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

[Asisreo]

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.

Obviously doing it yourself would but they probably put it in the DMG to remind the DM since that's the person that tends to forget this fact more often than not.

I've always played my NPC's as if they don't want to die. It's funny since the majority of my NPC's don't even kill when they down PC's since that sort of stuff just increases escalation and increases the odds that they themselves will be killed if they lose.

If my NPC is good-aligned, they may even use their action to stabilize (but not awaken) the PC they've just downed. Neutral NPC's might or might not. Everyone also knows that a murder charge isn't worth whatever they're doing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I'm aware. As I said, I wasn't sure why they dumped it in 3E, that wasn't a typo. Morale-shock rules for 5E would be different to the current, rather undeveloped morale optional rules.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Utter BS arguement. Science proved you wrong. As for dragons not having a society, I recommand you to read The complete book of dragons. There is even a serie of novel set in Mystara about the Draconic society... so yep my point stands.

ROFL oh god son wow damn. No, science proved me right. I'm the scientist here, you're the layman making wild claims, in terms of training/knowledge. And societies promote the survival of the weak, so if you have a draconic society, more weak dragons will survive to older ages.

Wow, you need to review what is a Lich and reread. A wizard becomes a Lich to study strange forgotten secrets/lore and to eventually reach godhood. Not every lich succeed. It is a case where many are called, few are chosen... But if a Lich is a morron insane lunatic with no rational, it is far from the lich I have read about. Say hello to Vecna, Acererak, Lizandred and quite a few others.

Buddy, read your own words - "not every lich succeed". Yeah, most of them probably don't. For every Vecna, how many lunatic liches do you think there are? Probably quite a few. Vecna is the cream of the crop, he rose to the top, he never eats a... er... anyway, he's not your average Lich.

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

What does that mean in this context, though? I always play a monster true to its personality, knowledge, limitations, advantages and so on (to the best of my ability!). But I play them true, rather than just playing to win - often they're the same thing - but sometimes they're very divergent.

I must be doing something right, given people have expressed the opinion that when I run combat it's somehow "better" than other DMs (I suspect it's the RP of the monsters and playing them according to motivations, but I dunno - it might just be that I'm a lot faster with monster turns than other DMs I play with, because I know that's the case).

 

[Helldritch]

I too find the optional rule in the DMG to be... lacking?
Morale should be something that vary from monster to monster. Some kind of monsters are "braver" or more "reckless?" than others and for good reasons (Trolls for example). While others are notorious cowards (kobolds? goblins?). With a base bravery "morale" score, it was easier to judge if monsters would flee or surrender. Some monsters even had adjustments depending on what kind of attacks were used against them (fire against troll was more than just doing damage, it lowered their morale too). These rules were simplifying the work of a DM by a big margin. When a rule is there, you can ignore or apply it as you see fit. When it is absent, you can even base your decision on it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

What does that mean in this context, though? I always play a monster true to its personality, knowledge, limitations, advantages and so on (to the best of my ability!). But I play them true, rather than just playing to win - often they're the same thing - but sometimes they're very divergent.

I must be doing something right, given people have expressed the opinion that when I run combat it's somehow "better" than other DMs (I suspect it's the heavy RP of the monsters and playing them according to motivations, but I dunno).

 

[Helldritch]

ROFL oh god son wow damn. No, science proved me right. I'm the scientist here, you're the layman making wild claims, in terms of training/knowledge. And societies promote the survival of the weak, so if you have a draconic society, more weak dragons will survive to older ages.

So far, Darwin's theory fits evidence quite nicely. Are there exceptions? Of course, luck got a say in this as there are animals that survived and it still bugs scientists.
As for society promotes the survival of the weak... True for modern and enlightned societies. But what about the Spartan? Killing defective babies, and ensuring the "survival of the fittest" through deadly contest for their children? They were not the only ones. The Huns were doing this too. In fact, many societies of the ancient time were doing it and some early medieval/dark age did it too.

And I wish I remembered what was the trilogy about the Draconic Society in Mystara. It was certainly not promoting survival of the weak. Quite the opposite.

Buddy, read your own words - "not every lich succeed". Yeah, most of them probably don't. For every Vecna, how many lunatic liches do you think there are? Probably quite a few. Vecna is the cream of the crop, he rose to the top, he never eats a... er... anyway, he's not your average Lich.

Reread them. Not every lich succeed in becoming gods. None are stupid. Quote not just the part you don't agree. Take everything into consideration. And some lich even becomes demi-lich.

What does that mean in this context, though? I always play a monster true to its personality, knowledge, limitations, advantages and so on (to the best of my ability!). But I play them true, rather than just playing to win - often they're the same thing - but sometimes they're very divergent.

That is the only way to play fair. Kudo to you. Do not demean the foes but do not over do it as I use to say.

I must be doing something right, given people have expressed the opinion that when I run combat it's somehow "better" than other DMs (I suspect it's the RP of the monsters and playing them according to motivations, but I dunno - it might just be that I'm a lot faster with monster turns than other DMs I play with, because I know that's the case).

Maybe your prep time is better. Not longer, better. I know that I reread the potential problematic areas before every games even if I have been a DM for over 37 years now. I get the feeling you do that too or something close to it.

 

[nevin]

Combat can be a real pain when approached in a robot like way. Be it players or DM's side. Tactics make for interesting combat. Each combats, even fillers, should have a stressfull element (unless it is to make players feel powerul, a useful thing to do at times).

A lot of DMs that I coach often forget that there are manoeuvres that can be done even if it is not in the stat block of the creatures. Everybody can grapple, shove or knock down and even try to restain. Ranged attackers using partial or full cover can be a pain in the ass. My ranged players hate it when their ranged opponents fall prone voluntarily as to give ranged players disadvantage to attack them. It only cost half movement to get back up.

