D&D 5E Has D&D Combat Always Been Slow?

[Asisreo]

Now, its an important distinction.

The problems isn't slow combat, the problem is boring, disengaging combat. A combat can last 10+ rounds and everyone loves every second of it and a combat could last 1 round but be the most flat, stale combat imaginable.

Longer combat really only enhances the disappointment of a boring combat since a shorter boring combat has the consolation of not lasting longer than 10 minutes. But the crux of the issue remains, the combat is boring in your game. A player should walk out of combat wanting more. They wished the combat lasted a little bit longer because despite them losing resources, they were having fun.

To combat this, there are several things you, as a DM, should do. Narrate quickly and evocatively, with an emphasis on the opponent's next move. That way, the players feel like they have a way to react to the NPC's actions.

Also, if a player is thinking about what to do next, you can continue your narration while they decide. Even giving hints on what might be the best course of action, like "The Ogre is aloof, gullible, and could be easily persuaded with a flick of magic." But as long as the narration stays pertinent and interesting, the extra time shouldn't hurt.

 

[Hatmatter]

This, and paying attention, are probably the two biggest things players and DMs can do to keep combat running smoothly and quickly.

But it was still fast in 1E with less HP bloat.

At my table, combat was definitely faster in 1st edition and 2nd edition and in Basic D&D. 5th edition at our table is much faster than 4th edition, which had combats that were interminable. When I am DMing (in 5th edition), I simply try to determine the relative importance of the combat to the story and I try to speed things up however I can if it is a random or incidental encounter. I have found it strikes a nice balance. There are so many options that characters have that players enjoy; that is a significant feature of 5th edition over 1st and 2nd edition that many players enjoy.

I entirely concur with those like Minigiant who emphasize that players must know what their characters are capable of and what they are going to do on their turn. If my players know what they are going to do, things move along in an engaging fashion.

The introduction of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic was brilliant.

 

[iserith]

Now, its an important distinction.

The problems isn't slow combat, the problem is boring, disengaging combat. A combat can last 10+ rounds and everyone loves every second of it and a combat could last 1 round but be the most flat, stale combat imaginable.

Longer combat really only enhances the disappointment of a boring combat since a shorter boring combat has the consolation of not lasting longer than 10 minutes. But the crux of the issue remains, the combat is boring in your game. A player should walk out of combat wanting more. They wished the combat lasted a little bit longer because despite them losing resources, they were having fun.

To combat this, there are several things you, as a DM, should do. Narrate quickly and evocatively, with an emphasis on the opponent's next move. That way, the players feel like they have a way to react to the NPC's actions.

Also, if a player is thinking about what to do next, you can continue your narration while they decide. Even giving hints on what might be the best course of action, like "The Ogre is aloof, gullible, and could be easily persuaded with a flick of magic." But as long as the narration stays pertinent and interesting, the extra time shouldn't hurt.

Yep. One thing I see a lot of DM's do is they treat combat like taking orders in a deli. "Number 19 - you're next!" They forget that there's a loop to play which goes like this: DM describes the environment. The player describes what they want to do. The DM narrates the result of the adventurer's actions. Then it loops back to DM describes the environment and this is the part a lot of DMs don't do in favor of going straight to player description ("You're next, Number 19 - how much provolone can I get you?"). So one way to keep things moving is to always give a pithy sit-rep to the player whose turn it is e.g. "Tordek slew the orc that was putting pressure on Mialee, but three more have just charged in through the door. What do you do, Jozan?"

It doesn't seem like this should really make much of a difference. But it really, really does.

 

[Iry]

You miss more often, but things have fewer HP, so the net effect is combat is a bit fewer rounds.

More than one miss in a row is extremely demoralizing. A game design study showed that most people are happiest around 70% hit rate, across both non-deterministic video games and tabletop war games. 60% is also generally accepted, in the bell curve of happiness.

This is impacted somewhat by the bias that missing multiple times at high hit percentages creates a higher amount of frustration, which is why some game designers (mostly video games) secretly change the percentages so that high numbers succeed even more often than the tooltip says. But even taking that into consideration, people were still happiest around 70%.

 

[el-remmen]

It doesn't seem like this should really make much of a difference. But it really, really does.

