Help combat my encounter phobia

[Spacebatsy]

Hi, I have a confession.

I’ve been reading on these forums for quite some time, and there seems to be a lot of experienced GMs/players around who knows a lot about, and has many opinions about encounters involving fights. Now I’m heading towards my third year as a GM and there is one thing in particular that’s been bothering me and that I feel I owe to my players to work on:
I hate combat. Loathe it. To me it’s the most boring part of roleplaying. Sure, encountering a dangerous and potentially lethal situation if not handled correctly is fun, but the actual fighting is about as exciting as a round of bingo.
It’s not only my opinion as a GM but as a player as well, it just feels like it gets old really fast.
However, fights and aggressive encounters are part of the game (to many it seems like the biggest part) and I always make room for it. But my heart is not in it.

I usually run investigation and/or horror games and most of my players (but not all of them) thinks that getting into a fight means something has gone wrong. I’m mostly to blame for this since they’re fairly knew to roleplaying and have hardly had another GM besides me. But I don’t want them to miss out on something that could be great just because it’s not my favorite part.

So here it is. How does one make battle fun? Both for the players and for the GM? (I believe you can’t make something well unless you think it is fun.)
What signifies a great encounter experience? What should the GM have in mind? What makes an encounter more than “add adversary, roll dices”?

Help my players by helping me be excited about combat.

[JusticeZero]

Try not only requiring people to move when their turn comes up, but also to accompany the attack with a line of dialog, or some other communication. Also, try skipping the battle mat and see how it goes. The map does make combat very rigid compared to 2e, and I think 5e is trying to phase it out.

[Segev]

One thing you could try is asking everybody to write their intended turn down on an index card or something before the round begins. Let them change their mind, but if they don't have a change ready by the time their turn comes up, they do what they said they were going to.

The goal here is for them to discuss actions and collaborate and then quickly resolve them in order so that people spend as little non-active time as possible.

[JusticeZero]

Also, tightly control the information you give out and only give players a few seconds to cough out an action if the fight is meant for games like you describe. According to people with combat experience, if you look at the play by play of a melee with people getting confused with lack of description and making illogical actions and doing things that are in retrospect, a waste of time, it's going to sound pretty similar to real life debriefing reports. Actual police and soldiers, veterans of combat all, still do a lot of derp things under combat stress. This is magnified when things have gone pear shaped. Push the clock hard with blatantly insufficient description for players to work with to get characters frazzled by a sudden ambush.

[Airk]

I realize that this is not specifically answering the original question, but why not run a game with less emphasis on combat?

[Spacebatsy]

Try not only requiring people to move when their turn comes up, but also to accompany the attack with a line of dialog, or some other communication. Also, try skipping the battle mat and see how it goes. The map does make combat very rigid compared to 2e, and I think 5e is trying to phase it out.

Actually I’ve never used a combat mat but have been wondering about if I should. (I’ve mostly played modern world, sci-fi or post-apocalyptic games and have a very limited experience with fantasy games, having not played DnD at all).
Probably because I find it so boring I tend to lack when it comes to describe more than the essential of what’s going on in the fight. Moreover I have a hard time coming up with interesting things for the enemies and if there is a lot of them I tend to struggle to keep track. For the last issue I thought a battle map might help (if nothing else, one for me to keep track). How much should the combat be described (Excluding the essential facts)? In general, do people enjoy a detailed story or do they simply want to cut o the chase?



One thing you could try is asking everybody to write their intended turn down on an index card or something before the round begins. Let them change their mind, but if they don't have a change ready by the time their turn comes up, they do what they said they were going to.

The goal here is for them to discuss actions and collaborate and then quickly resolve them in order so that people spend as little non-active time as possible.

The pace have not really been a big issue. With few exceptions the players hardly stalls when it comes to their actions. The problem is rather that it I can hardly ever make it memorable. Lack of flavor? Too simple tactics? Same-old-thing? Probably all. Do you guys get inspiration for these things from somewhere? Literature, movies, threads etc. Or does it come naturally?



