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

[Asisreo]

Rules don't force predictable outcomes. Players and GMs make choices, dice make the out comes variable, and rule/mechanics temper the level of variability. Sure a crit fail in combat means you miss but it only means a Banana peel if the GM chooses to make it so. The rules do not allow for"talking your way into someone's bed when they despised your guts and everything you've represented 5 seconds ago (rolls to charm)" because by the rule players don't get to roll unless the GM calls for it. If the GM says it can't happen. It doesn't. If the GM allows for the role he is surrendering to variability not being forced into predictability. If the GM is telling a rogue with expertise in thieves tools, gloves of thievery, and reliable talent he needs to role to see it it unlocks its not because the outcome is assured, its because the GM has decided the lock is not impossible for the rogue and its not guaranteed based on the DC the GM set that the rogue will succeed. The role means near the GM nor the player knows what is next. Your never going to be free of individuals having disagreements and misunderstandings because our differences will create them however rules helping to have everyone on the same page is about the best starting point for conflict resolution you can have. The problems you stated are not caused by the rules but your table. Rolling a 1 in combat is simply to allow some change of failure the problems your adding to it are not from the rules.

When I'm talking about these rules, I'm thinking of a hypothetical where the rules may be deeper than even the spellcasting or regular combat rules.

I'm talking about rules where the DM doesn't decide. Maybe the designers added a table, so it's no longer the DM's choice about crit fails. Maybe there's now a step-by-step procedure to bring someone anyone into your bed with a set DC and a set number of rolls, like a skill challenge.

These rules take away DM adjudication in favor for a more algorithmic process.

Players can be jerks too. More to the point disagreements and misunderstandings don't have to come from jerks. It is most often just the conflict created by two individual points of view. Get any two poeple to gether and they will disagree on something eventually. The rules helping to have everyone on the same page is about the best starting point for conflict resolution you can have. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Nothing good ol' fashion communication can't fix. Ultimately, communication errors exist with rules as-well. A DM might believe you're casting the "friends" cantrip when you say you want to make an NPC your friend. It's easy to say "Oh, that wasn't my intention, my intention was this..."

The DM is the final arbiter, though. If you disagree with the DM, know that it just might be because the DM has other things in motion that you can't see, assuming they're a good DM.

The rules say you let them do it or decide they can't without a roll. The rules are only there to moderate uncertain out comes. This adds variably in place of possible or perceived bias. It sounds like your allowing players to force rolls on you that the rules don't allow them to do. GMs call for rolles not players. Your creating your own problems then blaming it on the rules your not following. No where is there or has there ever been a rule that says if your GM says you can't do something role anyway and if you succeed tell him YES I CAN! ....or that you have to roll when your passive skill is above the DC of the test. Passive skill exist to the GM can hand wave unnecessary rolls. .... if you want you you can use 10 + attack bonus to say that a player automaticly hits a target with their sword... I don't recomend it because it makes combat more predictabel and boring... which is your complaint.

True, but D&D was orginally created a rule expansion for a war game adding Roleplay. Combat is one of the three pillars of D&D. If you don't want to play with combat... maybe D&D is not the right game for you.



True. But it is one of three pillars of D&D. If you invite people over to play D&D it is expected and a lot of what the game is built around. You can minimize it and try to turn it into something else if you want but make sure your players know because even if you don't like combat that does mean they don't. The point of this thread is not to make players happy with combat or to turn D&D into a wargame. Its intended as a list of suggestions to make combat less painful for GMs who have started to feel like its the worst part of D&D while there players are loving it. If your players don't mind having little or no combat and you don't want combat...than have little or no combat. If your players do want combat and your feel required to run some but hate it, I hope these suggestions can make it less painful for you.



Good for them. ? D&D does. Do your players want to remove D20s or combat? It don't know, but guessing bu your complaints they love them both and also push you around by calling their own rolls you did not call for as GM. I would maybe fix that at the table before worrying about combat. They can request a roll and you should consider it based on merit, but if you decide no.. no means no roll that character can make will effect the out come.

Let me be clear: I'm not complaining about anything. I personally find combat extremely fun and don't feel the need to change it one way or the other. I'm enjoying 5e for what it is and so are my players.

I'm talking about in-general if you aren't feeling combat, it isn't the holy grail of a good campaign in a game. If combat is painful for a DM, maybe adjust the rules to be easier to track. Use tokens for spells areas, reduce HP, reduce AC, increase damage, etc.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, yes, the reason I put "story" in quotations marks was because I wasn't sure what definition for it was being used. The one you use wasn't at all what I use, nor do I think it really falls inside the general thinking of that term. If a "story" GM is really only concerned about the players achieving their character's story, then there's a large reversal between trends in how traditional gaming approaches work and the indie/OSR rebellion against those trends. Focusing on the character's story isn't at all what I consider a "story" GM. The quintessential example of a "story" GM is the Adventure Path -- it has a prescripted story that the players navigate through, perhaps having side stories of their own, but the overall story is already largely written. This is "story" GMing, and it's goal is to see that prescripted story unfold to completion, with or without PC stories alongside. Given your beliefs in the other thread about A to B to C plotting being quite common in traditional play, I'm a bit surprised to see you advocating for unscripted character driven play here as being "story" GMing. I still strongly think your definition of "story" GMing is misplaced

To be fair, I definitely wouldn’t be a “story DM” by that definition, yet I would consider myself a “story DM.” But it’s an identity I wear with some trepidation (much as I do the identity of “gamer”) because this is the connotation I think it usually carries.

