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

[Stormonu]

Of late, I've been finding myself bored with the constant combat (and the level of detail) that seems to crop up in 5E. It's really been making me consider running OSE or possibly 2E to get past the combat mini-game and back to the exploration and story-telling pillars and not have my 4-hour sessions dominated by 1 or maybe 2 combats.

But, speeding up combat doesn't necessarily mean that my players will be more engaged all in itself - there's some who really get into it (and I do myself, sometimes) and others just want to do the "I attack, I hit, I do damage" and want to move on to something else. It's finding what interests the group - and keeping the group small that, to me, will keep them engaged. Some like puzzles, some like interacting with NPCs, others like exploring strange areas or even creating new and strange things for the world. And of course, some like combat. It's finding that balance where no one thing where folks tune out that is difficult. It used to be watching for the players building dice blocks or doodling on their character sheet. Nowadays, its getting people to look up from their phone or take off/out the earphones and pay attention.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That’s a great example of how player and system expectations shape what we even try at the table. I’m not very familiar with Traveller, but it sounds similar to another system I’ve used—FFG’s Star Wars RPG—which encourages improvisation because its mechanics assume flexible use of skills in dynamic situations. D&D, by contrast, conditions us to look for codified options—to act through the verbs the system explicitly supports. So even when everyone’s open to more narrative engagement, the structure itself tends to narrow what feels “legal.”

When I first decided to learn how to run Star Wars, I invited my regular D&D group to figure it out with me as players. My first mistake was bringing our expectations from D&D into a game that plays by very different principles. I was comfortable improvising and playing scenes out, but my players—many of them DMs themselves—struggled with crossing the traditional GM/player line to take creative liberties and shape the world in motion.

It also took time for me to retrain my own D&D instincts—to approach a system that cared more about telling a story collaboratively than about executing structured procedures. It took the better part of a year before things started to click, and it only came together when I found a group that both understood the system and loved Star Wars. That campaign ended up being one of the best I’ve ever run, and more importantly, it changed how I look at all game systems.

One quick example: during a D&D combat encounter, a player once asked how high the ceiling was. It’s not something I usually note down, but he clearly had something in mind. Rather than risk guessing wrong and shutting down his idea, I just asked him how high he needed it to be. The world wouldn’t collapse if that room’s ceiling changed from nine to twelve feet—but it would change how that moment played out for him.

I know that doesn’t speak directly to any mechanics of the game, but I think it illustrates the same principles we’ve been discussing here—how narrative framing and player agency can shift the experience even when nothing mechanical changes.

For me, the question isn’t about bypassing or undercutting D&D’s combat system, but about reframing what that system serves. If the mechanics exist to resolve uncertainty, they can still do that while being prompted by narrative intent rather than tactical procedure. The challenge, as you said, is alignment—getting both GM and players to agree that narrative flexibility isn’t a violation of the system, but an evolution of its intent.

All of that assumes of course that narrative intent is one of your groups goals, or the game's. If you don't see collaborative storytelling as the primary purpose of your RPG play, then you need to find a different solution to the problem presented by the OP.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

While I enjoyed the essay, I don't believe the solution--as presented--will work with any modern version of D&D.

The rules of modern D&D are way to codified to essentially ignore like that. You are going to need some solid, consistent house-rules for interrupts that work in a balanced way with the existing turn order and action economy.

I would welcome such rules, because I think you have some great points, and allowing players to jump in and act out of turn in direct response to what's going on would help maintain off-turn attention.

 

[Distracted 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.

Same. I had to accept that I really can't have a good time as a player in an online game... For me it's not even restricted to combat, I'll get distracted/uninterested during exploration etc. I definitely get a lot of juice from doing this stuff in-person.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Yeap, ive run into more "wake me up when combat starts" types than combat disengagers!

While I understand if a player enjoys combat the most, I do not understand the sort of person that just sits there waiting until combat starts, not engaging with anything. Gaming is a not insignificant commitment of time, and you're purposefully idling during anything that's not Your One Thing.

 

[payn]

While I understand if a player enjoys combat the most, I do not understand the sort of person that just sits there waiting until combat starts, not engaging with anything. Gaming is a not insignificant commitment of time, and you're purposefully idling during anything that's not Your One Thing.

Depends on the group. I mean, the rule book is 80-90% combat stuff. So, its not like folks are wrong to think its a significant part of the game, but I don't understand it either. As a wargamer id rather be playing something thats all good stuff all the time. Though, a lot of these groups form from friend groups to spend time together so its often not optimal play, but get the gang together play. So, combat Bob is quiet during non-combat parts of the game.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Depends on the group. I mean, the rule book is 80-90% combat stuff. So, its not like folks are wrong to think its a significant part of the game, but I don't understand it either. As a wargamer id rather be playing something thats all good stuff all the time. Though, a lot of these groups form from friend groups to spend time together so its often not optimal play, but get the gang together play. So, combat Bob is quiet during non-combat parts of the game.

As I've gotten older, I've learned not to underestimate the appeal of the social outside-the-game elements. That being said, completely divesting yourself of the game until you hear the words "roll initiative" boggles my mind.

 

[Piperken]

...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.

Could be fun to try out!

This is Belonging Outside Belonging's (Dream Askew/Apart, Wanderhome, and so on) rule set. All your Moves and Strong Moves featured in a character's Playbook require you to spend a token. To gain a token, you submit to a Weak Move. You begin with zero.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

One possible unintended side effect of this is that the DM is often running a bunch of somewhat-intelligent adversaries at once, and having to be aware of all these openings-to-act all the time will a) add to the DM's cognitive workload and b) threaten to slow things down while she processes her options.

Another, and I think much more likely, unintended side effect of this idea is that adding more opportunities for more participants to respond to each action in combat is going to make combats take a lot longer to resolve. Just because a player is engaged doesn't mean he's decisive in what response he wants his character to make or even aware that his character can respond right now; meaning in aggregate that each round in each combat will take considerably longer to resolve at the table.

 

[Piperken]

I enjoyed reading this perspective, although I felt at instances a little too much is made of the cage set up around combat in D&D.

It's set up, you can always take it down. What prevents you (or your table) from doing so?

Another thought that came to mind is that having awareness of what kinds of activities are engaging to players as a table runner, should show in some measure towards what kinds of situations present themselves in game.

Have several players that check out in combat, but like to solve puzzles? Rather than having your 11ty billionth, bog standard run in with goblins, have a puzzle that will be beneficial in some way if the party can give their companions time to solve it, while fighting goblins. Oh, and some number of those greenskins, have just peeled off down a different corridor to seek more help.