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

[Lanefan]

Your looking at Character Creation as a one and done act.

It is. It's also sometimes known as character generation.

The term you're looking for to represent the rest of it is character development. This happens in-game when the character interacts with the other PCs, the NPCs, the setting, and the adventures; and learns about itself in the process. Or dies trying.

Every time I play my character creates changes to the world, the world creates changes to the character, and the characters create changes in each other. There is a social aspect to it both in game and between player/the GM outside the game. On forums and posts. I rarely show up with character that has all their backstory on sesson one or having any real idea of the identity of my characters. ...

Unless the game is play-by-post I certainly don't see forums and posts as representing any part of play whatsoever.

 

[Lanefan]

Might agree with you, except there are rules for character creation and leveling in the rules of the game. There aren't any rules in football governing training camp and pratice.

Check again, old chap. Most football leagues have fairly strict rules surrounding training camps and practices, mostly regarding length, frequency, and what may be done there for how long.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't think a GM should be using fiat to help or hinder PCs.

You're misunderstanding the issue. Things like nets don't work without DM fiat. There are no rules, or things close to rules, which remotely represent such a thing. Ultimately it will be entirely in the hands of the DM as to whether such things work, or stand a chance to to work, whether it's by simply saying if they do/don't based on the specifics of the situation, or assigning some sort of values to them (which will again be a matter of fiat).

I don't disagree with anything you said but you missed my point entirely. #1 if your current style of play is not working try different things. #2 if your complaining about dragons being simple easy fights that are not worth their CR and your 100% of the time ignoring that they can fly and fight in rage stupidity then your whats making them easy not the design of the dragon. Sure intelligent creature do dumb things sometimes but isn't making them that way all the time the same mistake? #3 If your doing it with dragons, your likely doing it with just about every thing else.... see #1.

Am I wrong on any of these points?

I'd say you're wrong on all three.

#1 - Trying new things should be done in a rational, considered way, looking at the specifics of what's going wrong.

That means generic prescriptions like those you've outlined are not typically useful unless it's impossible to work out what is going wrong. It's kind of a desperation move to just "try something different" rather than to consider the exact circumstances. Much of what you've outlined could make problems worse, not better.

#2 - "If your complaining..." - Well I'm not, and I haven't, so why are you even saying that? It's like you're responding to someone else. So that's wrong.

#3 - You seem to be trying to suggest that portraying dragons as making mistakes means that you play all combat encounters as dumb slugfests. That's both insulting and wrong, and frankly irrational as an argument.

I didn't list a lot for non-casters?

I'm talking about PCs, not enemies, re: limited tactical options in 5E.

 

[Lanefan]

But the creaky boring old "oh dragons should just strafe the party and never engage and always try and fly away!" thing (which has been around since like, the late '80s) is ridiculous nonsense that I've seen lead to extremely boring sessions, or ones, again, reliant on DM fiat.

How is this 'ridiculous nonsense' from the dragon's point of view?

And isn't the DM in theory supposed to play her intelligent monsters intelligently, and with a halfway-decent sense of self-preservation?

If what the dragon does makes for a boring session, then so be it. What did you do to get it to strafe you in the first place, and maybe don't do that next time.

 

[Scott Christian]

It's encouraging the GM to find away to be as interested in tactical combat as the players are so they don't run from it while the players are a having fun.

If this is the case, that the players have fun and the GM doesn't, then the GM needs to:
A. Power through. It might become fun again.
B. Switch games that offers a ruleset that peaks the GM's interest.
C. Use less combat, therefore making it more meaningful.
D. Try some new techniques (although the techniques I have seen outside of the usual, like terrain, seem to be metaphysical lessons on GM'ing styles.)
E. Be a player. (In my opinion this is by far the best remedy for people who are non-judgmental. Those that have a hard time giving up control of the table should avoid this one.)

If none of those work, maybe stop gaming for awhile. Devote energy into writing, game creation, music, cooking or anything else that gets your creative juices flowing. Then after a year or two, step back into the fray.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Check again, old chap. Most football leagues have fairly strict rules surrounding training camps and practices, mostly regarding length, frequency, and what may be done there for how long.

