D&D 5E How many rounds of combat is too much?

[redrick]

We had a whole-session combat that was a blast a couple of months ago. The session before, the characters had picked a fight on the second story of a warehouse full of human-supremacists. (Our half-elf's ear covering hat had fallen off.) That prior session had ended when the warlock jumped out of the 2nd story window and cast feather fall on himself.

What followed was a running combat as people fought their way out of the warehouse, tried to lead the pursuers off in different directions, and circled back to basically blow up the warehouse. I think the DM used a lot of tricks to keep things running smoothly, but the result was one of the most dynamic, nail-biting, totally theater-of-the-mind combats I've ever had. We were in the same initiative for about 4 hours. I think long combats work best when there is moving, ideally covering multiple locations. I've had this happen organically, but I think the key is to set up a location with multiple circular movement paths (allowing characters to do a loop through different rooms, instead of a straight railroad of rooms), and have the characters significantly outnumbered. Most PCs have abilities that will give them better mobility than your standard monsters and NPCs, so they'll be naturally inclined to try and move to a location with strategic advantage. Then just keep flushing them out and getting them to dig deeper and deeper into their bag of tricks.

Toe to toe grind in a room? That probably gets boring to anybody after 3 or 4 rounds. The monsters run away, or they get reinforcements. (I do have the bad habit of bringing in WAY too many reinforcements. It's just, they were fighting outside the monster den and making a lot of noise, and OF COURSE the reinforcements were going to come in from multiple sides.)

 

[transtemporal]

But the videogame mentality continues to dominate. They like what they like.

Maybe you could start referring to monsters as "red bars", "yellow bars", "purple bars"? Maybe don't use those exact words but gamers get those conventions and they'll understand that a boss battle is tougher than openworld pve farming.

Also, zones. One thing MMO players expect is that only enemies in their level range will spawn in that area and that's probably contributing to their sense that they should be able to defeat anything in their zone. In addition, it leads to the expectation that the game world will kind of protect them, by preventing them from moving into the next area or whatever. Disrupt that expectation. Have a tough wandering monster show up and TRASH them. Maybe not a TPK but enough to show them they aren't playing an MMO.

 

[CydKnight]

There is alot of great advice here..I do already provide as dynamic combats as I can (and usually modify pre-written adventures like the one I ran).There is always room for improvment but...

Its not necc the length of time that is the issue. Its going several rounds. They seem to think after 3 rounds they should be able to defeat an enemy and move on. I think it's nintendo syndrome.(17/18 HS students). They have been playing games with me since they were 11-ish, but are very casual players. Don't own any books, don't want to read them, etc. But the videogame mentality continues to dominate. They like what they like.

Do "they" realize that 3 rounds of combat is the equivalent of a mere 18 seconds or real time? I constantly update my players of not only the round we are in but also how much actual time would have elapsed in game (ex. At the bottom of round 2 I tell them we are beginning round 3 and that 12 seconds have elapsed since combat began). This seems to help some with those that have the shorter attention spans but it's hard to say how much.

Yeah, video game mentality is not all good for playing D&D or any tabletop pen/paper game. They aren't used to using their imaginations because video games imagine for them.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

As an avid video gamer, and in fact a person that would never have found the world of table-top RPGs without video games, I find it disappointing to see people using "video game mentality" as a derogatory term.

It's not just over-generalizing because there are dozens of different types of video games with no single thought process or set of expectations created by them all, but also a lazy case of laying blame on a readily available scapegoat instead of actually working to figure out, and then potentially be able to remedy, the real cause.

Especially when it comes to nonsense like saying that players expect combat to be short because that's how it works in video games - not many of them that consider combat a primary element of game-play, and especially not those of the role-playing variety which are more likely to get players to expect that if they don't know the "trick" to a particular opponent that the combat will be long and arduous.

And implying that video game players aren't as used to using their imaginations as non-video game players, that's not just wrong, it's outright insulting.

 

[Herobizkit]

Three.

Usually anything after three rounds, your dice are cold and you're whiffing all the time and you're frustrated. It's not fun.

 

[Caliban]

Three.

Usually anything after three rounds, your dice are cold and you're whiffing all the time and you're frustrated. It's not fun.

Unless you are like me and it can take 3 rounds before your dice warm up...

 

[Mad_Jack]

Toe to toe grind in a room? That probably gets boring to anybody after 3 or 4 rounds. The monsters run away, or they get reinforcements. (I do have the bad habit of bringing in WAY too many reinforcements. It's just, they were fighting outside the monster den and making a lot of noise, and OF COURSE the reinforcements were going to come in from multiple sides.)

The only way to make a toe-to-toe grind against a single big solo opponent (or small group) interesting is to go full-on comic book superhero fight with it, with every blow shaking the walls, every swing creating collateral damage hit or miss, lurid descriptions of bones crunching, and people screaming, "Why..won't...you...just...DIE?!?!?!"...
Of course, there's only so much you can do mechanically to make a fight interesting before it becomes solely a matter of how epic a storyteller the DM is, and even they can't always make it interesting when the fight bogs down to the two sides hunkered down behind cover tossing ammo back and forth.

Re: "Video game" mentality...

It's much more of a "young person" thing, really. A general expectation of immediate results due to how fast and easy it is to get pretty much anything these days. Back in the old days, I can remember spending an hour or more run-n-gunning the level bosses on a single screen in some games - and even now, playing Oblivion or other serious rpgs, if I'm not doing a straight-up melee beast I'm likely to kite an outdoor opponent halfway to Bravil from the Imperial City...
It's just an overall cultural paradigm shift brought on by the much-more-technological aspect of modern society.
Younger people have a different perception of time than us older folks - we were like that when we were their age as well.

 

[Raith5]

If the rounds are dragging then you certainly have a problem. It is important to have interesting opponents (I think 5e has a bit of a problem in this regard), opponents who come into combat later or in waves, and interesting/difficult terrain can make combat really interesting. But the most important thing to making combats is making defeating the opponents not the point of the combat. Having a fight when you have save the captives from being killed by the goblins, stopping a demonic ritual in three rounds, or stopping the BBG from escaping all make combats more challenging.

I am also a fan of the 'Zulu Dawn' situation where the PCs have hold out against the odds in a keep or building. Allowing the PCs to set up an ambush can also be a lot of fun.

 

[Imaculata]

I brought up this topic with my players via Skype yesterday, and their first reaction was:

"Did you tell them about our awesome naval battle that lasted three whole sessions?"

Hahaha. Yes. Yes I did.

 

[Barolo]

(...)

Re: "Video game" mentality...

It's much more of a "young person" thing, really. A general expectation of immediate results due to how fast and easy it is to get pretty much anything these days. Back in the old days, I can remember spending an hour or more run-n-gunning the level bosses on a single screen in some games - and even now, playing Oblivion or other serious rpgs, if I'm not doing a straight-up melee beast I'm likely to kite an outdoor opponent halfway to Bravil from the Imperial City...
It's just an overall cultural paradigm shift brought on by the much-more-technological aspect of modern society.
Younger people have a different perception of time than us older folks - we were like that when we were their age as well.

Some people actually become less patient with the passing of the years, just saying...