D&D General Combat Against Player Engagement: A Systemic Challenge

[Jahydin]

@Jacob Lewis
Excellent write up. I think you've addressed the same issues I've seen over the years. As a DM, I didn't really notice since combat is inherently more interesting. When I finally found another player willing to DM though, making the switch across the screen was hard for all the reasons you listed.

Ultimately, keeping players engaged in combat is less about changing the system itself than about leveraging its flexibility to support collaborative storytelling. When players feel their choices matter, when actions carry narrative weight, and when everyone has a chance to influence the outcome in real time, combat ceases to be a pause in the story and becomes an integral, exciting part of it.

Completely agree with this as well. I think destroying the need for structured turns and rewarding clever narrative solutions the same way one would reward clever tactical play goes a long way to address this without changing anything foundational about the system. I'm sensing there might be some disagreement here though?

As a fun aside, the idea to do the quiet narrative bonus (since it's nothing I announce) during combat came from imaging a system where dice rolls weren't used at all during combat; only the weapon I was using, the armor of the opponent, how I was attacking, and how the opponent was defending was taken into the GM's consideration of what happens. Not entirely crazy - that's how my friends and I play-fought outside as kids. But being older, I know that doesn't make for a satisfying game, but I can't help but think the overall idea can't be used to add depth to existing systems.

I think this is also why I've been gravitating towards the OSR. I don't need pages and pages of detailed rules to make combat feel more fleshed out. My "squishy" computer is pretty good at coming up with a bonus on the fly depending on the circumstances, especially if it's just a small range like: -6, -3, -2, 0, +2, +3, +6.

 

[loverdrive]

I think this is also why I've been gravitating towards the OSR. I don't need pages and pages of detailed rules to make combat feel more fleshed out. My "squishy" computer is pretty good at coming up with a bonus on the fly depending on the circumstances, especially if it's just a small range like: -6, -3, -2, 0, +2, +3, +6.

Sure, but circumstantial bonuses are a pretty bad and clumsy way to handle the situation in most cases. It generally does very little to make the experience deeper. A good rule of thumb, I think, is: implicit > explicit.

Like, "you gain +2 to hit when attacking an enemy together with an ally", to me, looks like a band aid, a sign that the system just doesn't have means to mechanically express the concept of fighting multiple enemies. Hence, the bespoke rule.

A game that earnestly models being outnumbered wouldn't need such a rule—being outnumbered would suck as a consequence of other mechanics interaction together. As an example, in Elder Scrolls you only have 3 Actions Points per round and all the defence options (block/parry/evade) all require AP to be spent. Being outnumbered naturally puts you at a disadvantage without any explicit bonuses/penalties: there are just more attacks to defend against.

 

[fuindordm]

Interesting essay.

I can imagine a system where each player has a "react token" that they can spend on a menu of minor actions out of turn, including the opportunity attack but also bonus action, position adjustments, helping an ally, etc.

Maybe the main rules change is that players don't have to use bonus actions on their own turn?

Could be fun to try out!

 

[el-remmen]

I am blessed with two groups that remain engaged throughout. So this is not an issue for me when I DM.

But I will say I personally find it hard to remain engaged when it is not my turn as a player in an online game. I just find it easier to remain engaged when we are all at the table.

 

[payn]

I am blessed with two groups that remain engaged throughout. So this is not an issue for me when I DM.

But I will say I personally find it hard to remain engaged when it is not my turn as a player in an online game. I just find it easier to remain engaged when we are all at the table.

I was very surprised to find the opposite. I started playing online during the pandemic and actually enjoyed how on task the games were.

I returned to in person recently and we barely get anything done. I enjoy the game but feel like I’d get more out of it if it was online.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

This ties back into the questions about balance and system assumptions though. In a game like Dungeon World, I may very well say exactly that after the fighter rolls a 6- on their clash and gets put in a spot and hurt by the orc; now it's pivot to the Rogue and "offer an opportunity."

But that game is designed around the world reacting to player actions and declared intents, because everything you do either has a chance of not working out or you've manipulated the fictional environment such that you have a free opportunity to score a strike.

