When the DM doesn't like combat.

[Alexwellace]

3 sessions into a campaign, we finally ran into our first combat. I'm someone that quite likes the mechanics of 5e combat, I find doing the right thing at the right moment interesting, however part way through the combat the DM mentioned off hand he doesn't like combat. And considering the circumstance, I could understand why. We have a fairly large party of 7 people and the combat just took forever, so people would go on their phones, or start talking to each other, so when it came back to their turn they had to ask ''who's where, what's damaged, where am i?''. I'm sure that simply being efficient in peoples turns would've made the whole thing more dynamic, but I can't control how time efficient other people are (rolling multiple damage one at a time, uming and ahhing over what to do).

The DM is also the kind of person stuck in the one encounter per day side of things, which I regularly complain about, because I feel it makes short rest classes worse than long rest classes. Why play a Warlock with 2 spell slots per day (and maybe some cool at will things) when you can play a wizard with +10?

I want to give him a nudge into 'getting combat right', multiple encounters per adventuring day, enforcing the 10 second rule (if you don't know what to do, why would your character?) and encouraging the other players to do the little things that make a combat breeze by. But also, I don't wanna be that guy who tries to make the game into what *I* want, but on the otherhand 7 person role play is simply chaotic and not super enjoyable for me. Anyone handled anything like this before?

[Unoriginal]

Talk with the group and propose your idea. Engage in a discussion and see what they want.

IMO a 7 people group is already stretching the maximum for how many players a DM can handle.

[Safety Sword]

Talk with the group and propose your idea. Engage in a discussion and see what they want.

IMO a 7 people group is already stretching the maximum for how many players a DM can handle.

Providing you have reasonable people to deal with, this is really good advice.

If the opposite is true.. you need a new group to game with.

As an aside, I consistently DM for a group of 8+ and we don't have these issues. We have worked out the kind of game it is in session 0, people know what they're doing on their turn and it move smoothly because they are involved in the world and story and want it to move forward.

[Asmotherion]

If the tone of the campain is not all that much about combat, nothing you can do about it. Some people like to play D&D for reasons other than "kill the bad guys" after all.

Discuss the tone of the campain with your DM, and possibly a way to work with your character concept to make your character more involved in the campain; I take it you are very optimised towards combat, and seeing minimal action frustrates you. I've been there.

If you're not the only one with that problem, adress your DM as a group asking for more action. If you're the only one, either have fun with what you get, or if what you get is no fun at all, abandon ship. Simple solution.

[Pelle]

Volunteer to do the tracking of initiative and whose turn it is next, and be the one who urges people to make their decisions within 5-10 seconds or otherwise they Dodge.

Combat with 7 PCs can be rough, the action needs to be paced agressively, otherwise people don't pay attention. Some people hate being pushed to make decisions fast, but it is necessary for the combat to be exciting IMO. Be prepared to have a discussion with the group where you need to convince them that this makes for a more fun game for everyone.

[Knaight]

This sounds like a textbook case of someone running D&D because it's the standard game, not because it's in any way suited for what they want to do - which seems like a low combat campaign which emphatically doesn't focus on resource management (at least of combat resources). That's not likely to change, so either enjoy the game as a social activity where the game side is more ignored or bail.

[Pelle]

This sounds like a textbook case of someone running D&D because it's the standard game, not because it's in any way suited for what they want to do - which seems like a low combat campaign which emphatically doesn't focus on resource management (at least of combat resources). That's not likely to change, so either enjoy the game as a social activity where the game side is more ignored or bail.

Possibly, but it also sounds like a self-reinforcement group dynamic thing, where combat sucks because of the players, and therefore the DM doesn't like combat, and instead focus more on things in the game that don't suck with this group.

[MoiMagnus]

The DM is also the kind of person stuck in the one encounter per day side of things, which I regularly complain about, because I feel it makes short rest classes worse than long rest classes. Why play a Warlock with 2 spell slots per day (and maybe some cool at will things) when you can play a wizard with +10?


