itself. Football is the same, points are awarded for skillful gameplay and have an affect on the gameplay, but updating the scoreboard isn't really part of playing the game.

Instead, I would define the social pillar as negotiation, whether between player characters or between player characters and NPCs. Just as the combat pillar resolves conflict by force, the social pillar resolves conflict through trade-offs.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I do enjoy fights as a DM and player and I think you Identified the most bkring encounters correctly.
But even then you can make an encounter of 20 Goblins interesting by using the right terrain and utilizing their whole statblock. In an ambush, shoot and hide as bonus action is terrifyingly deadly even for higher level characters.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think we differ there too.

Exploration is the act of characters interacting with and thereby learning about the world. When organizing the events of a night's gaming session into a story, much of the exploration pillar is emitted from for brevity, as is the case when reading the Lord of the Rings or every other fantasy novel. That is because stories are rarely about exploration; instead, they are about the conflict and resolution of completing priorities. I therefore differentiate exploration from story.

I think this is too hasty. If you remove the setting and locations from Lord of the Rings, does the story remain unchanged? I don't think so. Setting is a character all it's own in stories, and you can't just separate the stage from the play -- it has it's own very important role in the story. I think you might be meaning plot when you say story, which I think might be more defensible, but I'm not quite willing to concede there without a lot more thinking on the matter.

Regardless, exploration is a key part of RPG play. Even in my Blades in the Dark game, which features a very confined setting (or appears to) and where play is laser focused on the PCs doing their thing, exploration of that setting happens all the time. Finding out things exist in the setting is exploration, discovering that this building has a secret basement full of old things is exploration, etc. These definitely impact the story that's emerging from play. In 5e, that exploration is even more explicit and critical to the unfolding of the story of play.

As far as the Social pillar is concerned, I agree that characters are used - both by the players and the DM. Nevertheless, I still believe character creation and character sheet maintenance happens before or between periods of gameplay. I see leveling up (character sheet maintenance) as a consequence of gameplay, not part of the gameplay itself. Football is the same, points are awarded for skillful gameplay and have an affect on the gameplay, but updating the scoreboard isn't really part of playing the game.

I disagree. Even if character creation/levelling doesn't occur at the table, it's very much part or playing the game. The game has clear rules for when and how leveling occurs -- to do it I have to refer to the rulebook! In this, leveling your character has nothing in common with choosing to keep score in football on the electronic scoreboard. Keeping score is part of the rules of football, though, so you're confusing a choice of method with doing the required play. Your analogy to football scores is more apt for saying that choosing between paper and electronic character sheets isn't part of the rules. Keeping and updating the character is part of the rules, but the specific manner of doing so isn't.

Instead, I would define the social pillar as negotiation, whether between player characters or between player characters and NPCs. Just as the combat pillar resolves conflict by force, the social pillar resolves conflict through trade-offs.

I think this is fair, although I think that trade-offs occur no matter what. The nature of the trade-offs vary between resolution methods but they always exist, even if just in opportunity costs. There are trade-offs in combat and in exploration, so while I understand the gist of your statement here, I think it's framed in a way that's too narrow and unappreciative of other trade-off occurring in other pillars.

To address the topic of pillars, I think exploration often gets ignored because it's not as explicit as the other two, or, rather, that we don't notice it when it happens. Here's an example -- let's say that we want to get the pie from NPC Orc Bob. How does this look using various pillar approaches?

Combat: pretty straightforward. Bob has pie, we want pie, we have sharp metal. Insert sharp metal into Bob repeatedly, get pie. Tongue in cheek, but it's pretty easy to recognize the combat pillar because it has violence as a result.

Social: Again, straightforward. Bob has pie, we want pie, we have pretty words and maybe something to trade for pie. Again, if two characters are interacting absent violence, this is usually going to be a social encounter. We easily recognize these.

Exploration: here's were we miss that the following is exploration. Bob has pie, we want pie, we're very sneaky and sneak in and steal pie from Bob. This is exploration pillar -- the challenge isn't to convince Bob or fight Bob for the pie, but to use the environment to aid us in gaining pie from Bob. This is quintessential exploration of the setting -- does it exist in a way that will allow us to get the pie from Bob? If the GM says Bob and the pie are in the middle of a featureless 10' x 10' room, then this is probably not going to work, but that's because we've explored the setting to find this out. If the pie is in Bob's bedroom in his nice townhouse over a shop, and Bob is currently working in his shop, so we can climb to the alley window, sneak past Bob's lazy basset hound Bob (Bob thinks it clever that his dog's name is just Bob's name backwards), pick the lock on the display case, and sneak back out then this is also very much exploring the setting. The former example of the featureless room is like boring combat or forced social encounter outcomes -- not a good example of play in this pillar. But it is still play in the exploration pillar.