Also, tightly control the information you give out and only give players a few seconds to cough out an action if the fight is meant for games like you describe. According to people with combat experience, if you look at the play by play of a melee with people getting confused with lack of description and making illogical actions and doing things that are in retrospect, a waste of time, it's going to sound pretty similar to real life debriefing reports. Actual police and soldiers, veterans of combat all, still do a lot of derp things under combat stress. This is magnified when things have gone pear shaped. Push the clock hard with blatantly insufficient description for players to work with to get characters frazzled by a sudden ambush.

I see what you’re getting at, however, isn’t it quite easy to step over the line from realistic confusion to haphazard and immersion-breaking confusion?


Something I forgot to ask: Do you as a GM enjoy encounters? If so, what are you enjoying?

Edit:

I realize that this is not specifically answering the original question, but why not run a game with less emphasis on combat?

Legit question. The answer is: I do.
In my opinion neither horror nor investigation should have much emphasis on combat, if hardly any at all. But the game we run allows for many different situation and I tend to want to mix things up every now and then, if nothing else for the sake of the more combat-inclined players. Besides, since there so few, the encounters I DO run should at least be good.
Also, the time might come when we play something different and I like to think I tried to learn something new instead of just skipping it because it was hard.

[Bulhakov]

Talk to players to see what they expect from the game. Pay attention to stuff they bring up the most in conversations when discussing past games. What stuff was most memorable?

As for creating memorable combat - graphic and creative descriptions of roll effects, especially for critical successes and critical failures.

People and monsters are more than just hitpoints - that 1HP hit could be a small scar on the forearm, but it could also be a lost finger ...or ear.. or nose.

Another tip (a houserule I used for several game systems) that makes combat more memorable:
Tissue heals "nicely" for HP recovered from normal rest and healing magic cast at rest. Wounds healed in combat using potions or spells heal "ugly" with permanent scars that can only be fixed using much more powerful magic. Remind players of their character's scars from time to time.

[draken50]

I can give advice regarding making combat encounters varied through use of different terrain, enemy strengths and weaknesses and tactics. That doesn't seem like the root of your issue though.

From what your describing, it doesn't sound as much like your players don't care for your combat, as much as it holds little interest for you. In order to increase your investment in the combat aspects of the game, you may want to see how you can apply the things you do like to your combat encounters.

If you're more interested in character development/motivation, have the npc enemy behave in a manner that reflects that rather than, "he/she attacks." The challenge may be in determining what the NPC in that situation would actually do.

Ultimately though, combat is really only "great" when all parties are involved in making it so. Your game sounds like it's going well, and while it's certainly not bad to challenge yourself and work to grow as a DM, forcing aspects of the game you don't enjoy on yourself isn't necessarily the best way to go about it. Are their other action setpieces/sequences in your game? If not, you might look at seeing how to add a bit to vary the pacing.

Every GM has their own style, and some can run many different types of game. Personally, the type of game I tend to run depends on the system.

My Earthdawn games tend to have the largest focus on character and culture, with combat occurring semi-regularly, but less randomly. Most of the time the players work to ensure that combat is on their terms with all the advantages they can muster.

My D&D games tend to be more along the lines of "Are you a bad enough dude to beat the bad guys?" With chases through cites, finger breaking interrogations, guild ambushes, and giant beast attacks. There's certainly still alliances to be made, and favors to be curried, but overall the game is much more "pulpy" in tone.

My goal to run a modern setting game, is to run one far more like what you are describing, emphasizing social interaction and ingenuity over combat. So don't worry about your players missing out.

Edit: Posted originally before clarify answers.

Mats can help a lot, even just a cleared space to show relative positions. Try to give some descriptions for as many actions/results as you can. An Ambushing NPC fires a crossbow at a character and misses? "You hear a click and see a crossbow bolt spark of the cobblestone at your feet." Or if the character is wearing armor and is more tankish in play: "Your body is rocked (shove a shoulder back to demonstrate) as a crossbow bolt slams into your breastplate. You see the dent marring the polished surface, an the damaged bolt lays at your feet."