May I suggest to your DM the following homerule: Long rest only happens once every 3 days.
(Alternative homerule: you have to take a full day off to have a long rest).
We played a campaign with approximately encounter per week, but only one long rest per month, and it worked pretty well.

[ad_hoc]

1) Split the group into 2
2) Play a different game

Werewolf is a great game for 8 players. No combat involved.

[Baptor]

1) Split the group into 2
2) Play a different game

Werewolf is a great game for 8 players. No combat involved.

I only ever had this problem once, and split the group is what I did. Split 8 players into two groups of four.

I talked to the players beforehand and explained why the group had to split, but I also wove it into the story of the game. It's been almost 20 years so I'm hazy on the details - but it was one of those "we can't be in two places at once!" things. It worked OK, although the second group eventually dwindled to two, so I merged them back with the OG.

The best DM I ever had (who I affectionately call DM Zero) was notorious for having truly massive groups (7-10) but was also a master of combat. He had mats, tiles, minatures, and all sorts of things. He also used lots of bad guys. Even if you were the invisible flying mage in the back, things were still threatening you - and you couldn't afford not to pay attention. He was a 1st edition DM so death was a constant threat. The players policed themselves for the most part since if you were caught not paying attention the other players would get mad at you because you could cost their characters their lives.

So there's two options I guess. YMMV.

[Millface]

Your original post hit it on the head, honestly.

I've DM'ed for 8, and it worked...ok I guess? I've since limited my table to 6 max because even when it was smooth it was still just a chore. Some players like combat, some prefer the role play, some go back and forth. With a smaller table the DM can gauge the mood and weave between the two in a dynamic way that works for everyone and keeps them engaged, the more people there are, the harder that's going to be.

I've never done a ten second rule, but my players (especially spellcasters) know that they need to be paying attention. If they don't know what they're doing by the time their name is called I skip them and come back at the end of the initiative order, if they still don't know what they want to do that's when they just take the Dodge action and we move on. They know this rule beforehand (that's important).

If the players aren't engaged in the combat or they have trouble deciding what to do, odds are they're playing a class that isn't very well suited to them. Not everyone has the attention span or decisiveness needed to play a full caster, and conversely some people aren't engaged when they don't have enough to do. I keep an eye out for that in my games, you can't force someone to swap, but if you see something like that you can make the suggestion, at least.

7 players is just tough. Whether you're in combat or roleplaying even the best DM is going to have trouble keeping everyone interested 100% of the time. I loved the suggestion above that you help the DM keep track of some of this in combat, it might help nudge him in that direction.

[CantigThimble]

#1 thing I think helps combat run smoothly in large groups is a dedicated initiative tracker. Just have one player who takes down everyone's initiative at the start of the fight and just constantly says: "Your turn now John. David, you're up after him. Your turn David. Zach, you're up after him. Your turn Zach. DM, monster #3 is up after him."

Unless a DM is really good at running combat he's not going to be able to do that himself while also dealing with all the consequences of actions and planning enemy strategy. Offloading it onto one of the more organized and motivated players (Say, the one who loves 5e combat and goes onto forums looking for advice on how to help their DM do more combat :smalltongue:) really makes things easier.

Talk to him about having more combat and offer to try to make it easier for him, if it works and combat isn't as much of a drag then he might be more inclined to run more of it in the future.

[N810]

Rolling d20' and damage dice at the same time can speed up the game a little.

[BoxANT]

either ban phones

or

give a bonus 1d4 to your roll if you declare your action in the first 3 seconds


better yet, both

[KorvinStarmast]

better yet, both Yeah, this. Incentivize the behavior that you want to see happen.

[Millface]

Yeah, this. Incentivize the behavior that you want to see happen.

I use skittles to keep the game balanced, but yeah, basically just train them with positive reinforcement like any other creature on earth.

The reverse also works. I had a player for a while who would bring whiskey to the table and give me a shot anytime they received magic item (subtle, not in celebration, just like it was in passing). I didn't notice it at first, but I started rolling up more treasure for them subconsciously. The minx got away with it for like 4 or 5 solid sessions before I was like, hold on, I'm being lowkey bribed right now!

I was so upset I had to roll up an entire hoard to drink away the shame.