Them's table rules, though, not the rules of playing football.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

5ed is as bad as tactical combat as the DM and Players want it to be. Once you start using non stat bloc tactics that all characters and monsters have, it suddenly change a lot of things. Shoving, grabbing, pushing PCs is part of what changes a lot of the combat. In addition, you can always use the optional rules in the DMG to enhance the "tactical" even more if it suits you.

I don't agree at all. 5E has the same issue as 3E, in that people who aren't specialized in these tactics via class/subclass/feats are not strong with them and the opportunity cost for using them is extremely high. There are times when they make sense, but it's not comparable to 4E, where every combat was tactical.

Yes, it was. But do not confuse "daily, encounter and at will powers" with tactical options. Tactical options are always available to every opponent. A special manoeuver only certain characters have should be treated as spells. They do open up possibilities but tactical options should always be opened for everyone, monsters, foes and players included. Some elements should be better at some options than others, but all tactical options should be opened to all. 5ed does that. If you take this into consideration, 5ed does a similar job as the 4ed if you take the optional rules, because those rules are exactly the same as fourth.

I disagree. Dismissing spells, powers, etc. as being part of tactical options means your definition of tactical options is so askew as to be meaningless.

I fully agree on that, especialy the first part. But take this into consideration. Very old dragon (ancients) did not survive by being stupid.

I think that depends entirely on where they are in the ecosystem of your world, and what threats they've faced.

I think the mistake people make is to equate a massive top-predator with flight and significant magical capabilities to some sort of villainous human. Every comparison I ever see to a dragon is Moriarty or Xanatos or whatever, but to me that seems to be completely anthropomorphizing dragons in a bizarre way. A dragon criminal in a society of dragons might have to be "The Moriarty of dragons" or whatever, sure. But a dragon in the typical D&D world? It's more like "Where does the 800lb gorilla sit? Wherever it likes." Very few creatures can oppose a dragon, especially once they're a couple of hundred years old. They're huge, powerful creatures, who generally are accepted to have "arrogance" as part of their typical psychological make-up.

Obviously, they are individuals. Their experiences will vary. One dragon, who has perhaps tangled with a lot of dangerous adversaries (powerful wizards, nations with troops who specialize in hunting dragons, other dragons or other intelligent flying monsters, and so on), may be extremely canny and cautious. Particularly if they've faced adventurers a lot before, and particularly if they're not arrogant. Another dragon, who has been in a location where they face fewer threats (less developed human/humanoid societies, or ones which have a relationship with the dragon, few other dragons), may well be lazy, thoughtless, and not put its intellect to any good use.

My issue is with the oft-repeated canard that because a monster has a high INT, it's always going to do the smart thing, and should have elaborate plans. This should be disproven by your day-to-day experience of highly intelligent humans, who frequently have NO plan and whilst they can think on their feet better, may well panic, see red, or make very bad decisions in the heat of the moment! Yet I've seen it repeated, as it it were some genius approach to monsters, since at least the early 1990s. Sure, if a monster is smart, it may have a smart plan, especially if it's on the offensive, or in its lair and it is frequently attacked. But dragons have "I can leave the door unlocked" neighbourhoods (or the equivalent thereof) and levels of complacency too. Or they might panic, or try something superficially smart but actually not. High INT means they have the potential for very elaborate tactics, not that it's necessity.

 

[ClaytonCross]

It is. It's also sometimes known as character generation.

The term you're looking for to represent the rest of it is character development. This happens in-game when the character interacts with the other PCs, the NPCs, the setting, and the adventures; and learns about itself in the process. Or dies trying.

Unless the game is play-by-post I certainly don't see forums and posts as representing any part of play whatsoever.

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.

That said if you don't want to group those things as one pillar thats fine.I include everything in the D&D rules as falling into a pillar character generation for me falls under character creation with character development. If some parts of the D&D rule book are not D&D to you ... I don't get why but I do agree and except you are in titled to that opinion. But I think we are clear at this point what we both mean. We just define things differently.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How is this 'ridiculous nonsense' from the dragon's point of view?

And isn't the DM in theory supposed to play her intelligent monsters intelligently, and with a halfway-decent sense of self-preservation?

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.

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.

It's not an uncommon approach, sadly. But it's hysterical that DMs say this whilst not even blinking when an INT 18 PC makes some ghastly tactical mistake.

If what the dragon does makes for a boring session, then so be it. What did you do to get it to strafe you in the first place, and maybe don't do that next time.

