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

[Lanefan]

I start character development as a joint act with my party and GM during character generation. Also, we use emails and posts to a private server for all downtime activities. This means that between sessions we still have "play by post" to a degree. What your calling character development is what I am referring to character creation. I just also add character generation to that because I sit down with my D&D books I go through the rules and follow them to make a characters. My definition of character creation is the combination of your character generation and development as one larger idea. I don't separate.
Since you do consider character development as and in game action then knowing this is what I am speaking of means you recognize and are aware this is very much part of the game. As part of the game I consider Character development to be a pillar of D&D of often called the social pillar. The only think I am saying is that combine that with character generation and call it the Character creation pillar. Why? Because I love making characters. I help my friends with their characters if they have issues concerns or complainants. I have a folder with 16 alts maid from different ideas I have had and if my character dies I find one of my idea that I like that I think would be a good fit as a replacement bring them to the table and develop them in game.

Yeah, it sounds like you're adding a fourth pillar here, that being Character Creation; which overlaps with but doesn't completely include the existing Social pillar of in-game interactions.

This fourth pillar of yours also overlaps significantly with another fourth pillar proposed a while back in (an)other thread(s); that being a Downtime pillar.

I guess I see the pillars, in the end, as representing in-fiction play elements rather than out-of-fiction elements; and that's where we're diverging.

 

[Lanefan]

I addressed this at length in another post. Dragons are people and should be RP'd as people. People make mistakes, including highly intelligent people. Sometimes they make very bad mistakes in the heat of the moment.

Sometimes, agreed. But not all the time.

It's outright bad RP to continually equate intelligence to brilliant plans or not making mistakes, and it leads to extremely boring sessions if the DM simply sees a monster having INT 15 or more and then RPs it as if it were calm, rational, and always took the best possible decision.

Again true, it would depend on the general modus operandi of the individual creature - some will be more rash than others, regardless of intelligence (or wisdom); others will be more cautious.

That said, the 1e DMG advice "Always give a monster an even break" still applies.

 

[Lanefan]

You know I actually agree with you there. I understand what Lanefan means and where he is coming from but despite you and me seeming to disagree with just about everything else... I don't consider excepting boredom as a valid option.

Assuming you mean 'accepting' boredom, here...

One thing to clarify is that player boredom must not be equated with player frustration; and I wonder if some here are doing this.

A dragon strafing the party from a safe distance is going to frustrate the hell out of the players, but I'd be surprised if it actually bored them. And frustrating the players/PCs in different ways is part of the DM's job, isn't it? Further, if I'm frustrating my players the chances are pretty high that I'm not bored.

 

[Lanefan]

Again, they are the ones that will survive to ancient status (or are on their way). The dumb will die.

While I more or less agree with you, there do need to be some 'usually' and 'mostly' qualifiers in there to account for the little dog that could.

Look at randomly-generated PCs, for example. Sure, most of the time the cream rises to the top as play goes on but every now and then some low-stat schlub makes a real go of it and lasts every bit as long - or longer - than those with far better stats.

 

[Lanefan]

Morale exists as an optional rule in the DMG.

Involving saves, fleeing and surrenders. It's not truly robust but it does exist in 5e.

Putting it in the DMG doesn't help much when it comes to showing players that not all fights have to go to the death and that fleeing is sometimes wise.

 

[Helldritch]

While I more or less agree with you, there do need to be some 'usually' and 'mostly' qualifiers in there to account for the little dog that could.

Look at randomly-generated PCs, for example. Sure, most of the time the cream rises to the top as play goes on but every now and then some low-stat schlub makes a real go of it and lasts every bit as long - or longer - than those with far better stats.

Yep, sometimes an underdog will be lucky and get to the top. Isn't what luck is for? But most of the time, talents, skill and planning will do a lot more than sheer luck.

 

[Scott Christian]

Well I can't say those aren't all solutions to being bored with fights. However the intent of the thread is D.