Daggerheart meters this conversation in a slightly different degree, to the point where such invitations to a player are recommended (along with contextual off-spotlight triggers). But the system is designed around that including its (biased towards the players when spending a standard budget) combat system and the roll-based spotlight switching.

I'm not sure how you bring these things in to D&D without either significantly house-ruling it, or affecting the already flimsy CR assessments - unless you wanted to house rule off the Attack of Opportunity / Reaction mechanic. I think there's a reason why newer games extending a specific aspect of the D&D play-space are tackling this issue with bespoke mechanics (DH's spotlights, Draw Steel!'s constrained version of 4e's triggered actions / off-turn Resource triggers).

Exactly—and that’s the distinction that matters. Systems like Dungeon World or Daggerheart are built to reward narrative reactivity. The GM’s “offer an opportunity” or the use of spotlights is baked into their core feedback loops.

What I’m talking about isn’t importing those systems into D&D or rewriting how CR or reactions work. It’s closer to a behavioral shift for the GM: recognizing narrative openings that already exist in play and allowing players to step into them without mechanical invocation. It’s not a house rule so much as a flexible interpretation of the scene.

In other words, D&D doesn’t need to become Dungeon World to capture a little of that energy. It just needs GMs to lean into narrative cause and effect when the moment calls for it, rather than defaulting to the turn sequence as the only valid time for agency.

The systems you mentioned, though, touch on something we hadn’t discussed yet—getting more results from every turn taken.

In D&D, every turn could move the narrative forward by showing the result of a character’s actions. The caveat is that progress often depends on success. If a character makes an attack and misses, nothing happens. The only real consequence of failure is that the clock extends and everyone waits longer for resolution. The turn is effectively wasted.

This, I think, is the core lesson games like Dungeon World and Daggerheart learned early: the story economy can’t afford wasted turns. In Dungeon World, the world responds to player actions regardless of success or failure—every roll changes something. That effectively folds the “adversary turn” into the same action, maintaining flow and keeping the fiction alive.

Daggerheart achieves a similar result through flexibility. Dice outcomes ripple across the table, and both GMs and players are empowered to invite participation between turns. The design makes it harder for anyone to disengage because the story keeps moving even when the mechanics pause. More importantly, both systems respect the players’ time and active presence at the table.

Just to clarify: when I refer to “narrative,” I don’t just mean the overarching story or campaign arc—it’s the story within the combat itself. We often see fights through the lens of gamers: exchanges of blows until one side falls. Even when we add dynamic terrain or shifting objectives, we can miss that each combat is its own story of immediate struggle—of position, risk, and evolving intent. Each turn, successful or not, should contribute to that unfolding tension beyond “Is it my turn yet?” or “How much longer is this going to take?”

When systems or GMs structure combat around that continuous narrative flow—when player actions naturally provoke the world’s reactions in real time—engagement becomes self-sustaining. Expediting resolution by merging cause and effect into the same moment, as these systems do, keeps players proactive and emotionally tethered to the scene. They’re not waiting for the game to come back around to them; the story is already happening with them.

That’s the bridge back to my essay’s argument: engagement issues aren’t always fixed by speeding up rounds or tightening mechanics, but by designing (or running) systems where every turn meaningfully contributes to the evolving story. When momentum and consequence are unified, even failure serves the narrative—and no one at the table is left waiting for their chance to matter.

 

[payn]

Exactly—and that’s the distinction that matters. Systems like Dungeon World or Daggerheart are built to reward narrative reactivity. The GM’s “offer an opportunity” or the use of spotlights is baked into their core feedback loops.

What I’m talking about isn’t importing those systems into D&D or rewriting how CR or reactions work. It’s closer to a behavioral shift for the GM: recognizing narrative openings that already exist in play and allowing players to step into them without mechanical invocation. It’s not a house rule so much as a flexible interpretation of the scene.

In other words, D&D doesn’t need to become Dungeon World to capture a little of that energy. It just needs GMs to lean into narrative cause and effect when the moment calls for it, rather than defaulting to the turn sequence as the only valid time for agency.

The systems you mentioned, though, touch on something we hadn’t discussed yet—getting more results from every turn taken.