Melee characters hate when their opponents start to dodge in a restricted area where they are effective blockers and the monsters' allies pester them crom range or simply shoot the characters in the back.

Or simply having a monster get past the melee character by knocking prone a player and going straight for the wizard or archer or whatever.

The fun thing is that nothing is out of the ordinary, but players tend to forget these actions and their benefits because they have cooler tools to use. Being reminded that creatures can use these too is surprisingly effective. One devious tactic I recently used was a manticore following the characters for a whole day, never getting in bow range. But when the players got in combat with orcs, the manticore attacked them with tail spikes from a far. It went on an other two days when the ranger finally thought of hiding the group and lay a trap for the manticore with an illusion. Since the group was not distracted as the manticore thought they finally got it. But a simple combat became quite a story. They will remember that manticore a long time.

Combat can be its own story.

this i disagree with if you have players that only focus on one thing it gives the GM an insight into what they want. most likely big heroic fights and the recognition for them. I can do all kinds of fun once I know what they want

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As for society promotes the survival of the weak... True for modern and enlightned societies. But what about the Spartan? Killing defective babies, and ensuring the "survival of the fittest" through deadly contest for their children? They were not the only ones. The Huns were doing this too. In fact, many societies of the ancient time were doing it and some early medieval/dark age did it too.

Societies have practiced exposure forever, and it's not really about "survival of the fittest", it's about getting rid of people who aren't yet perceived as people (the massive death-rate in childhood had a lot of societal effects people are somewhat avoidant about discussing today) who might be a definite burden. It also gets rid of a lot of people who wouldn't be - many children were exposed simply because they were an extra mouth to feed. It's a sign of desperation more than anything else. The Spartans were unusual that they did it even when they didn't need to, but there's no evidence it particularly helped them.

The "deadly contests for their children" thing isn't really true though, and also didn't promote "survival of the fittest" (which is a pop-science misnomer anyway, the real phenomenon is "survival of the best-adapted"). As Sparta demonstrated very well, by the time the Romans had got there, the Spartan lifestyle had ensured Sparta was a pathetic wreck, not some sort of victory for eugenics - all the Spartans really managed to prove was that if you have warriors train pretty much all the time, i.e. a standing, professional army, brainwash/indoctrinate them into fanatics, and equip them with the best gear your society produces, they'll do really well in battle - they weren't the last society to show this, nor, I suspect, the first, just the first where it's well-recorded. And it had a cost, which they eventually paid.

And it's absolutely not "modern and enlightened" societies only, you're showing your ignorance about archaeology and history there. We've got bones from people hundreds of thousands of years ago where people with extremely serious injuries or deformities survived for decades, showing very clearly that even hunter-gatherers often helped injured people.

 

[The Glen]

Helldritch

It was the dragon lord Saga. And let me save you a read, it was tedious. Even die-hard mystara fans will admit that that entire Trilogy was dull. You never get a feeling that the hero is ever in danger. I read the first one and had to force myself to finish the last two. There's a reason the book's aren't canon.

 

[Helldritch]

Societies have practiced exposure forever, and it's not really about "survival of the fittest", it's about getting rid of people who aren't yet perceived as people (the massive death-rate in childhood had a lot of societal effects people are somewhat avoidant about discussing today) who might be a definite burden. It also gets rid of a lot of people who wouldn't be - many children were exposed simply because they were an extra mouth to feed. It's a sign of desperation more than anything else. The Spartans were unusual that they did it even when they didn't need to, but there's no evidence it particularly helped them.

The "deadly contests for their children" thing isn't really true though, and also didn't promote "survival of the fittest" (which is a pop-science misnomer anyway, the real phenomenon is "survival of the best-adapted"). As Sparta demonstrated very well, by the time the Romans had got there, the Spartan lifestyle had ensured Sparta was a pathetic wreck, not some sort of victory for eugenics - all the Spartans really managed to prove was that if you have warriors train pretty much all the time, i.e. a standing, professional army, brainwash/indoctrinate them into fanatics, and equip them with the best gear your society produces, they'll do really well in battle - they weren't the last society to show this, nor, I suspect, the first, just the first where it's well-recorded. And it had a cost, which they eventually paid.

And it's absolutely not "modern and enlightened" societies only, you're showing your ignorance about archaeology and history there. We've got bones from people hundreds of thousands of years ago where people with extremely serious injuries or deformities survived for decades, showing very clearly that even hunter-gatherers often helped injured people.

Sparta lost to the Romans because Romans were way more numerous than them. The Greek impressed the Romans so much (via Spartans) that they adopted their gods and cultures.

Call the "deadly contest" the way you want, the result were the same. And yes they were not the only ones. The Akkadians were rumored to do the same thing as were the Babylonians.

For the last part you're right. There are some example of humans taking care of the injured and deformed. I never said that (deadly contest and weeding out the week) this was systematic. It is only in modern/enlightment society that helping the injured and deformed became systematic (and that is a good thing). Neanderthal were particularly good at that from recent digs. As long as they could still do some chores to help the tribe they would be cared for.

And calling me ignorant about history and archeology is blunt and shows your arrogance and self entitlement. I live with an historian (my wife) and she is handicaped (muscular dystrophia). I have a Bachelor's degree at a university and one of my pet peeve is exactly history and archeology (and quantum physics. Go figure...). For long time, my wife was sure that I was a student in archeology and history because I was attending some of her classes and I was discussing medieval society with her teachers (I was not registered, I just had the permission to attend because I happened to knew the sons of one of her teacher). So nope, I am far from being ignorant.