It doesn't really add in game knowledge, but its much more interesting to most players than. "A guy shoots a crossbow at you... he missed." Describing arrows sticking in armor and shields can be a fun image.

For melee, I try to remember that each attack is not a single swing of a sword. So if a decent combat NPC is rolling low I'll say something like "He carefully probes your defenses taking your measure, but no attack slips through." Verses a character that is outclassed by the PC. "He works to create an opening to strike, but as scrappy of a fighter as he is, he'll need a fair amount of look to get past your sword-work." or for hits depending on damage and the like "He roars like a wild animal and slams your weapon to the side, winging his axe back around and into your side. If it weren't for your armor your ribs would all be shattered by the blow." ect.

[Arbane]

People and monsters are more than just hitpoints - that 1HP hit could be a small scar on the forearm, but it could also be a lost finger ...or ear.. or nose.

Another tip (a houserule I used for several game systems) that makes combat more memorable:
Tissue heals "nicely" for HP recovered from normal rest and healing magic cast at rest. Wounds healed in combat using potions or spells heal "ugly" with permanent scars that can only be fixed using much more powerful magic. Remind players of their character's scars from time to time.

Because we always need more ways to punish melee for their disgusting lack of magic.

[Spacebatsy]

Talk to players to see what they expect from the game. Pay attention to stuff they bring up the most in conversations when discussing past games. What stuff was most memorable?

As for creating memorable combat - graphic and creative descriptions of roll effects, especially for critical successes and critical failures.

People and monsters are more than just hitpoints - that 1HP hit could be a small scar on the forearm, but it could also be a lost finger ...or ear.. or nose.

Another tip (a houserule I used for several game systems) that makes combat more memorable:
Tissue heals "nicely" for HP recovered from normal rest and healing magic cast at rest. Wounds healed in combat using potions or spells heal "ugly" with permanent scars that can only be fixed using much more powerful magic. Remind players of their character's scars from time to time.

Nice touch!
Way to make players take even smaller threats seriously, nobody wants to look like Voldemort :smalltongue:

I have talked to them, but since they have so little to compare with (for many of them it’s their first campaign) they don’t really know what could be improved. And I suspect some of them don’t want to seem like they’re complaining. The one that is not afraid of complaining and have some experience is one of those who don’t enjoy combat very much either.
But it’s a very sound advice, I’ll have another go at that and pay certain attention when we get into RPG talk

[Bulhakov]

Do you guys get inspiration for these things from somewhere? Literature, movies, threads etc. Or does it come naturally?

Games, literature, movies.. tvtropes http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Mooks
(is linking to tvtropes a nono in this forum? ;) )
When it comes to combat I always try to have realistic goals and strategies for any opponent. Many will not "fight to the death", but will attempt to surrender/negotiate/flee.



Something I forgot to ask: Do you as a GM enjoy encounters? If so, what are you enjoying?

I most enjoy giving memorable experiences to players.
E.g. In a recent discussion I was amazed that my players still remembered the first combat encounter I ran with them over 10 years ago. Things that stuck in their memory the most:
- evil corporation hunting vampires for scientific research"
- guys in hazmat suits with liquid nitrogen "flamethrowers"
- a friend's failed "suicide by handgranade" due to a botched throw (it rolled into a sewer drain)


I also enjoy providing the players with "just the right amount of challenge". If the story I planned needs them to be defeated/captured, I'm most happy when I don't make it seem railroaded.

[Airk]

Legit question. The answer is: I do.
In my opinion neither horror nor investigation should have much emphasis on combat, if hardly any at all. But the game we run allows for many different situation and I tend to want to mix things up every now and then, if nothing else for the sake of the more combat-inclined players. Besides, since there so few, the encounters I DO run should at least be good.
Also, the time might come when we play something different and I like to think I tried to learn something new instead of just skipping it because it was hard.

Sorry! I left out a critical word in my question: System.

If combat is boring to you, this can easily be because the game system "switches gears" when you get into combat. A game system with fewer combat specific rules will inherently de-emphasize combat in a way that even setting a game in a different context does not.

