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

-snip-

I'd also recommend building your narrative goals into the combats, or putting combats into your narrative goals. Your point about combats being spacers between plot points is a good one to avoid, and you can do that by making the combat part of the plot point. This also goes to having combats often be about more than reducing the other side's hp. If you make a combat part of an escape, or a rescue, or preventing a ritual then the goal of the combat isn't just to remove hp, it's to do the thing. In this way, combat becomes the immediate obstacle to the goal rather than something you have to get through to get to the goal. Smart design here will make combat interesting to all sides, as it will now have a major say in what happens at the big picture level as well.

WOW great post! Motives! absolutely! Even a cockatrice has some reason for fighting. This also address an issue I have noticed in games where thugs trying to rob you fight to the death of the last man. This isn't just better encounter building and more GM engagement its plain better story telling. You are absolutely correct that many times enemies are just there to fight without direction and them having goals that don't even mean killing the party ... super rare in my experience. Thank you!

Also, I like "Team Monster" ... I am stealing that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I have noticed that DMs who focus too much on "story" don't like combats. You can see this a lot in so-called "heavy RP" games where combat is very rare. I think this is because of the stakes. If it's a life-or-death struggle, that could mean the "story" outcome the DM desires won't come to fruition if one or more PCs die. All those subplots they wrote based on the PCs' ponderous backstories would go away. What a waste, right?

The solution is fairly easy: Stop predetermining and then caring about particular story outcomes. Offer hooks and put challenges in the way of the PCs. "Story" emerges all on its own. Just play the game and story will follow. If the players are making fun and memorable choices during play, the resulting story will be exciting and memorable which is the goal of play.

Its been a big issue in some of my games and I think Ovinomancer nailed this with even as story GM if all your encounters have clear objectives it may very well be that killing the party is not fear because it is not goal. Robbers could take a parties gold and its not going to destroy your campaign, monsters might chase you our of there territory then having achieved their goal leave the party alone.

Also, combats can drag because a lot of DMs don't engage the play loop in its entirety. We addressed recently this in another thread, but basically DMs often skip the part of the loop that calls for the DM to describe the environment. So the DM describes the environment once, then calls on a player to declare their actions, narrating the results. Then the next player is asked to do the same, almost like they're in line at the deli - "NEXT!" If the DM, however, pithily describes the scene again as it currently stands, laying out the basic scope of actions, then asking the next player what they do, the pace quickens, players can more easily make decisions, and combat flows more smoothly.

I see this. It is a thing but I wonder if its a cause or an effect. I get the feeling if a GM builds non-lethal encounters where "Team monster" has a well defined goal and they get engaged, that the GM will be more invested in each players actions and the assembly line "Next" will clear automaticly.

On a related note, many DMs burn out on combat a lot because they are doing the narration for the players. A player might offer very little in the way of description, so many DMs take it upon themselves to essentially describe what the character is doing in the narration part of the play loop. This is basically like having a one-sided conversation which is tedious. Nobody expects flowery language or overwrought descriptions from players (or so I hope), but if the action declaration lacks a goal or approach, it puts the DM in a position of having a harder time adjudicating without assuming or establishing what the character is doing in the narration phase, which isn't the DM's role. Do it enough and you can burn out and start wanting fewer combats. Ask your players to step up and do their part. In my experience, they will.

I have heard this from my GMs as well, I have no doubt its true but it will be difficult for some players. Especially new players and players that just don't enjoy deep role play or are nervous when they are on the spot. I am not saying don't try but that you will get mixed results. However, another way to help the GM with burnout is just them having more fun. I think trying hit both of those and taking what you can get to work with who can get it to work is a solid start. Not expecting every GM to use every rule above or every player to able to effectively narrate their character. Best effort all around.
 

In fact, I’d say DMs who write stories out ahead of time are undermining the goal of play. If the story is already written, the players are merely acting it out rather than creating it.

I have unfortunately been a support character in campaign where the GM wrote one player (his best friend) as the hero and any attempt at something he did not script was meet with insults and complains of how I was playing. It took me some time to realize I was being force to be an NPC for GM story time. When I finally realized it I quite and have not played under that GM since. It was one of the worst gaming experiences of my life, but I know how to spot it now and I hope that helps me ensure that it doesn't happen to me again and that I never forget so I don't do it to others.
 

I agree with all points. I would also like to add: boring combat isn't completely the fault of the GM. Some players build their characters to do only One Thing, and to do it only One Way, in combat scenes. Then you end up with a bunch of players repeating the same action, rolling the same dice, and getting the same result, over and over again. And that's fine for a few minutes, but it quickly gets dull (especially for the GM).

