D&D General Why are we fighting?

[overgeeked]

Matt Colville just released a video titled...wait for it..."Why Are We Fighting?" and in it he asks the simple question: why is D&D-style combat so boring? It's worth the watch because it's a good video, but I'll save you the suspense. Combat in D&D is a slog because of two reasons. First, after a certain point in the combat victory is a foregone conclusion and yet we generally insist on continuing the combat until all the enemy HP bars read zero. Second, simply wiping out all the enemies on the map is an inherently boring goal.

He says he doesn't have a solution, but he does. First, stop forcing combat to continue past the point of victory, i.e. once you know who's won the fight, end the fight. Second, stop using boring goals in combat, like murdering all of the other team.


If you're of a more writerly bent, here's an article saying basically the same thing from the creator and head writer of Leverage.

Why You Should Never Write Action Scenes For Your Blockbuster Movie

It's the height of summer movie season, which means that action movies are blowing up all over. And that makes this the perfect time to revisit some advice from John Rogers, creator of Leverage and writer of the new webcomic Arcanum. Here, he explains why you should never write an action scene...

gizmodo.com

Games that aren't as focused on combat as D&D don't seem to have this issue nor do games with robust non-combat subsystems for handling obstacles, like clocks, timers, challenges, extended tests, contests, etc.

What are some of your favorite goals to see in D&D that don't involve slaughtering all the opposition?

And what are some other games we can lift subsystems from to use in D&D to achieve better results in this regard?

 

[Orius]

Who says anything about other games? Take a look at old school morale if you don't like grinding out fights.

I don't think we necessarily need to go back to the actual morale rolls themselves, 3e removed them so DMs could have more discretion over things. But I think DMs should have some good solid guidelines as to when opponents surrender or flee.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Edition can make a big difference here too. I was running second edition recently and the combats were pretty quick compared to say 3E.

But I generally try to keep morale and motivation in mind (most people don't want to die). So an enemy is usually going to surrender or try to run away rather than get themselves killed.

I do think combat that is just fighting is fine. You can have other combat goals if you want, but the big issue is combat can get bogged down by system, by over reliance on tactics on the grid (if you do use a grid, at least force people to make a move fast rather than let them think about it for five minutes). But the same token with or without the grid, encourage people to make faster choices during their turn.

Other types of combat goals can work but that is very contextual. For example I had a party on Friday who agreed to a first blood sparring match against a person they were negotiatin with. They put two of their own against two selected from the other person's retinue. Those were quick combats. But those conditions, and conditions like them, can't always be forced.

 

[Maxperson]

Matt Colville just released a video titled...wait for it..."Why Are We Fighting?" and in it he asks the simple question: why is D&D-style combat so boring? It's worth the watch because it's a good video, but I'll save you the suspense. Combat in D&D is a slog because of two reasons. First, after a certain point in the combat victory is a foregone conclusion and yet we generally insist on continuing the combat until all the enemy HP bars read zero. Second, simply wiping out all the enemies on the map is an inherently boring goal.

He says he doesn't have a solution, but he does. First, stop forcing combat to continue past the point of victory, i.e. once you know who's won the fight, end the fight. Second, stop using boring goals in combat, like murdering all of the other team.

For me it depends on the fight. I can tell if the players are having fun with the fight and if they are I will continue the fight even though I know who is going to win. If they are not then when it gets to a certain point where there's no possible way to win or even knock a PC unconscious, I'll just narrate a win and assign a reasonable amount of damage for the PCs to have taken.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Combat in D&D is a slog because of two reasons. First, after a certain point in the combat victory is a foregone conclusion and yet we generally insist on continuing the combat until all the enemy HP bars read zero. Second, simply wiping out all the enemies on the map is an inherently boring goal.

Or the mechanics for combat are rubbish.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

why is D&D-style combat so boring?

Because when they tried to make it not-boring, a portion of fans got so upset about everyone consistently having interesting things to do, they actively slagged the edition for its entire run and at least a decade thereafter.

This issue is 100% self-inflicted.

What are some of your favorite goals to see in D&D that don't involve slaughtering all the opposition?

Resolve a negotiation, solve a puzzle/disarm a trap while under fire, prevent a crash/collision/explosion, save a life, rescue a mark, turn off the nasty bad effect, disrupt a ritual, catch the correct opponent, impress a third party, transport an object without letting it get damaged, etc.

Worth noting, between 4e and 13A, I've done all of these except impressing a third party and rescuing a mark. And about half of those were integrated into a combat.

And what are some other games we can lift subsystems from to use in D&D to achieve better results in this regard?

4e: Skill challenges and monster design
13A: Montages, Fighting In Spirit
DW: Undertake a Perilous Journey, Recruit (hirelings), a handful of other more specific moves (e.g. the Wizard's Ritual move)

 

[Andvari]

I'm GMing a Pathfinder 2nd edition campaign and I just use the morale system from my Rules Cyclopedia (BECMI) there. In addition to have combats end faster, it's also more realstic, creates tenseion as fleeing enemies might warn other monsters, or opportunity as surrendering enemies can be interrogated and have to be dealt with somehow.

 

[tetrasodium]

He also talks about psychological reasons for the players to want to kill the monsters and mechanical ones for the gm to need the fight to continue. . Using Attacks of Opportunity instead of opportunity attacks and 3 X iterative/multi-attack penalties* for both sides helps with creating goals throughout the fight and pulling the moment of certainty in victory closer to the mechanical end of the fight. The players will hate you but the math behind damage and not so bounded bounded accuracy mostly already supports this.

* monster to hit is so bad and their damage is so useless that you can almost just decide where you want them to hit the player with the highest ac on an 8 10 or 12 & just add/subtract 5 each way for each attack you give them.

 

[Shiroiken]

The complete removal of morale since AD&D is a primary reason for this. 5E made a halfhearted attempt, but it's absolutely terrible. Enemies (and NPC allies) should try to run or surrender, or demand the party's surrender if the party is losing badly. This can cut the duration of combat by half, moving it into a social encounter.

I do agree with cutting a combat short when the outcome is inevitable, possibly by dealing a number of hit equal to how much I feel the last few enemies might do before dying. I first did this in 4E, since most combats ended against a single brute that took forever to whittle down. This often cut 20-30 minutes, which really helped with the 2 hr combats.

 

[Lojaan]

You really don't need a "morale system". Just have the bad guys run away when it makes sense for them to do so /shrug

However, this is addressed in the video. Having the bad guys run away is an unsatisfying result UNLESS the goal of the combat was something other than "kill all the baddies".