D&D 5E DMs: How do you handle purely combat-focused groups?

[The_Gneech]

The other players, however, behave like they are eager to have combat the whole session, but when they encounter an enemy and it comes to actually resolving the combat rounds, they quickly start to feel bored if their characters fail to hit or deal some damage for a couple of turns, (mostly they don't try much interesting things in combat to gain advantage, upper hand etc. although I constantly remind them of such clever tactics) then it becomes like "well, it took us too long, when will we finish this stupid fight?" Hearing that I feel really at a loss but don't reflect my mood around in order to avoid a negative atmosphere around the table.

Wow, yeah, I think if I were the DM at that point I'd be saying, "Fine, you run the next session." You definitely need to discuss this or it's just going to disintegrate.

-The Gneech

 

[Erechel]

This is not a combat focused group, this is a powergaming focused group. I had this problem with a few players, and yes <i>it's bad gaming</i>. Even in MMORPG is bad playing, because they cut off any other possibility and ruin the game for anyone (or anything) else. And yes, I think that it can be solved with relative ease.
First of all, it's a matter of system. Probably, you are playing 4ed, which heavily focuses not in combat but in powergaming, with superheroic characters nearly unkillable and with exponential power growth. It takes a EXCEPTIONALLY good DM to make a more narrative game, and it's nearly impossible with that group. And by that I don't mean a creative person or a good narrator: I mean DM that can handle conflictive groups, that can surmont impossible situations like that one, and that usually think outside the box. Anyone can be that... once he had spent 12 years mastering very different groups and systems. Most of us are only good DM, creative, ingenious or good narrators.

Once you had surpass the System problem (or assuming that you can't or you won't because you really like it, but I warn you, some systems are better suited for those excesses), don't abandon the combat. Make it lethal and unexpected. For what you say, they aren't used to think, only to exploit mechanics. Bring creative NPCs, unusual combat situations (don't think stupid rule things like "aerial combat" or "submarine combat" as creative, they are just weird and expected) like a group of really nasty goblins, that use enviromental advantages and guerrilla tactics (preventing, for example, long rests) good but non magical nor lootable equipment, poisons and curses in ways that the players don't expect: halved HP or stats, impossibility to attack directly, dire "real life" or long time consequences (limbs losed, permanent poisons and deseases), inability to heal fast (I think that if they are using clerics or sacred magic it's a possible way to take away their powers, mages could lose concentration because they can't sleep for days by a poison or curse); you can make a lot of combat-oriented booby traps (like hidden traps, stake barricades, incendiary floors, unreachable heights, great coverture, mounted archery, use darkness creatively -make the torches or spells the only light available, that make of them a perfect pointblank for spears or arrows). Don't make every fight a dying fight. Make an obvious necesity to maintain alive a foe (again, poisons and curses). Resign solos and elites and build armies leaded by powerful, character based NPCs, and make them retire if they are losing. Make every fight fast and furious, and very lethal. If they don't apply creative thougt aside from the random use of powers, make them bleed. Don't use every time the combat grid, and take a narrative approach to the combat. This, although being very combat focused, teach them how to think twice. In resume: Give them combat, but if they don't think outside powergame, make them lose.

Then, once you had make a point about the possible outcome of a battle, make more explorational or survivalist gaming. If they don't paid atention to the surroundings, use snakes, ants, bugs, food, wheater, rivers, heat and cold count. They can't rest until they have solutioned the survival issues, reducing combat effectivity. Use magic against them: again, non combat curses, alarms that create impossible barriers to their pass, pixies casting "confusion" spells and making them get lost in the wilderness. Give them not other option for his survival than think. Make combat-focused abilities useless in many situations. Don't give them shelter, nor rest, nor anything. They have to track their foes, not the otherwise. Make the lesser enemies run before them, using torched land tactics. Don't reward with experience random or dull combats. Don't give them loot nor magical items.

Give them time. Don't expend all your resources in one session. Some players would complain a lot. Some players would quit the game. Get rid of them if you see no other options, but more than one will face the challenge of survival. Then you can use hints, diplomacy and interpretation later. Don't put mechanics above interpretation (for example, a mage cannot use a spell if he does not actually says the magic words). Make them justify their combat decisions. Make their weapons rot and break. They can take it if you do this gradually and exponentialy.

I'm a Highschool Spanish teacher, and a DM, and I know that the players, like the students, must be educated prior to play well. That don't guarantee nothing, but is a necessary step to improve. They are people, after all.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I recently begin to experience the dillemma of a DM that ended up with a lot of adventure material and role playing hooks, interesting scenes and colorful NPCs due to a group who are totally ignoring all this stuff and trying to find and kill the bad guys (that means those whoever is evil by race stereotype) and hurry the adventure towards the final goal. Too many times they just blundered into enemies, ran them through, killing nearly all those they captured, hiding behind the dull concept of ''we are good, they are evil, so we kill them''. Until now, because some of them are new to role playing games and coming from MMORPGs, I let them do whatever they like, but changed the development of the scenario according to the results of their actions. These results mostly include the bad guys changing tactics, relocating, scheming different plots, NPCs acting differently and following new agendas etc.. But although I worked hard to steer the PCs to a more exploration-interaction oriented play, they just dismmised my hints and advices, continuing the same stuff of doing things with the blade. Until now they were very lucky in the combat scenes, noone died because of their carelessness, they have abundant healing abilities (which I find way too much in this edition). But they were very slow to progress through the adventure (it is the Starter Set), since they were unable to get enough information from any source. Now I wonder, what can be done to make them see that there is a whole different part of the game, to make them think combat is not the only way to solve issues? Any ideas?