To me, “story DM” just literally means a DM who prioritizes story in their games. Creating fun, memorable stories is the primary goal of play for me, so I consider myself a story DM. I think, however, that a lot of people who consider themselves story DMs go about trying to create fun memorable stories in a way that negatively impacts the player experience - Planning out the story ahead of time, or fudging dice rolls because they think it will make for a better story.

 

[Scott Christian]

Hasty generalizations aren't good things, though, they're a mistake in supporting an argument. I went back and read the section of the thread, and I don't see @Charlaquin making the same claim you did, or at least my best effort in understanding the claim you made, which appears to be off due to other things.

If I had to sit back and fully analyze, I would say DM's shift, both in the campaign and in their stage of life. Some DM's start out as combat encounter DM's, and then ten years down the road, after experiencing or seeing something new, shift to more of a hybrid. Some shift from the beginning of the campaign to the end because the players pushed it more in that direction. And others shift session by session. These too, are generalizations. But, if you need to try and define something, we can say there are DM's out there that are more story oriented and others that are more combat driven. I think that is a fair generalization.
I have not experienced that story GM's are less likely to favor deadly combats. In my experience, they are much more often to favor deadly encounters. They play the villain as a villain, not as someone who is there to "test" the PC's powers. They even do things that are unfair. Most combat DM's I know would never do that because they want things to be even - level against level. Story DM's don't care about level. They care about story. And if their PC's insist on sneaking into the adult dragon lair at first level, they are allowed to do so. But the consequences might be grave. The combat DM would set it up that they can't get in until they are the appropriate level.
The end goal of a story DM is not to complete their story. It is to complete the character's story And if their story ends in a dramatic attempt to let the others escape while being burnt alive by that dragon, that is a great character arc! The others just experienced a great story; "We entered a dragon's lair and escaped with this (fill in the blank)." Or they might all die, leaving their story as more lore for the player's new characters. A statue erected in their honor for being so brave, a children's book written about them. A local pie named after one of the character's, it has blueberries on top to resemble their blue eyes. And a copy of the map that the PC's are able to find. All this adds to the story. Every descent story DM I know would do something like this. Your experiences might differ.

So, yes, the reason I put "story" in quotations marks was because I wasn't sure what definition for it was being used. The one you use wasn't at all what I use, nor do I think it really falls inside the general thinking of that term. If a "story" GM is really only concerned about the players achieving their character's story, then there's a large reversal between trends in how traditional gaming approaches work and the indie/OSR rebellion against those trends. Focusing on the character's story isn't at all what I consider a "story" GM. The quintessential example of a "story" GM is the Adventure Path -- it has a prescripted story that the players navigate through, perhaps having side stories of their own, but the overall story is already largely written. This is "story" GMing, and it's goal is to see that prescripted story unfold to completion, with or without PC stories alongside. Given your beliefs in the other thread about A to B to C plotting being quite common in traditional play, I'm a bit surprised to see you advocating for unscripted character driven play here as being "story" GMing. I still strongly think your definition of "story" GMing is misplaced.

However, in that regard, there's little daylight between our opinions of how a GM focused on character driven play will usually approach combat or other play.
[/QUOTE]
My bad. Sorry Charlaquin. My apologies. Iserith was the reference:

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.

 

[Scott Christian]

So, yes, the reason I put "story" in quotations marks was because I wasn't sure what definition for it was being used. The one you use wasn't at all what I use, nor do I think it really falls inside the general thinking of that term. If a "story" GM is really only concerned about the players achieving their character's story, then there's a large reversal between trends in how traditional gaming approaches work and the indie/OSR rebellion against those trends. Focusing on the character's story isn't at all what I consider a "story" GM. The quintessential example of a "story" GM is the Adventure Path -- it has a prescripted story that the players navigate through, perhaps having side stories of their own, but the overall story is already largely written. This is "story" GMing, and it's goal is to see that prescripted story unfold to completion, with or without PC stories alongside. Given your beliefs in the other thread about A to B to C plotting being quite common in traditional play, I'm a bit surprised to see you advocating for unscripted character driven play here as being "story" GMing. I still strongly think your definition of "story" GMing is misplaced.

However, in that regard, there's little daylight between our opinions of how a GM focused on character driven play will usually approach combat or other play.

I understand that we play AP's differently. I have played in an AP where each player on average had to make three characters just to finish it. That was from a "story" DM. I have played in an AP from a "combat" DM where we went off the beaten path only to be railroaded back because it was above our level. These are my experiences. They both have pre-scripted stories, but do not feel the same.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To be fair, I definitely wouldn’t be a “story DM” by that definition, yet I would consider myself a “story DM.” But it’s an identity I wear with some trepidation (much as I do the identity of “gamer”) because this is the connotation I think it usually carries.