[GlenSmash!]

Talk to your DM either privately or with the whole group (whichever you think the DM will feel more comfortable with) and express the exact concerns you have brought up here.

Ask how the DM is planning to address them if at all and ask what you can do to help.

Once you've done that we can give more advice on what to do next.

[Gryndle]

Talk with the group and propose your idea. Engage in a discussion and see what they want.

IMO a 7 people group is already stretching the maximum for how many players a DM can handle.

gotta agree. 7 is the magic number for me..as the absolute most I will DM for long term. And I prefer 4 or 5 players.

That said I have had a couple of special occasion events I have DM'd for that was enjoyable. Just no way in hell I would do it every week (or two).

At one point my gaming group grew to 10 players. So I started with them as one group for a few sessions, then split them into two groups of adventurers working towards the same goal against the Big Bad. One group went the stealthy anti-hero route, the other went the bright shiny bards & paladins route. but both groups ran concurrently with the actions of each group affecting the game world and each other's plans until I finally brought them all back together for our Thanksgiving game/showdown with the Big Bad.

A friend of mine does an annual get-together with his online gamer-guild buddies from all over the country. So one year he asked me to run a 1 shot for them. About a 4 hour session with 14-20 people (I lost count, and everyone else has given me a different number when asked). That was fun, for a one-shot. I used bunch of different types of candies (jolly rogers, Hershey's Kisses, Reeses Cups and mini candi bars for bosses) to use as monster minis, which was a hit. But man I was mentally drained after that. Glad I did it, prolly never do it again though.

[Millface]

gotta agree. 7 is the magic number for me..as the absolute most I will DM for long term. And I prefer 4 or 5 players.

That said I have had a couple of special occasion events I have DM'd for that was enjoyable. Just no way in hell I would do it every week (or two).

At one point my gaming group grew to 10 players. So I started with them as one group for a few sessions, then split them into two groups of adventurers working towards the same goal against the Big Bad. One group went the stealthy anti-hero route, the other went the bright shiny bards & paladins route. but both groups ran concurrently with the actions of each group affecting the game world and each other's plans until I finally brought them all back together for our Thanksgiving game/showdown with the Big Bad.



I've done this, and it worked out incredibly well. I had a second DM, though. We played back to back nights, he played in mine, I played in his, and it was the most fun I've probably ever had with D&D. The finale was a ten hour extravaganza where we kept the parties split but they could mix and match how they liked to best handle the task at hand. We had two tables in two rooms, one group handling a massive battle/clash of armies, the other delving into a magical stronghold to go after the leader. Most epic session, I'll always be chasing that dragon. The new interactions with characters that I knew, but they didn't know each other, was so damned fun.

If you can split the party, and you have the time, this is a super rewarding way to play.

[Jerrykhor]

I bet if you ask him why he don't like combat, he'd say something like 'Combat is dumb,' or 'It encourages murderhobo', or 'Because I'm an intellectual'.

People like him are completely missing the point of D&D. When i first started D&D and i saw the class list, I look at Bard and wonder, is this the non-combat class? I was surprised to find that they can indeed fight just as well as the other classes.

When every class can fight right out the gate, and 75% of their abilities are combat-based, its clear that D&D is designed with combat in mind. Heck, the OG class is the Fighter. They added the Magic User and Cleric, and both of them can fight too. There should be a balance though. You're not a Diablo murder machine, nor can you play a 0 combat class like a Banker or Gardener.

Back to your DM though. Are his combats boring? I have played in some combats that were a total slog. Putting combat for the sake of combat is not good either.

[Edenbeast]

The DM is also the kind of person stuck in the one encounter per day side of things, which I regularly complain about, because I feel it makes short rest classes worse than long rest classes. Why play a Warlock with 2 spell slots per day (and maybe some cool at will things) when you can play a wizard with +10?

Ask your DM to consider the Gritty Realism Rest Variant (DMG p. 267). This is well suited for low combat campaigns. Also, as others have suggested a 10 sec. rule to speed up combat when it does occur. No phones, unless it's an emergency, but I guess this issue resolves with faster combat.