A. Its D because I don't want my GM who has continued to push through or me as GM to suffer if we can avoid it.
B. Its D because we like 5e as a whole, we have tried other systems but actually this problem of boring combat came up in all of the because of GM/player information disparity and a number of other factors that lead to this exist in other games.
C. Its D because less boring combat or more boring combat means your still not enjoying yourself as GM. Its better to find ways to make combat enjoyable if we can and generally we don't have complaints from the players so players don't want less combat. Making combat enjoyable for the GM so they are as happy to do it as players is more ideal.
D. Trying new techniques one at a time to see what we can do to bring the joy back to the GM will take some time to work out it represents a more univeral fix though it will take time to work out for each GM but even my GM was not aware of the problem before so only now are able to try and address it. I haven't quit a campaign because if it as a GM but I see now that I was on the path to the same thing so this is also a lesson for me as I learn to GM more.
E. Its D because my GM tried that answer first and realized the GM we were playing under was doing the same thing but worse because it was also painful for the players sometimes. He is GMing to be apart of a D&D game where we find these problems fix them and grow instead of putting our heads in the ground. If you have good GM that does not have these issue this is perhaps the second best answer. My GM is actually the on that convinced me to GM a few games so that I could learn and doing so was helping me as a player and a GM... but life happened. Hopefully I will get a chance to GM again but I will only GM for now with people I trust and I don't know enough people that I trust and are willing to play to do that at the moment. This is part of why I am trying to help my GM because I can't GM for him at the moment to lighten his burden.

We do play video games together on the side and we were meeting once a month before but I am still in favor of self improvement over avoidance when possible.

Again. All your answers are functionally correct. I just think D is what I want to keep the thread focused on because its the only suggestion that means facing a problem we discovered with what we love and fixing it so that we love it again. All the rest are technically avoiding the problem instead of fixing it. There are times when that has merit. I just hold that as a last resort.

I am completely with you. And I think it is great you guys are collaborating rather than letting the GM go it alone. Kudos.

And I also hope you get a chance to GM soon. It is fun/magical/beautiful experience.

For now, I hope you guys find what you are looking for. One thing I just thought of was minis and maps. Does your group use them? If not, maybe give it a try. There are plenty of cheap ones out there. If you do, try ditching and running theater of the mind style. That might help things a bit. I would also suggest your GM try creating his own creatures using the MM template. Have him make them spicy. Even thematic. That might help ease the doldrum.

 

[ClaytonCross]

It did occur to me after I posted that intelligent creatures are not always, sane, or have an intelligence that is similar to what we humans do. A dragon protecting her brood might fight to the death. An intelligent creature may make bad decsions. similar creatures with different circumstances might run away and then harrass the party with surprise attacks or just leave and never be seen again. You can't count on intelligent creatures using thier brains the circumstances of the encounter can change what is rational.

I think the key here is that doing the same one over and over again creates boring repetition and break immersion. Fighting a dumb, insane, or defensive boss makes since along as your not seeing it with every single intelligent boss fight. (Which I have seen at times). There is also no problem with players realizing mid way that this is not a fight they can win because they didn't plan as long as the GM provided a foresight warning and some escapes on the way. I even like the idea of a single one use escape item that teleports them to safety in the later game because then players have a choice... if they choose to fight unprepared to the death its just as dumb as every boss ding the same thing. That item is a gift to the GM to say, "I am giving you this... but that means I am taking off the training wheels and leashes." Making it one use means if they lose it the rule stands and its up to them to try get another means of escape or not moving forward.

 

[CubicsRube]

In addition to terrain, particularly dynamic or destructable terrain, i tend to write down monsters default actions. This is their Personal Preservation Plan (PPP). More intelligent creatures are more likely to deviate from the plan than instinctive ones, but I always create it as a backup.

One goblin tribe might be opportunists and their plan might be:
1) attack from a distance, or dodge if in melee
2) run as soon as 3 members are down
3) return later of ambush is a possibility

A group of goblin fanatics with a leader might be:
1) use help action to trip weaker enemies, or grant advantage on attack rolls otherwise
2) protect leader at all costs

The two goblin groups would be quite different, the first quite annoying and harrying, while the second more of a slaughter. As a player, you may not know which one you'll encounter until you're fighting them.

I have made bosses who's PPP is to run away at the first opportunity, using spells and items as necessary. Others to blow themselves up with the party around. Others who debuff the pcs while their minions attack. Others who do nothing but heal their side. Others who have no power but operate devices around the room.

Using different terrain and different tactics are what seem to work for me, although I always have room to improve.

 

[CubicsRube]

Putting it in the DMG doesn't help much when it comes to showing players that not all fights have to go to the death and that fleeing is sometimes wise.

Agreed. It with reaction rolls is something I wish was core and in the PHB. It's a great primer for new players to realise there's other in game options rather than fighting to the death each time.