D&D (2024) Is Combat Tedious on Purpose?

[jgsugden]

...For example, I could start a campaign by running Keep on the Borderlands, Secret of Bone Hill, and Isle of Dread sequentially each as a standalone adventure at the time and with no real overarching story in mind; and only after the fact might I (or a player, it's happened!) realize there's in fact some thread or other that ties them all together and that I can work with going forward.

Or, maybe during that run two characters have developed a rivarly, pursuit of which now supercedes all other activity for a while. Either way, there's a story has emerged where there wasn't one before, and on we go.

I'm advocating for story inclusion. You seem to be agreeing that story should be utilized, but that it is ok to just let it come up in the wild rather than planting the seeds. Sure. Organic story development is an absolute necessity in order for the players to have a meaningful role ... but that isn't a counter to the point I was making. It aligns with it.

When you plant the seeds of story from the beginning it gives you more to play with (as a group) from the very start. It ensures you have something to build around. You're better situated to make sure your players have an interesting narrative to engage and be teased by. You have more tools, and more tools give you better options to build a better game.

Heck: If you go back to those modules and read their first versions you'll find encouragement to add to them to create story hooks and ties to other future adventures. They're giving a basic version of the advice I am sharing.

 

[Minigiant]

It is a better option for everyone becasue there is no single cure.

Sure but it was least likely to happen. And as we see it didn't

You keep saying this like its objectively true, despite numerous folks saying that's not it at all.

Because many people do the elements I keep saying that that prevent it.

Power gaming
Numerical magic items
Terrain effects
Many DM allowed, level appropriate, improvised actions

But if you don't, tedium can easily happen because, by the rules, there is nothing to prevent it and many things that cause it.

Played a one shot with a new DM. No one built a particularly offensive PC and we rolled for higher starting gear. Combat was tedious except for the last dungeon room with the dragon.

 

[Kromanjon]

I started with noting that sometimes, traditional games leave you in the position that just trading blows is already the optimal choice.

Making each blow deadly doesn't necessarily change that. Indeed, unless there is asymmetry, it probably incentivizes trading blows, as PC blows are also deadly, right?

Players cannot summon infinite damage out of the ether.

I would say that in a system where any attack can kill trading blows is never the optimal choice. Yes a PCs blow might also be deadly unless internal logic dictates otherwise (such as a small dagger to a giants foot). But apart from extreme examples let's say we have two fighters going up against each other. One is more skilled than the other and has a 90% chance of hitting while the other has 10% chance. Is it optimal for the 90%er to trade blows? Only if he's willing to take the chance of having a 10% chance of dying.

That depends what you mean by "through narrative".

We do seem to be in different head spaces when it comes to narrative as your example was still very much a rules example in my eyes even though the rules are in many ways narratively driven. Let me give you an example myself.

Back in the days me and the guys were playing Earthdawn 1st ed. In this game you could get heroic successes and we did a house rule that said that every time they did a heroic success they could narrate how their character performed this feat. It was amazing and some of the most epic moments of people flipping, jumping, spinning, ricocheting and all forms of inhuman maneuvers.

So what if each roll was a heroic success? What if the player got to describe all their rolls, successes and failures? Would this mitigate the tedium of just rolling attacks and damage?

I would like to forgo your answer a bit here because I think you'll have very good reasons to oppose my suggestions and I'm really not trying to change your mind. I get the feeling that you simply want mechanical diversity and I get that. I only feel that it's not a requirement to have complex mechanics to narrate a complex battle.

 

[Distracted DM]

I want to be clear.

I don't think Bounded Accuracy is bad. I like Bounded Accuracy.

I just think The Bounds of 8 points chosen for 5e in both 2014 and 2024 are too small.
This made the design team hit the "cap" too fast and caused an inflation of every other type of roll and an overuse of complex external aspects like bonus action features, spells, and psuedo spells.

12 point scale would have been better. A generic infantry can hit AC 22 if they are lucky. So enough of them could still be scary.

(Long rant cut for focus on the topic at hand)

I'm not clear on what you mean by 8 points instead of 12 points. Are you referring to the average number needed to hit, or attribute bonuses, or? Cuz yeah, it'd be nice if there was less inflation

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not clear on what you mean by 8 points instead of 12 points. Are you referring to the average number needed to hit, or attribute bonuses, or?

Leather Armor is 11AC.
Plate Armor is 18 AC
8 points.

It's make +1 to hit very strong even against plate wearers.