I fear you may have a fundamentally different playing style to your players. If you dont enjoy hack and slash, but they do, and they dont enjoy interaction/exploration, but you do ... there is ultimately no work around. I suggest talking to them about it. If that doesnt work, either become a player yourself (you may come to like hack and slash as a player, just not DM), and get someone else to DM, or find a new group to DM. The game only works if both the DM and players are having fun. If the two have very different ideas about what makes DnD fun, it just doesnt work, you will either lose your players or the DM will fold.

I suspect most groups find a middle ground.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

There are usually consequences for making mistakes and killing the wrong people because you didn't make the effort to find out what's going on in my games.

"You killed WHO?! He was the Duke's agent inside the temple, you fool! Didn't you get his message from the bard at the Green Dragon Inn?"

 

[Joddy37]

Ok, thanks for the replies. Let me inform you that my group got themselves killed, (only 1 survivor) in the Lost mines by the flameskull and the zombies, the campaign ended with a total failure. This occured because some players were playing in a very reckless way and they attacked the flameskull although they knew they were depleted in spell slots. One player, who was responsible hurrying the group from one encounter to the next, got angry and quited the game in a rage. I felt sorry for his departure, but yeah nevertheless some players were content with the ending and knew they made a lot of mistakes on the way and they thought they deserved a total wipe.

 

[Meliath1742]

Sounds like you had a "rogue" player that didn't agree with the lessons he was learning. I've constantly seen posts that talk of the lethality of 5E, especially at the lower levels. I've warned my players of this and so far they have greeted it with enthusiasm. They are a mature group that understands I don't give out that type of warning without cause.

 

[Joe Liker]

Ok, thanks for the replies. Let me inform you that my group got themselves killed, (only 1 survivor) in the Lost mines by the flameskull and the zombies, the campaign ended with a total failure. This occured because some players were playing in a very reckless way and they attacked the flameskull although they knew they were depleted in spell slots. One player, who was responsible hurrying the group from one encounter to the next, got angry and quited the game in a rage. I felt sorry for his departure, but yeah nevertheless some players were content with the ending and knew they made a lot of mistakes on the way and they thought they deserved a total wipe.

This is probably the best possible outcome, considering how the campaign started. I hope the players who didn't ragequit are now open to some discussion about how D&D differs from a video game. If the angry one wants to come back, tell him you understand that he was mad because he didn't "win," and then explain what it takes to do better. If he's willing to do those things, let him have one more chance. Both you and he need to find out if he is capable of enjoying the kind of game you want to show him, as long as he's actually willing to be shown.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

There are certainly strategies and techniques one can use to foster less of a hack-and-slash mentality. Some of these should be used VERY sparingly, but for example - one can introduce enemies that aren't actually interested in killing the PCs. An overpowering foe like a dragon might just want to toy with them for a while. A normally flesh-eating monster might be not be hungry immediately and might be intelligent and communicative enough to 'trade'. Other enemies might just want slaves. Less powerful enemies might be more interested in stealing the parties' shinies and running away. Situations can arise which require the cooperation of particular NPCs - and not all social interaction needs to be handled with die rolls. If the PCs run afoul of the law by slaughtering people in towns it is possible introduce consequences that are unpleasant but not character-destroying - for example a sheriff might temporarily or permanently confiscate weapons or other items while in town, sentence people to community service, fines, indenture, and the like. "Wanton violence is unacceptable within the confines of Some Town, however, the court recognizes your heroism regarding X and is so inclined to leniency."

 

[Piratecat]

Reward the behavior you want with the reward the players want. In other words, let fun roleplaying lead to the best fights, and let a lack of roleplaying lead to less exciting or numerous fights.

Starting example: a magical stone door in a stone wall. "I hide devious and brutal adversaries, and great treasure," says the door. "But you must convince me that you are worthy of it. Brag to me of the deeds you have done!" If they brag, the door opens and chaos ensues. If they try to bash the door open, it leads to a blank wall, as the portal was magical (and was destroyed when the door was bashed open.)

Another example: The PCs are told that a street urchin found a way through a cellar into a dungeon beneath the city. He's not telling anyone he doesn't like, and he only has 1 hit point. If they try to beat him up for the information, they'll kill him. If they try to befriend him or talk it out of him, they'll get what they want... combat!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Reward the behavior you want with the reward the players want. In other words, let fun roleplaying lead to the best fights, and let a lack of roleplaying lead to less exciting or numerous fights.

Starting example: a magical stone door in a stone wall. "I hide devious and brutal adversaries, and great treasure," says the door. "But you must convince me that you are worthy of it. Brag to me of the deeds you have done!" If they brag, the door opens and chaos ensues. If they try to bash the door open, it leads to a blank wall, as the portal was magical (and was destroyed when the door was bashed open.)

Another example: The PCs are told that a street urchin found a way through a cellar into a dungeon beneath the city. He's not telling anyone he doesn't like, and he only has 1 hit point. If they try to beat him up for the information, they'll kill him. If they try to befriend him or talk it out of him, they'll get what they want... combat!

These are great ideas, but sadly, getting combat still wasn't making the players happy. From the descriptions of play given by the OP, interesting and challenging combats were anything but that in the players' opinion. They seemed to crave swift one sided combats requiring zero strategy and ending only in glorious victory. IMHO that is boredom on a plate.