D&D General Why are we fighting?

[Vaalingrade]

Maybe you secretly like it!

No.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

People not reading the DMG isn't just a meme. It's verifiably true among a wide swath of DMs.

If you don't like resource management, you strangely chose a game that involves resource management. Maybe you secretly like it!

Or they are like me and have read it multiple time but have trouble remembering what is in it.

 

[tetrasodium]

For me, there are two big things that keep combat from being boring, and these shouldn't be a shock because others have mentioned them:

1. Run monsters/NPCs like they are living creatures. How would the act and react? Hardly anything fights until death if given an opportunity to survive. That almost completely eliminates the "victory is assured, why do we keep going through the paces" problem.
2. Use the environment. Too often I see combat encounters where PCs only do things that are on their character sheet. Or DMs who run monsters only what's in their stat block. Incorporate the environment like a living creature would, and it keeps things fresh and avoids "I attack" repeated over and over.

You don't need to have all these powerz on character sheets to keep combat interesting. Just do the above and it's helped me for more than 40 years.

There's a flaw in that "be a better GM" shotgun & it cuts to the core of 5e. @overgeeked mentioned it a couple posts up in #83... Namely: "Even more interesting monsters get you boring combats if everyone's just standing around whacking away until one side is whittled down to zero HP." The GM can't force players to move around & do things and the system trivializes movement to such an extreme degree that nothing's going to change that unless the encounter is constantly being being run in some kind of funhouse hedge maze inspired room simply to short circuit the near immediate close to optimum melee & commence standing around smashing each other. Terrain can't be used to give anyone an advantage shy of funhouse hedge maze to encourage movement because the math ensures that players don't need any help from anything.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I think the issue is that D&D still believes the (wrong) idea that there is a difference between a "combat" and an "encounter."

If the rulebook taught us how RPGS actually work (the goal+approach, resolution, outcome+consequences loop), what an encounter is (overcoming an obstacle), and the use of dramatic questions, then I think a lot of these issues wouldn't happen.

 

[Cruentus]

I think that's one of the big things that helps. If you're stuck only using the boring official monsters, you're going to tend to get boring combats. Even more interesting monsters like the MCDM ones will get you boring combats if everyone's just standing around whacking away until one side is whittled down to zero HP.

This right here. And, as we experienced in our multi-year campaign before jettisoning 5e, the HP bloat on characters and monsters doesn't really help at all. I know its sort of apples and oranges, but an Ad&d ancient red dragon had 88 max hit points. A 5e ancient red has 546hp (average! 812 max!). Its no wonder that combats are a slog. But wait! There's more! Sign up now and receive bonus attacks, criticals, sneak attacks, smites, etc. to up damage to compensate! But fight within the next two turns, and we'll include moar HP!

For a game predicated on "about 3 rounds or so" to resolve a fight, they certainly went out of their way to make HP's through the roof. Since moving back to Basic/OSE, fewer hit points on both PCs and monsters means more interesting fights (to us), and fights where casting a buff or heal or something in the fight (shock! shudder!) can actually be contemplated and done, since the "optimum" move isn't always "do damage".

With re: to fleeing, I use the morale rules in every edition I've DM'd, it makes it less a potential 'adversarial DM' kind of thing, and leaves it to the dice. Sometimes they flee or surrender. Sometimes they fight till the death. Sometimes the story or situation dictates one or the other, with no morale roll needed ("defend this gate at all costs"). When they flee, though, I always narrate that they seem to hesitate and look around for escape routes. When its their turn, they take off and take an attack of opportunity, if appropriate. I then ask the party if they want to pursue. However, I have never played a game where the party is unencumbered, and where they could actually all keep up with fleeing enemies without dropping all their gear and stuff and haring off after them. They usually take one more round of ranged fire to see if they can down anyone, and that's it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Strange forum glitch: your mention of @Laurefindel in the above post triggered a "mentioned" notification to me, which on clicking led me here...unless you also mentioned me then later edited it out but I see no sign of an edit.

Curious.

(now I'm wondering if my mentioning Laurefindel will trigger a notification to myself)

Indeed, I originally accidentally clicked on you via the autofill and didn't notice it until after I saved the post, then went back in and edited it. My apologies for dragging you into the thread!

 

[Faolyn]

The players largely set their own goals, though.

Right. I've had several enemies run away and the PCs killed them.

I did also have a (summoned) enemy ask, after the summoner was killed, why they were fighting, and then have the summoned creature basically say it didn't have any personal reason to attack the PCs, so the PCs shrugged and the combat ended.

 

[Malmuria]

I thought this thread was going to be about enworld!

I've been wondering recently if initiative was a mistake. In my OSE game I've been using side-based initiative. Theoretically, this would enable the party to kind of act as a group tactically, because they could all state what they want to do and everything could be resolved at once. But they default to just going one after another. Dungeon world maybe has the right idea here.

Anyway, the best resource I've found for interesting encounter design is Index Card RPG

 

[Oofta]

I am almost ashamed to say I have not fully grasped them upon more than one reading. Something is not clicking. I have played tactical wargames etc so am not naive to all complexity but still…

I am thinking about doing what you are saying and cobbling a system together that feels a bit clearer for my use on the fly

It's similar in structure to 4E's skill challenges except that I'm tracking results as a contest. I don't necessarily think in terms of distance, but instead in terms of success totals or averages for a group. Sort of. A lot of times it just comes down to pacing and fun. I also use a similar structure, a set of connected skill checks, for things like escaping collapsing buildings, complex traps and what not.

It helps to just do it, of course. I also like to think ahead a bit if I think it's a possibility and jot down some potential obstacles sides could either use to obstruct or avoid. Also, are there any shortcuts, can you run through a building or alleyway instead of around.

The DM's version of obstacles in the chase rules is pretty limited, in particular it doesn't talk about using the environment to slow down your pursuers. I generally make my own obstacles up on the fly or have a little bit figured out ahead. Add in my list of PC skill proficiencies and it's off to the races so to speak.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Strange forum glitch: your mention of @Laurefindel in the above post triggered a "mentioned" notification to me, which on clicking led me here...unless you also mentioned me then later edited it out but I see no sign of an edit.

Curious.

(now I'm wondering if my mentioning Laurefindel will trigger a notification to myself)

You're allowed a couple of minutes (possibly 5?) to edit your post immediately after sending it and it won't get the "edited" label.

I have used this feature an awful lot.