So we get +2 to damage and bonus action attacks, and extra attacks and +Prof to damage. And monsters get dozens of more HP

Which makes kicking a barrel at foes a massive damage penalty because none of this applies to barrels or flaming torches

So I Attack, I Attack I Attack, I Attack, I Attack, I Attack

Stretch the point scale and bonus action spam and narrow damage focus could go away.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm advocating for story inclusion. You seem to be agreeing that story should be utilized, but that it is ok to just let it come up in the wild rather than planting the seeds. Sure. Organic story development is an absolute necessity in order for the players to have a meaningful role ... but that isn't a counter to the point I was making. It aligns with it.

When you plant the seeds of story from the beginning it gives you more to play with (as a group) from the very start. It ensures you have something to build around. You're better situated to make sure your players have an interesting narrative to engage and be teased by. You have more tools, and more tools give you better options to build a better game.

While I don't disagree with you here, the DM-side risk in planting those seeds is that one might get too attached to watching them grow even if-when the players want to chop 'em down and develop a different story.

Heck: If you go back to those modules and read their first versions you'll find encouragement to add to them to create story hooks and ties to other future adventures. They're giving a basic version of the advice I am sharing.

What I find is truly cool - and it's happened to me a few times over the years - is when hindsight shows something that was never intentional in the first place can serve to tie a bunch of otherwise disparate elements together.

Even something as simple as the same wandering monster coming up by random chance in the same area every time the PCs pass through can point to there being more involved than at first met the eye. As in, why have they randomly met Hobgoblins the last four times they went near those woods? What are my dice trying to tell me here?

 

[Umbran]

I would say that in a system where any attack can kill trading blows is never the optimal choice.

With respect, the system dictates what is optimal, not our desires or play philosophy.

We do seem to be in different head spaces when it comes to narrative as your example was still very much a rules example

Yes, that why I led with it depending what you meant by narrative.

The problem, as I have stated it, is that the player has ended up in a position without meaningful choices. Any approach to the issue that does not give the player meaningful choices is not a solution.

Back in the days me and the guys were playing Earthdawn 1st ed. In this game you could get heroic successes and we did a house rule that said that every time they did a heroic success they could narrate how their character performed this feat. It was amazing and some of the most epic moments of people flipping, jumping, spinning, ricocheting and all forms of inhuman maneuvers. So what if each roll was a heroic success? What if the player got to describe all their rolls, successes and failures? Would this mitigate the tedium of just rolling attacks and damage?

"Do I flip, jump, spin, or richochet?" sounds like it was a cosmetic choice, not a meaningful one. If your choice between a spin or a flip doesn't have a chance to change how the encounter ends up, it isn't meaningful, and does not alleviate the issue of repetition.

I would like to forgo your answer a bit here because I think you'll have very good reasons to oppose my suggestions and I'm really not trying to change your mind. I get the feeling that you simply want mechanical diversity and I get that.

I am sorry, but you don't get that. You have, in fact, missed the point.

Look back - the game I mentioned is noted as being simple. I presented only two mechanical choices - one is Attack, the other is Create an Advantage. The latter is narratively diverse, but mechanically simple.

The desire isn't about mechanical diversity, but about having a meaningful choice to make.

Also, this is not about ME. It isn't about what I, personally, want. Please leave me out of it.

 

[Kromanjon]

With respect, the system dictates what is optimal, not our desires or play philosophy.



Yes, that why I led with it depending what you meant by narrative.

The problem, as I have stated it, is that the player has ended up in a position without meaningful choices. Any approach to the issue that does not give the player meaningful choices is not a solution.



"Do I flip, jump, spin, or richochet?" sounds like it was a cosmetic choice, not a meaningful one. If your choice between a spin or a flip doesn't have a chance to change how the encounter ends up, it isn't meaningful, and does not alleviate the issue of repetition.



I am sorry, but you don't get that. You have, in fact, missed the point.

Look back - the game I mentioned is noted as being simple. I presented only two mechanical choices - one is Attack, the other is Create an Advantage. The latter is narratively diverse, but mechanically simple.

The desire isn't about mechanical diversity, but about having a meaningful choice to make.

Also, this is not about ME. It isn't about what I, personally, want. Please leave me out of it.

I would like to continue this discussion in a more polite manner but I find your tone extremely aggressive and you seem to almost willfully miss my point.

The system does dictate what is optimal (I said this). If any attack can kill the optimal strategy is never to put yourself in a position where you can be attacked.

And yes it is a cosmetic choice. This was in fact exactly what I meant. This discussion was about the tedium of combat and I thought a cosmetic, or descriptive flair, could do something to alleviate that tedium.

I beg your pardon if you found I got a bit personal. That was never my intention.

All that said. Who cares really. I was trying to have a discussion I found interesting with someone whose opinions I found insightful and valuable but I could really do without the hostility so I'll drop this. Thank you for answering my questions.