As for how to make combat interesting, I think the most important thing is that there need to be stakes other than "Do you die or not?" The characters should be fighting FOR something. There needs to be a narrative conflict, not just a system conflict.

In fact, hold on...here we go (http://angrydm.com/2013/07/how-to-build-awesome-encounters/). Just what you asked for, I think.

[Yora]

Four things you have never heard of that make encounters not suck (http://angrydm.com/2013/05/four-things-youve-never-heard-of-that-make-encounters-not-suck/)

How to build awesome encounters (http://angrydm.com/2013/07/how-to-build-awesome-encounters/)

Probably the best two things ever written about the subject. They are long, but they are worth it.

[Spacebatsy]

I can give advice regarding making combat encounters varied through use of different terrain, enemy strengths and weaknesses and tactics. That doesn't seem like the root of your issue though.

From what your describing, it doesn't sound as much like your players don't care for your combat, as much as it holds little interest for you. In order to increase your investment in the combat aspects of the game, you may want to see how you can apply the things you do like to your combat encounters.

If you're more interested in character development/motivation, have the npc enemy behave in a manner that reflects that rather than, "he/she attacks." The challenge may be in determining what the NPC in that situation would actually do.

Ultimately though, combat is really only "great" when all parties are involved in making it so. Your game sounds like it's going well, and while it's certainly not bad to challenge yourself and work to grow as a DM, forcing aspects of the game you don't enjoy on yourself isn't necessarily the best way to go about it. Are their other action setpieces/sequences in your game? If not, you might look at seeing how to add a bit to vary the pacing.

Every GM has their own style, and some can run many different types of game. Personally, the type of game I tend to run depends on the system.

My Earthdawn games tend to have the largest focus on character and culture, with combat occurring semi-regularly, but less randomly. Most of the time the players work to ensure that combat is on their terms with all the advantages they can muster.

My D&D games tend to be more along the lines of "Are you a bad enough dude to beat the bad guys?" With chases through cites, finger breaking interrogations, guild ambushes, and giant beast attacks. There's certainly still alliances to be made, and favors to be curried, but overall the game is much more "pulpy" in tone.

My goal to run a modern setting game, is to run one far more like what you are describing, emphasizing social interaction and ingenuity over combat. So don't worry about your players missing out.

Very, very good advice. It gives me a bit different perspective of how I should progress with this. The thing that still bother me is that I have one (and a half so to speak) players who tends to build their characters around combat and are the ones who shine in those situations.
We are a group of friends who live(d) in the same town and that brought us together despite very different views of RPG. I want all of the players to have a good experience. Nobody likes to sit around feeling useless



Games, literature, movies.. tvtropes http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Mooks
(is linking to tvtropes a nono in this forum? ;) )
When it comes to combat I always try to have realistic goals and strategies for any opponent. Many will not "fight to the death", but will attempt to surrender/negotiate/flee.


I most enjoy giving memorable experiences to players.
E.g. In a recent discussion I was amazed that my players still remembered the first combat encounter I ran with them over 10 years ago. Things that stuck in their memory the most:
- evil corporation hunting vampires for scientific research"
- guys in hazmat suits with liquid nitrogen "flamethrowers"
- a friend's failed "suicide by handgranade" due to a botched throw (it rolled into a sewer drain)


I also enjoy providing the players with "just the right amount of challenge". If the story I planned needs them to be defeated/captured, I'm most happy when I don't make it seem railroaded.

I like that perspective, I try strive to think in those terms reminding myself of times getting angry at “unrealistic actions” when watching movies.

Judging from your friend the thing you did right, so to speak was:
- Interesting back story for the bad guys.
- Interesting (maybe unusual) equipment and tactics
- And of course the player factor, but given (I assume) a creative touch when describing the consequences.



Sorry! I left out a critical word in my question: System.

If combat is boring to you, this can easily be because the game system "switches gears" when you get into combat. A game system with fewer combat specific rules will inherently de-emphasize combat in a way that even setting a game in a different context does not.

As for how to make combat interesting, I think the most important thing is that there need to be stakes other than "Do you die or not?" The characters should be fighting FOR something. There needs to be a narrative conflict, not just a system conflict.