It's easy enough to fix, though. If combat is getting dull, modify the monster abilities to change up the players' expectations, or even use completely new monsters of your own design, to push them out of a rut. There's nothing wrong with letting your players "spam the A-button" every now and again, but no two battles should ever feel the same. Mix it up if things are getting repetitive (or worse, predictable.)
I agree with you in general but I also have to add there are a few character builds designed by wizards that way and their are some strange expectations because of that. Rogues are looking to sneak attack every round, the barbarian is swinging his axe every round, but when the warlock built with agonizing blast and hex active casts eldritch blast for the hundredth time they give him crap. Sure the barbarian, could shove, but rogues and warlocks are very likely dropping that strength stat. I agree that changing the situation though can get different results. You put a flying enemy actually in the air and suddenly the barbarian is throwing things and the rogue is pulling out his dusty crossbow. Tired of hearing about warlock eldritch blast? But them in melee or have ranged emeries fall prone and see if you don't get shocking grasp or toll the dead instead. That might be a player issue but that doesn't exclude a GM fix as you mentioned.
 

I have unfortunately been a support character in campaign where the GM wrote one player (his best friend) as the hero and any attempt at something he did not script was meet with insults and complains of how I was playing. It took me some time to realize I was being force to be an NPC for GM story time. When I finally realized it I quite and have not played under that GM since. It was one of the worst gaming experiences of my life, but I know how to spot it now and I hope that helps me ensure that it doesn't happen to me again and that I never forget so I don't do it to others.
That’s rough.
 

Combat are as interesting as you want them to be. I know some don't like the minimal approach most monsters have in the MM and other books, but something to consider is that they also have the same actions available from the PHB. In a 5 ft melee brawl, have some use the Help action to grant advantage on an attack. Have a flying monster grapple, then attempt to fly up into the sky, such that the PC'll take falling damage if they escape. Have a beast drag away a fallen PC as to enjoy its meal (my group found this concept terrifying). Make sure the terrain can be used by either the PCs or monsters, and remember that you can shove PCs into treacherous/hazardous terrain. If using a spellcaster, know all their spells, and which two you'll want to use first (don't worry, IME by the time you want to cast your 3rd spell, the PCs will have changed everything).
 

Or just add additional actions to monsters.

I allow ogres and similarly Large humanoids to throw small creatures and inflict damage. I allow Huge humanoids to throw medium creatures. Using the halfling rogue as a weapon against the wizard is a blast for the players and me as the DM. I Large and Huge humanoids to lift, restrain, and squeeze Small and Medium creatures. Jaguars can pounce from trees and knock their opponents prone. Merfolk can grapple their opponents underwater. The possibilities are endless. All we need is a little imagination.
 

My players will tell you that the most terrible thing I've ever done to them is close a door. They're traumatized, it seems (especially after the second time in the current campaign). I don't plan on the door being a big deal -- in both cases it was part of the description of the room and noted it was reinforced with a bar. But, a player gets the idea to be clever and dash in to engage quickly, or trying to get to a leader or caster, or just not paying attention to the initiative order only to find that this enemy is more that willing to forgo a round of attacks to close and bar the door, establishing local numerical superiority. The panic, oh the sweet delicious panic that such a simple act can cause!
 


I have spoken to a couple of my GMs lately about why the ended campaigns abruptly or early before end of the story arch. The common thread I got in their answers was basically "it got to be a grind as the party got higher levels." Then I asked, "the players didn't mind, what why was it so boring for you?" their answer was basically "too much to tracking and waiting for NPCs to die before we could get back to the story".

This was months ago and I have been thinking about it a lot. Then I thought about other GM I didn't talk to but played under. I thought about when I GM'd, Eventually two things became clear to me.

#1 Many GMs only see combat a necessary wall between plot points. GMs often don't truly engage themselves in to combat and so are indifferent to it other than waiting to get past it so they can get back to telling the story they want to tell and roleplay they enjoy. This is especially true with story GMs but could in party be what drives many GMs to become story GMs after years of play no longer caring about fights and only the story which is often the GMs story and not group story including players and the GM. This leads to games on rails etc. Players on the other hand invest in their characters so PC death is huge for them and any fight pushing them even remotely close to death get them engages immediately.