Yep. I am constantly describing combat (or calling on my players to describe it based on the result - depends on the player and the specific situation) including basically every hit (even if it is just to say "your opponent is moderately wounded" or "and that blow nearly drives him to the floor as he is now critically wounded!"). So my assumption is that some players might find this slows things down, but in line with what I wrote yesterday, it keeps things lively so it does not feel like a slog. In my mind, "feel of combat" is much more important than "length of combat" (both in terms of in-game or real time). Unless, like someone suggested above, some folks just don't like combat and want to spend time on social stuff (which is fine, but then the frequency of combat, not its speed - or lack thereof - is the problem.

For those who are curious, we split HPs into five categories in my games:

• up to 25% hps gone: Lightly wounded
• from 25% to 50%: Moderately wounded
• from 50% to 75%: Seriously wounded
• from 75% to 1 hp left: Critically wounded
• 0 hps (or less): Mortally wounded
  
  I guess DEAD is the 6th category

 

[TwoSix]

I was wondering the same thing. A running joke in my circle is that D&D doesn't have combat in it because if you tune in to any random D&D stream, there's hardly ever any combats. Mostly just no-stakes social interaction with quirky, cagey NPCs or between PCs. Oh, and lots of shopping.

So my question is similar to yours: Is combat perceived as being slow because it's keeping people away from the content they prefer? Or would they do more combat if combat wasn't so slow (for them)?

Combat is fast and fun when you're doing it with people who are rules-savvy and math competent. Unfortunately, that's maybe a third of the player base, if I'm being generous.

 

[TwoSix]

Yep. One thing I see a lot of DM's do is they treat combat like taking orders in a deli. "Number 19 - you're next!" They forget that there's a loop to play which goes like this: DM describes the environment. The player describes what they want to do. The DM narrates the result of the adventurer's actions. Then it loops back to DM describes the environment and this is the part a lot of DMs don't do in favor of going straight to player description ("You're next, Number 19 - how much provolone can I get you?"). So one way to keep things moving is to always give a pithy sit-rep to the player whose turn it is e.g. "Tordek slew the orc that was putting pressure on Mialee, but three more have just charged in through the door. What do you do, Jozan?"

It doesn't seem like this should really make much of a difference. But it really, really does.

So much this. Pithy, one to two sentence descriptions of the state of the battle from the player's perspective are huge for gaining buy-in.

 

[iserith]

Yep. I am constantly describing combat (or calling on my players to describe it based on the result - depends on the player and the specific situation) including basically every hit (even if it is just to say "your opponent is moderately wounded" or "and that blow nearly drives him to the floor as he is now critically wounded!"). So my assumption is that some players might find this slows things down, but in line with what I wrote yesterday, it keeps things lively so it does not feel like a slog. In my mind, "feel of combat" is much more important than "length of combat" (both in terms of in-game or real time). Unless, like someone suggested above, some folks just don't like combat and want to spend time on social stuff (which is fine, but then the frequency of combat, not its speed - or lack thereof - is the problem.

For those who are curious, we split HPs into five categories in my games:

• up to 25% hps gone: Lightly wounded
• from 25% to 50%: Moderately wounded
• from 50% to 75%: Seriously wounded
• from 75% to 1 hp left: Critically wounded
• 0 hps (or less): Mortally wounded
  
  I guess DEAD is the 6th category

I find it can be overdone, too, if the DM is describing what the character is doing which I desperately try to avoid. (This is very common for DMs to do.) That's for the player to describe. As DM, I just describe the results. It really gets on my nerves when the player says "I attack the orc" and, after rolling, the DM launches into a full-on description of what the character just did. That just reinforces to the player that they shouldn't have too many inputs into the game since the DM is dominating the conversation.

 

[iserith]

Combat is fast and fun when you're doing it with people who are rules-savvy and math competent. Unfortunately, that's maybe a third of the player base, if I'm being generous.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no in my experience. As long as the player can articulate a course of action, I can handle any rules. As for math, Roll20 takes care of all that. But prior to Roll20, I sometimes would get a player who struggled with math and it was problematic enough to stop inviting that player to games.

 

[el-remmen]

I find it can be overdone, too, if the DM is describing what the character is doing which I desperately try to avoid. (This is very common for DMs to do.) That's for the player to describe. As DM, I just describe the results. It really gets on my nerves when the player says "I attack the orc" and, after rolling, the DM launches into a full-on description of what the character just did. That just reinforces to the player that they shouldn't have too many inputs into the game since the DM is dominating the conversation.

This is why I said it depends on the player and the circumstances - as I never say never or "the player/DM should always" or "should never." Some players want to describe that and some don't. I fill in the gap rather than insist they do it one way or another.