And we're full circle. This sort of attitude is why threads like this exist.

 

[ClaytonCross]

You're misunderstanding the issue. Things like nets don't work without DM fiat. There are no rules, or things close to rules, which remotely represent such a thing. Ultimately it will be entirely in the hands of the DM as to whether such things work, or stand a chance to to work, whether it's by simply saying if they do/don't based on the specifics of the situation, or assigning some sort of values to them (which will again be a matter of fiat).

PHB p148
Net. A Large or smaller creature hit by a net is restrained until it is freed. A net has no effect on creatures that are formless, or creatures that are Huge or larger. A creature can use its action to make a DC 10 Strength check, freeing itself or another creature within its reach on a success. Dealing 5 slashing damage to the net (AC 10) also frees the creature without harming it, ending the effect and destroying the net. When you use an action, bonus action, or reaction to attack with a net, you can make only one attack regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make.

I'd say you're wrong on all three.

#1 - Trying new things should be done in a rational, considered way, looking at the specifics of what's going wrong.

That means generic prescriptions like those you've outlined are not typically useful unless it's impossible to work out what is going wrong. It's kind of a desperation move to just "try something different" rather than to consider the exact circumstances. Much of what you've outlined could make problems worse, not better.

Nothing I said can't be done in a ration way. You observer your bored in combat. You make a change. If its better you keep the change if not you return to your nomral play style and make a different change. You do this until you find what works for you. My list is just a group of suggestions of changes to try. The right change for you might not be on the list, which is why I asked for suggestion and got many.

Your saying I am making assumptions but I am not. All I said is, if your having the problem of being board as GM, other are having this problem too (this is fact, I have multiple GMs who have had this problem) and here are some suggestions that helped others and might help you if you try them.
I did not say you or anyone else is bored only that I know some poeple are they told me so and number of people on this thread said they were having this problem. I did not say these answer are all knowing and will fix your problems. They are recommendations from those who have had this problem and had some success fixing it at their table. My best hope is that it gives poeple a place to start and leads them to a solution that works for them.

#2 - "If your complaining..." - Well I'm not, and I haven't, so why are you even saying that? It's like you're responding to someone else. So that's wrong.

I am not saying you specificly are complaining. I mean "you" as in the meteorically you. Meaning this for those who are complaining. I did not intend to say what is specificly going on at your table. Your write the post if in response to others. The Dragon's being dumb weak HP problems was brought up as problem and I was just using as an example of "A GM has complaint, we are recommending possible fixes." You are not the only GM here and these fixes may not be relevant at your table. This thread is not about you. Its about help GMs who do have these complaints and problems. Why are you taking personally?

#3 - You seem to be trying to suggest that portraying dragons as making mistakes means that you play all combat encounters as dumb slugfests. That's both insulting and wrong, and frankly irrational as an argument.

I am saying my GMs did this. They have admitted as much and I have seen happen more than once. Dragons can make mistakes but what happens when a GM always plays his dragons as dumb slugfests? I have seen this. If your bored in combat is is a consideration that your doing something like this and if your doing with Dragons then its likely something your doing with all your big baddies. That is what I have seen with several GMs and I did not understand this was painful for them until recently.

However, let me be clear. I don't know you. I don't know your table, and I am not making personal judgements off you or your table that I do not know and can not make. I am saying to those players that after reading the original post think that it might apply to you, the me and a number of other GMs have come up with ideas you can systematically and rationally try to fine a way to make playing fun again for you as GM. GMs who love making characters this if for you. I don't mean you Ruin Explorer unless your like making character and your interested in the discussion that follow.

You Ruin Explorer have decided to apply personal intent and attack do a general take it or leave discussion to be come insulted personally. Please know I am not talking about you. I will gladly discuss this topic and take suggestions to help anyone this does apply to and they exist by their own words. I am one of the GMs who did not understand this and writting it and some of the suggestions I got because I wrote this post will help me.

I'm talking about PCs, not enemies, re: limited tactical options in 5E.

This is a thread to help GMs having problems with being bored while their players are still having fun. I have thoughts on players and tactical options, but that is not this thread. If you want to talk about the lack of player tactical options in 5E, you might consider making a thread about it. If I see it I might even join the discussion. This is totally up to you but not at all what we are talking about here.