 

[tetrasodium]

I would like to continue this discussion in a more polite manner but I find your tone extremely aggressive and you seem to almost willfully miss my point.

The system does dictate what is optimal (I said this). If any attack can kill the optimal strategy is never to put yourself in a position where you can be attacked.

And yes it is a cosmetic choice. This was in fact exactly what I meant. This discussion was about the tedium of combat and I thought a cosmetic, or descriptive flair, could do something to alleviate that tedium.

I beg your pardon if you found I got a bit personal. That was never my intention.

All that said. Who cares really. I was trying to have a discussion I found interesting with someone whose opinions I found insightful and valuable but I could really do without the hostility so I'll drop this. Thank you for answering my questions.

Fate DOES mechanically pressure what is optimal while maintaining the narrative focus of combat, on some leves it does so with long lasting hurt that impacts play backed by an incredibly steep death spiral when tested. @Umbran mentioned fate/fae's stress tracks earlier but didn't say much about consequences or getting taken out because those elements are so incredibly relevant to how this tediously trading blows vrs any hit could kill your PC. that bold bit of your post makes it both relevant and important to clear up some misconceptions.

In fate stress tracks refresh (clear) themselves often, but they are also short and taking stress beyond what they can hold forces the target to make a choice with two not at all pleasant options.

Firstly the player can take a consequence, but clearing those takes an amount of time that varies based on the consequence.. that time could be the d&d equivalent of something like "next session" all the way up to what might as well be a system jargon free "maybe after this hard cover adventure/campaign". I ran fate through most of 4e (dfrpg then core mainly) and some consequences I've given out that come to mind range from things like bruised ego and sprained ankle all the way to broken bones severed limbs organ damage and even "in the ICU on life support" in one case of an "extreme consequence". Consequences don't just go away, they step down so an extreme eventually improves by shifting to a major then eventually that major becomes a moderate and once again it eventually becomes a minor before going away. The entire time that a PC has a consequence filled it can be tagged by opponents and even other players to effectively enjoy the benefits/impose penalties to an attack or even just flat out "no you can't do that" with a compel the player needs to work around narratively.

The second option players have is to get taken out & it's such a terrifying result that both sides of a combat are generally quick to conceed so they can have a say in working out the details of how they lose. Frequently that happens early on as the narrative advantages are rolled out because the stress track is short and consequences are brutal.

For the record, a player expecting that trading blows was a workable option is how they wound up on life support in the ICU with an extreme consequence after a for took them out and declared they walked off to continue doing their thing with a comment about the party needing to get their fool to the hospital before he died (the attack would have overflowed past the extreme consequence and due to thinking trading blows was ok so were his other consequence slots. Given the options available to them, the bbeg & his allies let him off easy and he came back better prepared with a new PC the next session.

 

[Umbran]

I would like to continue this discussion in a more polite manner but I find your tone extremely aggressive and you seem to almost willfully miss my point.

From my perspective you were the one missing points by overlooking what I had said. So, I needed to be very direct and clear to prevent that.

The system does dictate what is optimal (I said this). If any attack can kill the optimal strategy is never to put yourself in a position where you can be attacked.

So... your character stays home and becomes a baker, and hopes the sourdough starter doesn't get any ideas?

It isn't like the player has a choice to never get attacked, except by never going adventuring at all. The game has combat rules, so we ought to concern ourselves with how they turn out when they are used.

And yes it is a cosmetic choice. This was in fact exactly what I meant. This discussion was about the tedium of combat and I thought a cosmetic, or descriptive flair, could do something to alleviate that tedium.

Except I had specifically noted the issue of repetition arose in situation in which the player lacked useful choices. Cosmetic solutions do not change that situation.

Which is why I brought up games where you have cosmetically colorful things you can add to the scene that also have mechanical benefit, relieving the "I can't find anything else do to" situation. This as a contrast to D&D, in which the player is stepping outside the rules when they try such.

While we talk a lot about how D&D is a game in which you can try anything, it has never had good guidance for GMs on how to handle it when players do, in fact, try anything. Lacking that guidance, many GMs say no, or their spur-of-the-moment rulings on them make them difficult or ineffective, leaving the player in the space where it seems the optimal choice is just repeating the basic attack.

Fate took the step of making a standard rule for much of "try anything". In doing so, they actually limited the explicit tactical depth of the ruleset, moving tactical choices more into the narrative aspects of the game. You have to tell the story of a tactically interesting situation, rather than look at the rules to give you tactical choices.

I beg your pardon if you found I got a bit personal. That was never my intention.

It is hard to see how telling me what I want is not personal, nor intentional, but having made that point I can let it go.