No More Boring Combats Ever (Edition-Neutral!)

[Delta]

Depending on how flexible you want to be, you can weave that into it. If the PC's easily protect themselves, then the dragon has ONE MORE trick up it's sleeve! If the PC's manage to kill the dragon quickly, then there was an EVEN BIGGER dragon lurking behind it. What would become kind of an unsatisfying "climax" becomes instead part of the tension. The climax is something else.

The idea is to constantly build up the tension until it reaches a WAHOO point. If the intended climactic combat wound up being a flop, chuck a bigger one at them!

IMO: That wouldn't work with my friends, it would irritate them. None of my friends like WAHOO movies, TV shows, or books. And my gaming buddies assume that "game" means something they can master and, properly played, definitively win.

I introduced one of my older friends to D&D the other year. Almost immediately he said, "What's the point of levelling up, do I just fight more powerful monsters then?" Similarly, changing encounters on the fly to spoil player mastery would probably end my game right quick.

 

[Janx]

IMO: That wouldn't work with my friends, it would irritate them. None of my friends like WAHOO movies, TV shows, or books. And my gaming buddies assume that "game" means something they can master and, properly played, definitively win.

I introduced one of my older friends to D&D the other year. Almost immediately he said, "What's the point of levelling up, do I just fight more powerful monsters then?" Similarly, changing encounters on the fly to spoil player mastery would probably end my game right quick.

This is a pretty good example, like EW's post, of different perception/conception of D&D and RPGs.

All the preface's I'd ever read in PH's said D&D wasn't a game that you could "win".

And the point of leveling up, was so you could fight more powerful monsters.

However, I disagree with KM's comment about keep adding in bigger dragons, if the last one was a disappointment. To me that's a failure to execute the style I like.

As to the last point by delta, "Similarly, changing encounters on the fly to spoil player mastery would probably end my game right quick. " I'd have to say a good GM makes this fun, and unless the GM takes notes (doesn't run things off his head on the fly), you have no proof a DM is changing encounters on the fly. Additionally, a good GM should be changing encounters on the fly, to account for what the NPCs know about the PCs current activities, etc. If the PCs are sloppy about their investigation, the NPCs are wary, and will be ready for the party. This means the DM did change things on the fly (especially if originally noted, the NPCs were playing poker in the garage).

Playing encounters statically as written, means the GM has to write it down, and has to plan everything out. And isn't allowed to adapt to player whim (because if he didn't plan it, he can't do it, to take static literally). This would be like playing Oblivion, where you sneak attack an NPC who's talking to another NPC, the 2nd NPC doesn't react or notice that the conversation stopped, and his buddy is dead.

Since the GM can do anything he wants, at any time. The only contract is that the GM give the players an experience that the players are seeking. If he says he's going to be simulationist, he has to act simulationist. But the fact is, he's doing whatever he wants, to make that happen. That's the illusion. There is no band of orcs, until the GM invents those orcs. It all starts and ends with the GM.

My point then is, if the players think its a game they can master and win, the GM can play that way. But the fact is, the GM is only pretending to do so. The GM chooses which NPCs exist, and how they feel, and what they're goals are. He chooses where the treasure is, and what protects it. If he wants it to seem like a game, he can.

However, it isn't. And the GM can change that anytime he wants. though it may be at the expense of players who dislike the style change.

 

[ExploderWizard]

IMO: That wouldn't work with my friends, it would irritate them. None of my friends like WAHOO movies, TV shows, or books. And my gaming buddies assume that "game" means something they can master and, properly played, definitively win.

I introduced one of my older friends to D&D the other year. Almost immediately he said, "What's the point of levelling up, do I just fight more powerful monsters then?" Similarly, changing encounters on the fly to spoil player mastery would probably end my game right quick.

While I like to keep the wahoo factor down a bit in a typical game, letting it out once in a while works ok for me. I just think that turning the knob up to max all the time makes it not so wahoo anymore, just normal.

Since D&D is an open ended game (tournament adventures being the exception) I don't think of winning or losing as such.
If we all have a good time at the game its a win, even if the party was wiped out. I don't see the game as adversarial at all because the game isn't a contest between equals. In a competitive environment the DM simply wins, yawn , next game, repeat.

I'm curious as to what constitutes a definitive win.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That wouldn't work with my friends, it would irritate them. None of my friends like WAHOO movies, TV shows, or books. And my gaming buddies assume that "game" means something they can master and, properly played, definitively win.

That's okay, it's just a style difference. Different goals. I'm just giving advice for people who have boring combats to make them not boring anymore. If your style runs less narratively, you might not have much of a problem with "boring" combats. Do you? If so, when do you get bored? When are combats unsatisfying to you? When there aren't strategic options?

I introduced one of my older friends to D&D the other year. Almost immediately he said, "What's the point of levelling up, do I just fight more powerful monsters then?" Similarly, changing encounters on the fly to spoil player mastery would probably end my game right quick.

In a more narrative game, you don't just go on to fight more powerful monsters, you go on to resolve more impressive conflicts. You start by saving the family, you end by saving reality, kind of thing. Indeed, in FFZ's narrative continuum, you face the same villain for your entire adventuring career, fight it at the end, and then start over. This is because the point is the story, the narrative, the plot, what your characters mean, how they interact, how they resolve their problems, and how they ultimately stop bad guys from doing bad things. When one character party runs out of issues to confront, you roll up another one, because conflict is the key.

Indeed, "spoiling player mastery" might not work for every kind of playing style. FFZ tries to minimize "player mastery" with a lot of blatant simplicity. If there is a way to get an edge, it will be both obvious and intended, in most cases. The way you become a "better player" is by playing your role better, by working with the plot better, and by creating a more interesting story (and therefore creating a more enjoyable play experience), not by killing more things.

That's a playstyle difference, of course.

But if you're having a problem with boring (or otherwise unsatisfying) combats with your preferred playstyle, I'm really too much of an outsider to tell you what might be going wrong.

I know what's going on in a lot of games, because a lot of games tend to be pretty narrative, but not all of them (and not all of them to the extent that this would help).