To me, “story DM” just literally means a DM who prioritizes story in their games. Creating fun, memorable stories is the primary goal of play for me, so I consider myself a story DM. I think, however, that a lot of people who consider themselves story DMs go about trying to create fun memorable stories in a way that negatively impacts the player experience - Planning out the story ahead of time, or fudging dice rolls because they think it will make for a better story.

I also have a goal of fun, memorable stories as an outcome of play. I think this is so general a statement as to not be very useful in defining play, though. To me, a "story" GM will consider story during adjudication. I do not, and think you don't either, given many of your posts. I instead make sure the structure of my play is maximally condusive to story emerging, but I only consider the established fiction and the action declaration in my adjudication. While a fun story is a goal, I don't consider that in adjudication.

Perhaps this makes my distinction more clear.

 

[iserith]

Once again it looks like people's individual definitions of "story" and "plot" are muddling the conversation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Once again it looks like people's individual definitions of "story" and "plot" are muddling the conversation.

Yup. I should have been more upfront with mine, as I should know better by now.

 

[Charlaquin]

I also have a goal of fun, memorable stories as an outcome of play. I think this is so general a statement as to not be very useful in defining play, though. To me, a "story" GM will consider story during adjudication. I do not, and think you don't either, given many of your posts. I instead make sure the structure of my play is maximally condusive to story emerging, but I only consider the established fiction and the action declaration in my adjudication. While a fun story is a goal, I don't consider that in adjudication.

Perhaps this makes my distinction more clear.

Yeah, that’s definitely clearer, and you’re correct that “what would make for a good story” is not one of the things I consider when adjudicating actions. I agree that structuring play to be maximally conducive to emergent storytelling is a great description of my approach. It’s just that because of that, if a player interested in joining my game asked what kind of DM I consider myself... I’d probably say I’m “a story DM,” with the caveat that I’m more interested in facilitating emergent story than in playing out a preplanned story,

 

[ClaytonCross]

--snip-- unless it involves the character's actions, it's not really part of the social pillar. It's either part of the background structure of the game (like leveling or character creation, which are in the game but not part of any pillar of play) or it's a metagame exercise where you're deciding things in the game from outside the game, like if your character likes another character or not.

I disagree with the division, which is why social doesn't seem right to me and I prefer character creation to include the use of in games stats and out of game Meta mechanical discussion. Your still forming your character and how its interacts with the world by discussing meta tactics because of how it impacts play when you use it. Even the theory craft is done to better understand and use in game mechanics that effect the game.

Talking about the cool thinkngs you did last session and meta party goals to me is also part of the story. When you sit down and try to steer the story with characters and character selection options you are using those discussions to form the story. So its on pillar of character and one pillar of story. If your including combat to your adding that pillar. I feel this way because we have been doing session 0s and even though we are not "playing the game" our planning and meta discussions are as much a part of the experience and have just as much impact on the game as if we said them while we are playing.

That's how I see it though I do understand other have a more narrow view of what is actually D&D separating all these discussions on forums as something else that is tangent.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I disagree with the division, which is why social doesn't seem right to me and I prefer character creation to include the use of in games stats and out of game Meta mechanical discussion. Your still forming your character and how its interacts with the world by discussing meta tactics because of how it impacts play when you use it. Even the theory craft is done to better understand and use in game mechanics that effect the game.

Talking about the cool thinkngs you did last session and meta party goals to me is also part of the story. When you sit down and try to steer the story with characters and character selection options you are using those discussions to form the story. So its on pillar of character and one pillar of story. If your including combat to your adding that pillar. I feel this way because we have been doing session 0s and even though we are not "playing the game" our planning and meta discussions are as much a part of the experience and have just as much impact on the game as if we said them while we are playing.

That's how I see it though I do understand other have a more narrow view of what is actually D&D separating all these discussions on forums as something else that is tangent.

I just look at it as the things the characters do belong to the pillars and the things the players do belong to the meta or the maintenance structures of the game. I fully agree that meta discussions impact that game -- that's usually the point of the meta. I don't think it belongs in a pillar of the game because those are governed by the rules of the game and the meta is about the rules of the game. When I talk about how I'm going to GM and talk about how the pillars of play are used, that's entirely about what the characters are doing -- I'm not going to GM the meta because I don't have any authorities there. So, if I'm talking about GMing a game, and how social pillar structures work in game, I'm not going to include anything the players do (outside of declare actions for their PCs, of course).

I wouldn't call this narrow so much as specific as to which things go where. Ultimately, it really only matters in how you're going to think about your games -- if you think that letting the players talk about their PCs out-of-game satisfies your table's social pillar needs, cool. I will focus on how to put the PCs in a social challenge to satisfy that pillar regardless of how much my player discuss at the meta level. To me, challenging the PCs is where the game is, and I'm not going to count the meta as part of that. Keeps me focused on play techniques.