In fact, hold on...here we go (http://angrydm.com/2013/07/how-to-build-awesome-encounters/). Just what you asked for, I think.
That is really worth looking into, I think you actually addressed part of the actual problem. It does feel like whatever immersion was had before the encounter begins is lost at that moment because it turns into another kind of narrative. It didn’t even occur to me that another system could help


Four things you have never heard of that make encounters not suck (http://angrydm.com/2013/05/four-things-youve-never-heard-of-that-make-encounters-not-suck/)
How to build awesome encounters (http://angrydm.com/2013/07/how-to-build-awesome-encounters/)

Probably the best two things ever written about the subject. They are long, but they are worth it.

Thank you, I’ll look into that :smallsmile:

[Icewraith]

Some details depend on the system you're running. You may not be putting your players in enough danger that they feel threatened, or maybe tactical combat isn't that big a thing for you. Have you killed a PC in combat yet? If not, you're probably low-balling the difficulty on your encounters (not saying all encounters should kill a PC, just saying until you've killed a couple it's hard to have a feel for how hard is too hard).

Otherwise, remember that while combat foes are a threat to your PC's lives, they're usually more effective when they're also a threat to the plot. Kicking a PC in the nuts is all well and good, but kickng a PC in the STORY hurts for a lot longer. If the PCs are racing against time, combat becomes a lot more meaningful and effective use of resources is more important. You may also not be playing up the "this is your character's chance to be a badass" angle enough.

Never tell the players exactly how much HP the opponent has left, it's a good chance to get more description into the combat. Avoid using the phrase "you take [x] damage", instead "the monster [verb, where verb=/=hit, verb=stab, clobber, roast, freeze, etc]s you for [x], [possible description of injury or status effect], [inform player of status effect or tell to make saving throw]. Critical hits and deaths are especially good times to throw n a little description.

Instead of "you crit the goblin and kill him", glance down at your notes and say "well, there used to be a goblin there, you're not sure where all of him went, but you'll be picking bits of his spleen out of your armor for the next week, so well done".

Another aspect is tempo. Don't let your players hem and haw over their action for five minutes unless another PC's life is hanging in the balance. Help new players out and be more lenient with them, but have people roll out attacks (no rerolling low rolls when the DM isn't looking!) or at least damage ahead of time and expect them to have a plan of action for when their turn comes up (always allow some time to adapt since the last few actions can very easily mess up whatever they were planning to do). Also make sure the initiative order is where everyone can see it (dry-erase markers are your friends), and make sure the players are telling the next person specifically when it's their turn. Don't have all your monsters act on the same initiative (if you have several groups of monsters you might want to have each group act on an initiative just so you can keep track of abilities at the same time). Make sure your monsters aren't just bags of HP and damage, they should have recognizable tactics or special abilities (big, strong monsters might use knockback attacks, little monsters will flank and fight dirty, orcs favor axes, aquatic creatures commonly carry nets and tridents).

For example, in 3.5:

Kobold spellcasters are often sorcerers and favor direct elemental damage spells. Goblin spellcasters are usually clerics and buff their many allies. Orc spellcasters are usually clerics and buff themselves or the group's best melee combatant (usually a barbarian). The first elves encountered in their territory will usually be scouts that use hit-and-run skirmish tactics with their longbows on invaders. Any elves encountered in elven ruins are probably druids that want you to leave or crazy-powerful arcanists that still want you to leave. Any race, even the savage ones with CHA penalties, that is prone to forming organized war parties WILL have a bardic tradition and will include a bard once the unit gets to a certain size. There is no such thing as a lone hobgoblin, but there is such a thing as a unit of hobgoblins armed with polearms (often with improved trip). There is such a thing as a lone hobgoblin Warblade, and if he's actually alone you're better off trying to get him to teach you what he knows instead of fighting him. Undead usually come with their own schtick built in. Liches, dragons and the like will always have some sort of meat shield minions (often undead or constructs) or summons they can reliably call on while fighting in their lairs. The first combat with a vampire shouldn't involve the vampire, it should be "oh hey we got jumped by a pack of dire wolves and four vampire spawn". Then the party gets swarmed by clouds of bats, while the party is distracted one of the bats drops some kind of rock into the middle of them and flies off. When one of the players examines it, they discover it summons a hostile earth elemental when touched. Once the earth elemental is down, THEN the vampire shows up with two more spawns and bat swarms. If he's defeated, the players still have to find his lair, complete with maze, skeletal guards, two more spawn, and a false wall with a tiny crack (the Vampire passes through with gaseous form) that blocks off the heavily trapped (gaseous form again) corridor leading to the Vampire's coffin. Here they face the vampire's true-vampire mistress (with ranks in Craft (Trapsmithing)) AND several shadows or the regenerated vampire (if the PCs took too long) and two shadows.