In D&D, every turn could move the narrative forward by showing the result of a character’s actions. The caveat is that progress often depends on success. If a character makes an attack and misses, nothing happens. The only real consequence of failure is that the clock extends and everyone waits longer for resolution. The turn is effectively wasted.

I guess I take issue with the idea of "wasted turns." The character tried to connect with the enemy and end the fight, but didnt accomplish that and now the fight rages on. It actually feels a little worse for a caster becasue they dont get to at will all day long (in most editions) with their spell slots. I guess getting a potential bigger bang for their buck makes up for it. Though, that miss matters still alot. How much longer will this fight go now? What jeopardy is in store for this delay? I dont really accept the idea that only success drives the fiction, I see it more as a matter of perspective.

This, I think, is the core lesson games like Dungeon World and Daggerheart learned early: the story economy can’t afford wasted turns. In Dungeon World, the world responds to player actions regardless of success or failure—every roll changes something. That effectively folds the “adversary turn” into the same action, maintaining flow and keeping the fiction alive.

Daggerheart achieves a similar result through flexibility. Dice outcomes ripple across the table, and both GMs and players are empowered to invite participation between turns. The design makes it harder for anyone to disengage because the story keeps moving even when the mechanics pause. More importantly, both systems respect the players’ time and active presence at the table.

Just to clarify: when I refer to “narrative,” I don’t just mean the overarching story or campaign arc—it’s the story within the combat itself. We often see fights through the lens of gamers: exchanges of blows until one side falls. Even when we add dynamic terrain or shifting objectives, we can miss that each combat is its own story of immediate struggle—of position, risk, and evolving intent. Each turn, successful or not, should contribute to that unfolding tension beyond “Is it my turn yet?” or “How much longer is this going to take?”

When systems or GMs structure combat around that continuous narrative flow—when player actions naturally provoke the world’s reactions in real time—engagement becomes self-sustaining. Expediting resolution by merging cause and effect into the same moment, as these systems do, keeps players proactive and emotionally tethered to the scene. They’re not waiting for the game to come back around to them; the story is already happening with them.

That’s the bridge back to my essay’s argument: engagement issues aren’t always fixed by speeding up rounds or tightening mechanics, but by designing (or running) systems where every turn meaningfully contributes to the evolving story. When momentum and consequence are unified, even failure serves the narrative—and no one at the table is left waiting for their chance to matter.

I like your ideas but think we depart quite a bit here. I dont really care about the combat narrative. Its actually the part of the RPG that I like being gamey and quick as possible. So, quickening results, lessening complex rule confusion are acceptable answers for me. Get combat the hell over so we can get back to the interesting narrative bits which is the rest of the game.

While I get that you are not trying to copy mechanics from DW and DH, you are trying to emulate the experience they provide. I dont think thats a bad idea, but I do think its one thats going to be tough sledding against traditional expectations of D&D. I think you would lose as many players as you would gain in this approach. Though, maybe regardless of game folks are playing, the combat game and narrative approach and expectation is an important session 0 topic?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Just want to throw out some thoughts to shake up expectations.

1. There are RPGs which not just mechanically don't-penalize but encourage 'split the party' or other scenes with only partial cast of characters. How do they engage those not in the scenes? Do they provide any guidance, or even mechanical interactions like 13th Age's "Fight in Spirit" rule?

2. Is combat the main problem and if so can we just jettison the baggage? In most editions of D&D every character is expected to be a heavy contributor to every combat. In other systems without such a "zoom in to make combat last so long" don't need that. Some you might only have one character actually good in combat, like a single Hitter in a Leverage game. And otherwise it's just like the ranger tracks someone through the woods -- it's a short spotlight for a PC or maybe two if there's a helper and it moves on. Now, that obviously depends on the genre, but since I can't think of a single other type of scene that commonly has that much zoom-in and character-balance-focus as combat, it may just be that we're only overestimating combat as an industry because of D&D's wargame roots. Heck, there are popular PbtA games that don't have a single rule that's exclusively for combat. Take Masks: A New Generation. All moves, conditions, everything apply to any type of scene. It's the same move to stop a bus being thrown at a civilian as it is to protect your bestie from being trash-talked by the prom queen. So maybe we just nix combat-specific rules and make it as mechanically light or heavy as other challenges to overcome.