#2 Lack of engagement breads lack of investment which leads to less engagement. I haven't GM'd a lot, but when I GM'd I always enjoyed the battle and I think most GMs do. The reason for this is simple. You don't have a formula. CRs and encounter calculators are not accurate at all and you don't have the experience to fix it all on the fly. As a result your engaged because your half afraid you made the encounter too easy and the players will get board and your half afraid your party wipe the group and be blamed for it. More experienced GM's start working out "their formula" then they adjust here or there to make it fit the story. They know how to read the party and they know how to fix things on the fly that are not working. The problem is they tend to stick with formula. They want to stay there and avoid any fear of the unknown or losing control. This leads to simple fixes like picking monster they party could easily beat and just adding enough hit points to make it a challenge, or discreetly take some extra hp away from an enemy who is has pushed players to the ropes and things are starting to look dice. The worse offender however is the ready to die through away encounters. Usually these are some mob out numbering the party of low maintenance 5ft melee enemies. 20 goblins with swords, 10 thugs with bats, or 8 dire wolves. Something simple so the GM can use as little effort as possible tracking little more than HP. Very little strategy will be employed large number of dumb enemies and the only important part the GM is that they out numbered the party enough to be considered a threat, as the GM fully expects the party to wipe them out or escape. The second big offender is the HP bag boss (or mini boss) who similarly doesn't have much to track but HP usually fights in melee range and has almost no way to actually use a tactic but has some massive damage attack he can use regularly or every time he roles a 6 on a 1d6. GMs will often turn interesting boss into these unintentionally to avoid the hassle of actually playing something interesting. An intelligent dragon is apparently so blind in their rage that they decide to fight on the ground in a cave instead of flying, while it waits for its fire breath.

I don't think these are slights to GMs. I think its just the nature of building something for other, finding your comfort zone, and responding to the stress and effort of being a GM. I think anyone who GMs enough is likely to end up doning some level of this. But then who suffers? Not the players, they are still invested in their characters and still afraid of losing them. The horde of goblins or the HP packed dragon works for them. It doesn't work for the GM who gets board with the encounters they create for their players. So I have been determined to make prevent this in future games I run. I made rules to that effect and if other people see similar problems at table and ether have see other GMs solutions to it or have some suggestions of there own please feel free to help me out.

Here are my rules.
1. You might need to do a specific encounter one way or another to include the 5ft melee mobs and HP stuff bosses, but you should never have to have more than once encounter in any standard game day with multiple encounters, in a single gaming session. There is no need for the GM to bear that.

2. To prevent entirely 5ft melee mobs encounters should work from a base plan up front that enemy groups should never be more than 3 times the size of the party. 4 party members will mean not have to plan more than 12 enemies. No more than 1/3 of any group of enemies of 3 or greater can be 5ft melee fighters. Likewise, no more than 1/3 for a group of enemies can be simple ranged attackers only. The other 1/3 can be made of polearm melee with 10ft reach (for opportunity lines, triangles, and squares), hit and melee (like rogues with bonus action disengage or monks with the mobile feat), healers, buffing units, de-buffing units, summoning units (summons will not count against the 1/3 of 5ft melee or simple ranged but should be limited to small numbers of re-summonings instead of mass numbers at once), I illusionist, Adjuration wizards or other protection casters, Area of effect caster, crowd control casters, and creatures with interesting mid range abilities like Nilbog who could go into any position but when placed in a group of goblin turn order in to chaos. ... This should ensure a level of options and differences that make encounters interesting to run and more engaging for the GM.

3. Bosses or mini boss fights should include lair actions, legendary actions, minions, and 2-3 bosses instead of one inflated HP boss when ever possible. Lair actions stir up the battle ground making it more everything more unexpected which makes it harder to predict and in turn makes keeps the GM in question as to if a chain of bad luck could accidentally put a relative easy fight in range of a party wipe. Legendary Actions through off the action economy of having more party members than enemies, minions don't have to be 5ft melee fighters they could be imps flying out with the dread lords loot to ensure he is gone before you get inforcements (and also to steel all the magic item loot you might have gotten from the fight had you killed them instead of letting the escape since they were not hurting you, or maybe they are going to get that patrol you stealthy passed on the way in and your going to have to deal with that in 2-3 turns if you don't stop them). A 2-3 boss fight can be dramatically more interesting that fighting one enemy for a GM by putting initiative at different times to hold focus but also by allowing for multiple tactics at the same time like a stealthy assassin who always hunts the healers and casters while the fight the other boss which might be boring if you just had one stealthy boss and players are having trouble finding it.

4. It can be fun to deliberately play a severely under powered group of enemies that should be an easy encounter because that can give you license to have a plan to actively try to TPK them expecting to lose. Its like a mini game for the GM, "ok they are likely going to clean my clock since they beat this same encouter when they were a few levels lower, but I am going to see if I get get high score damage done before they do!" Your chances are not good but things like Polearm opportunity triangles with guards can do better than their CR would expect. Its interesting for players to have to fight brains instad of HP and large pulls of week enemies sometimes. See what happens. Players don't generally do things like Polearm opportunity triangles because it generally means everyone is in the same class so strategies like this are also good because its something the GM can do which show tatics but player aren't easily able to replicate or ignore and they are even spread out enough and in a way that AoE spells have difficulty catching them without hitting allies. Small AoEs only catch one or two and large AoEs can get more than that without hitting ally targeted by the triangle.