The combat is more than "add adversary, roll dice", the combat is an extension of the world you're building. The opponents should usually have a reason (whether they know it or not) to be there. If they kill the PCs the campaign's over, but if the villains escape and live they'll assasinate the king, or blow up the temple affiliated with the party cleric, or eat a PC's love interest and then roast their hometown because some other fool tried to pass the love interest off as a virgin. Your players should be able to tell when they're fighting different opponents (not just "you take acid damage instead of fire", but fire BURNS, acid etches their armor and eats away at clothing, lightning leaves the smell of ozone in the air, sonic/thunder leaves their ears ringing, necrotic is extra painful and leaves skin looking wrinkled and faded until healed...). (Intelligent) Opponents should have surprises, tricks up their sleeve, fallback positions, and escape plans.

Basically, combat should be relevant to the world, and be challenging enough to force the players to think. If the players don't think, it should be entirely possible for them to end up dead. It's a great chance to add RP and description to the world, just make sure the description is short and vivid.

[JusticeZero]

I see what you’re getting at, however, isn’t it quite easy to step over the line from realistic confusion to haphazard and immersion-breaking confusion? Yes, and in cases of an ambush in a bad situation, you want to intentionally pole vault over that line. Haphazard confusion is exactly what you want them to be experiencing until after everything is wrapped up. There's plenty of sources that indicate that it's actually more realistic that way.
Something I forgot to ask: Do you as a GM enjoy encounters? If so, what are you enjoying?Complex scenarios where the goal isn't just "to win on an empty field", but where there's all sorts of fog of war nastiness going on. In PF, I put players on the 'fast' XP scale, but they often have to work for that fast XP by thrashing around in the woods for camoflaged plant creatures with darts, or walking into cramped twisty passages full of goblins using hit and run tactics, or things like that. Escort missions and the like, where there is a completely different victory condition, large scale battles, also interesting and deserve the battle map being deployed. For instance, in your horror venue, the classical cliche would be a zombie attack. You're escorting someone who has the key to stopping the invasion, but they have to achieve certain goals here and there, and meanwhile, there's these monsters lumbering around that the combat guys need to hold off, delay, lure, and whatnot.

[draken50]

The thing that still bother me is that I have one (and a half so to speak) players who tends to build their characters around combat and are the ones who shine in those situations.
We are a group of friends who live(d) in the same town and that brought us together despite very different views of RPG. I want all of the players to have a good experience. Nobody likes to sit around feeling useless


Ah yes, this can be a difficult proposition, sometimes made worse depending on the system. Depending on the player, I've noticed some players build very effective combat characters not so much to succeed due to mechanical advantage, so much as to play a character that's good at combat. So, they don't really care about beating a tough opponent as much as being the tough guy/effective guy in a fight. So I'll often set up situations where the combat character can bottleneck a number of weak enemies that would wreck the other characters, while simultaneously giving those characters something to do. Hackers breaking into a system while their "Hired muscle" guns down the security force coming after them.

I don't so much split the party as the encounter. The Troll Sky Raider is going toe to toe with a big tough champion (dice rolling), while the Elementalist, having already buffed the PCs, is supporting the NPCs who are fighting the goons (player describes attempted actions, I describe results, no dice usually needed.) As the thief is scrambling up walls and running across rooftops to reach the wizard preparing to cast at the troll.(Rolling for skills like climb/jump ect. with descriptions designed to impart urgency.)