3. Even in games with structured combat, many systems don't have the ability to mechanically interrupt on another's turn like D&D's reaction. Yet they can manage to keep player engagement in other ways, such as short real-time to complete turns so they don't have time to disengage, or things like players rolling all dice so they are still actively engaging with the mechanics when it isn't their turn as they roll to defend against a static attack DC (like how if a foe was casting on a PC in D&D).

Thanks for these thoughts—there’s a lot to unpack.

I especially appreciate the observation about how D&D’s wargame roots create expectations that every character must be fully involved in combat. That’s exactly the structural lens my essay is exploring: turn-based systems inherently isolate players, and the problem isn’t combat itself, but how it structures engagement and agency.

The other examples—systems that handle split scenes, or that rely on quick resolutions or collective dice-rolling—highlight alternative ways to keep players connected to the action without formal mechanics like reactions. My point is similar, but framed around narrative responsiveness rather than new subsystems: GMs can leverage natural openings in the scene to allow players to act, maintaining momentum and attention without rewriting rules.

I don’t mean to suggest combat should be jettisoned, or that every system needs to mimic PbtA designs. Rather, it’s about seeing opportunities in the existing structure to sustain engagement across the table, and ensuring that every turn—even a “miss”—creates a responsive environment. A failed attack isn’t just a “swish”; it can signal openings for the adversary to act, demonstrate tangible consequences, and keep the narrative and mechanics in motion so no one is left idle.

The challenge here is that the idea itself resists easy explanation—it doesn’t come with a clear sequence or codified instructions. People naturally want to reduce it to familiar terms or straightforward solutions, and I understand that. I present it anyway because exploring this approach is more interesting to me than taking the conventional, simpler paths. Those familiar avenues are well-trodden and well-represented; they will thrive without my input.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Completely agree with this as well. I think destroying the need for structured turns and rewarding clever narrative solutions the same way one would reward clever tactical play goes a long way to address this without changing anything foundational about the system. I'm sensing there might be some disagreement here though?

As a fun aside, the idea to do the quiet narrative bonus (since it's nothing I announce) during combat came from imaging a system where dice rolls weren't used at all during combat; only the weapon I was using, the armor of the opponent, how I was attacking, and how the opponent was defending was taken into the GM's consideration of what happens. Not entirely crazy - that's how my friends and I play-fought outside as kids. But being older, I know that doesn't make for a satisfying game, but I can't help but think the overall idea can't be used to add depth to existing systems.

I think this is also why I've been gravitating towards the OSR. I don't need pages and pages of detailed rules to make combat feel more fleshed out. My "squishy" computer is pretty good at coming up with a bonus on the fly depending on the circumstances, especially if it's just a small range like: -6, -3, -2, 0, +2, +3, +6.

I think you’re hitting on a common pattern: in systems like D&D, the rules train us to express almost everything numerically—bonuses, modifiers, extra damage—so our instinct is to “solve” engagement or narrative issues the same way. The challenge is that not all meaningful contributions or player agency can—or should—be reduced to numbers.

A “quiet narrative bonus” or a GM-invited opportunity isn’t about giving mechanical advantage; it’s about keeping the story moving and players invested in real time. The moment exists for its narrative weight, not for a stat sheet. The mechanical translation instinct can obscure these solutions because it frames engagement as something that must be formalized, rather than something cultivated through timing, context, and attention. But, to be fair, it’s also much harder to explain and teach.

In short, some of the most effective ways to sustain engagement aren’t in the rules at all—they’re in how the GM and players respond to the story in the moment. I think some of the newer systems exploring this space are finding elegant ways to merge the two—mechanical expression and narrative intuition—but many of us are understandably reluctant to move away from what’s familiar. Learning new systems, investing in new books, and adjusting expectations can feel like more work than it’s worth, especially when the goal isn’t to abandon our favorite games, but to make them feel more alive. As gamers, we can be a stubborn lot.