So These are the 4 rules I came up with for myself. I am sure some one out there has thought up some encounter rules of their own to keep encounter interesting for the GM. I love to hear them. Possibly some improvements to the ones I have.

Thanks for reading and any on topic replies.

Edits:
5. Add something environmental to every fight like Terrain, structures, cover (full and partial) from crates and trade carts etc, weather! Fog spell as a natural effect, rain and mud for hindering terrain, a mid day thunderstorm for darkness and shadows that move, random earth quake, rain or snow or bushes and shrubs for obscured but not blocked lines of sight. (Credit Edit: tommybahama) Also water and dividing the terrain, choke points (on the monsters side or the players side), small rooms and large rooms. No room should ever be an empty chamber because one that is boring and two every change in the battlefield design will effect movements and strategies brining variation to combat even if the enemies are the same. (credit: Puddles) Adding door, pit falls, and other means of separating the party so that they now have one party member in an individual beat down and need to figure out how to get the party member back.

6. Assign motives to your NPCs in encounters. Even "Team Monster" has motives and knowing them will absolutely make running them more interesting and engaging. When you have to ask yourself "is this cockatrice attacking the part because...?" you get answers like territory and protecting their nest, so if the party runs out of the area the cockatrice would not follow but they would be willing to fight to the death if they don't leave. ...or... They want to eat the party and they would chase you along time if you ran but when you start killing them and its apparent you are not the next meal scatter and flee unable to reach their goal. Their is no reason the enemies need to trying to kill the party as well. Thieves might just want your gold and leave you unconscious and broke if the party loses. Its also possible that multiple members of the encounter have different goals. Some cultist your fighting have hired some muscle, the cultist might fight to the death but the muscle is in it for money they can't spend if they are dead. How awesome of your able to bribe them to change sides or get them to abandon the cultist when they realize this is losing fight? I live the Idea that enemies goals might not have anything to do with dropping the parties HP. If they can kidnap the head of the caravan your escorting or they are actually your enemy but they are trying to escape for reinforcements instead of fighting you... or its your job to put an end to them but they don't want risk their evil plans by adventurers they are not sure they can beat and only want to escape... for now. (credit: Ovinomancer) Having motives and goals instead of planned out comes means you can unleash player and open the door for more surprising out comes because roleplay might happen instead of combat maybe this become stealth encounter instead of the combat encounter you expected. (credit: Charlaquin)

7. Don't forget shared actions that all NPCs and player have that are not listed on character sheets. Thugs can shove melee party members to the sides to divide and conquer or make a hole for an NPC to make run though without risk of an opportunity attack to get to the parties squishy healer, caster, archer. Shoving someone down so all melee NPCs can circle them and attack with advantage or force them to loose half their movement while they all be line for the party wizard or the door. Grapple melee fighters so the can't move to aid allied or grapple one player characeter and drag them into separate room dn close the door. NPCs can disengage to run, regroup, and change targets. NPC tanks taking the dodge action while standing in door way or weaker taking it and calling for help. Ranged NPCs voluntarily dropping prone to give the party disadvantage for ranged vs ranged combat. Also, having enemies who fly or have stealth wait to attack until the party is engaged with other enemies. (creddit: Helldritch).

8. As the GM root for the monsters. You may know "Team Monster" is likely to lose but do it anyway. Its fun to root for the under dog and it adds adversarial tension like with any sport. This should make both players and the GM more excited about the match. Just like sports, though congratulate them if they beat your team in a show of good sportsmanship. (Credit: Lanefan)

I feel like dragon example is part of what makes combat boring, not more interesting, actually.

There's nothing more dull and irritating than a monster which won't engage, can't be made to engage, and does stuff like flyby attacks. If you want to make combat dull for both the players and you, by all means have a dragon who won't get on the ground and fight the PCs, but that's causing a problem, not solving it. Sure, having it just stand there and fight is dull, too, but PCs generally just don't have ways to stop a size H or larger dragon from flapping around doing whatever it wants and leaving when it wants.

5E has a fundamental issue here, though, which is that compared to damage from moderately or not-really-optimized PCs, all monsters are big HP-bags, and some are really huge ones. Likewise, compared to 4E, a lot of monsters don't have very many interesting things to do in combat, and those that they can do, often feel more annoying or merely like delaying the inevitable than part of a back-and-forth tactical conversation as they could be in 4E.

And awful lot of your suggestions aren't ways to make combat more inherently interesting, tactically or in RP terms, either, just more mechanically complicated.

6 - Motives - for both the PCs to be in the fight, and the monsters to have the fight, is the only one that consistently makes fights more interesting, not just more fiddly, and is more important than all the other suggestions combined, I'd suggest.
 

Remove ads

Top