So the encounter ended with the thief slamming the wizard from behind sending him to the street below. The elementalist getting descriptions of saving NPC lives, and keeping enemies off of his ally's back, and hearing how his buffs helped the other players during their descriptions/turns. While the troll "single-handedly" takes down a tough opponent via dice rolls rather than fiat.

Other options include things like "Non-leathal combat with an inferior opponent" Is the PC a decent fighter? A local tough starts a fist/improvised weapon fight giving in /retreating before death, and plainly not trying to kill. Is the PC an expert/tremendously good fighter? The tough is a local fighter on the amature/pro circuit. Or a group of punks the character can use their skills/abilities to dispatch. This lets the player feel like a badass, without requiring a long combat session, or much in the way of rolls/rules at all.

For instance, the player wants to grab the npc and pin him to the table, "As you're an accomplished grappler/wrestler, an he's an untrained opponent you're able to quickly pin his face into the table with one of his arms behind his back, wrenching his elbow and shoulder. His free hand slaps the table [I usually mimic this kind of thing] as he pleads "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, just let me go man!"

You don't have to be exactly specific to the skill or ability but it's good to reference. It helps make it feel like part of their build rather than just a thing that happened. "You dive off the bar, and roll, coming up behind him." Or "Your hours of acrobatic practice pay off, as you dive to the floor from the bar, and roll to your feet right behind him." In a fight with the BBEG, yeah, I'm going to make the player roll. In a quick fight with a local bully, I'd rather keep the game moving.

Sometimes I'll ask for a roll, just because players like rolling and unless it's a particularly bad or good roll then end result is pretty much the same. For those situations low tends to equal comedic failure, and high is either Awesome success, or comedic awesome success

[Segev]

Unless you get complaints about "lack of challenge," given your preferences, I would suggest not bothering with encounters you intend to be combat challenges for your big powerful combatants. Instead, set them up as chances for those combat-monsters to curb-stomp some things. This validates their existence in the party and keeps things moving on what you find entertaining.

If you DO get complaints about lack of challenge, then you should be looking for the suggestions you might get in this thread.

[kyoryu]

Language warning, but good advice:

http://angrydm.com/2013/07/how-to-build-awesome-encounters/
http://angrydm.com/2013/05/four-things-youve-never-heard-of-that-make-encounters-not-suck/

[jedipotter]

Help my players by helping me be excited about combat.

This is just one of the reasons I like deadly combat. It makes combat exciting, intresting and fun.

[Arbane]

This is just one of the reasons I like deadly combat. It makes combat exciting, intresting and fun.

Not by itself, it doesn't. If your group is big enough, it's possible to kill a PC around and still have it be a boring slog.

[jedipotter]

Not by itself, it doesn't. If your group is big enough, it's possible to kill a PC around and still have it be a boring slog.

Add to deadly combat: great loss. Any thing that the character and player will feel. Like a wizard loosing a spellbook or a fighter the weapon they are all focused on.

[kyoryu]

Personally I like having stakes to any fight. As in, what are we fighting *about*?

While death as a stake is great (it's very high tension), realistically most games don't kill characters frequently.

So there should be a *reason* you're fighting. As one article (about screenplays, actually) said, you don't write an action scene. You write a dramatic scene that can only be answered with action.

So instead of "the bad guys are trying to kill you", make it "the bad guys are trying to prevent you from getting to the docks before the ship leaves." Now you've got a reason to fight *and* a way to have the characters lose without dying. All because you've added a dramatic question - will the characters reach the dock in time? - to the mix.

[Airk]

Add to deadly combat: great loss. Any thing that the character and player will feel. Like a wizard loosing a spellbook or a fighter the weapon they are all focused on.

You know what they say about assumptions.

"High stakes" in the sense of "Oh crap, it's going to take me forever to recover from this fight." combat is such a huge drag on my interest in the game that it just makes me not want to play the encounter at all.

Story stakes are another question, and have nothing to do with lethality.