How do you run combat?

[The Cats]

Just curious.

I had an issue in the past where my players seemed to get really bored of combat, because it was all just rolling dice and me saying "You hit. You miss." Boooooo.

I know there are some contentious opinions on the quality of DMing in Critical Role, but I gotta say, watching Matt Mercer run combat has helped me make my table's combat a helluva lot more engaging. Granted that's not hard when you start with ^

I describe character attacks and misses(unless they want to do it themselves). I also ask them how they would like to kill the creature if they get the killing blow. We're not a super serious table so I sometimes get a little silly with it. I also retcon attacks to chain together. An example:

Wizard casts magic missile. I describe little bolts of energy shooting from her fingers and slamming the fleeing werewolf in the back of the head. Fighter runs up and gets the kill shot, says he wants to just behead the guy, so I describe the axe slicing through the werewolf's neck and it's head tumbling to the ground. Rogue says he wants to use the head to intimidate the others. So I retcon: Warrior slices the head off and, while it's tumbling, the magic missiles slam into it, knocking it upwards. While the rogue is celebrating with his rapier raised, it lands neatly on the tip.

I also try to do a quick description of the scene with some urgency every few turns (I forget to do this a lot though.) OK Maudrick, there's a werewolf bearing down on you, the pack leader is escaping through the north tunnel. Aldryn is bleeding heavily and two more werewolves are closing in on him. What do you do?

My monsters never get super tactical, cause I'm not a super tactically minded guy, but they do use terrain and stuff to their advantage (when I remember to think about it.) I do like adding gimmicks to fights so they're not all just "beat them down before they beat us down." Stuff like a pit full of zombies that the baddies are trying to push the players in to, a cursed 'thingy' (the technical term) that spews dark energy on initiative count 10, damaging and possible diseasing anyone who is at ground level. That sort of thing.

How about you?

[Tinkerer]

Almost every time I plan a combat I ask myself "What do I want to achieve with this combat." I try and put at least one clue/backstory, one gimmick, and one chance to shine in each combat. For most of the starter groups (starter in this case meaning playing this system under me for less than a year) I try to put in one lesson as well.

For the clue/backstory what I mean is that something about the combat should tie in to the story somewhat. With intelligent NPCs this is fairly easy, they can blurt out something like "There they are boys, that bounty is as good as ours!" Or it can be self evident by the very nature of the opponent like if they are attacked by assassins then they know someone is sending assassins after them. For the more animalistic opponents I'm forced to get creative.

For the gimmick it is something in the environment which favours one side or the other, generally interacting with either parties abilities. Having a fight in a trapped room, or a large ravine, or differing light sources are all examples.

One chance to shine means that something in the combat should cater to one of the characters preferred fighting styles. If you have a wizard where you know they always prep fire spells you might throw some ice monsters at them. Enemies which go well with the fighters style. Etc...

For the lesson I have the enemy group utilize one aspect of the combat system which hasn't been used before. Perhaps dirty tricks, or lying prone, or taunting, or playing with elevations. Sometimes this is combined with the gimmick of the fight.

Note that I said almost every time I plan a fight I follow those rules. I'd have to say about 1/3 - 2/3 of my fights are planned and the rest are either random encounters or something which I am forced to pull out of my butt due to the players actions. In these cases while I try and at least work in a gimmick from the surrounding environment speed is actually the much more important factor. I hate it when a GM runs into an unexpected combat and stops everything while they generate it. After a while of practicing I've brought it down to less than 45 seconds from when the encounter is, uh, encountered and when the fight starts.

And yeah in terms of combat, juicy descriptions beat dry ones every day.

[SirBellias]

Describing what happens more than just the direct result of the dice roll is the most prevalent thing in my games. Creating a sense of urgency is good as it helps the players act quicker (hopefully).

I like to throw in minor puzzles or countdown clocks that trigger various effects just to keep people on their toes. When the boss is impervious until you do something else, it has a habit of striking fear into the hearts of mortals everywhere. Fear is an important aspect of combat in my games, and I make sure to have smart things run away when they are outmatched.

[kyoryu]

Well, for my games, I generally rely on a combination of interesting stakes, a possibility of losing, and lots of focus on what's happening "in the world" rather than mechanics to keep things interesting.

The first two may not be universally applicable. Many games presume that you will win your fights (a "well balanced" encounter being one that you can win, but appears close), which makes interesting stakes rather difficult.

[Mastikator]

IRL acting. If you die in the game, you die in real life. In the same manner too.

[ijon]

If you die in the game, you die in real life.

... I guess that's one way to curb murderhobo tendencies

[John Campbell]

IRL acting. If you die in the game, you die in real life. In the same manner too.

No, not Black Leaf!

[Koo Rehtorb]

Play games with less combat in it so it doesn't get old.

Make the combat that does happen super dangerous where death, or long term injury, or some other severely negative consequence is always on the table, and if there is some minor combat for some reason then resolve it in a single roll instead.

Describe what you're doing before rolling the dice, and describe what happens after rolling the dice.

[Martin Greywolf]

This depends on the system.

Something like DnD 3.x has a pretty inflexible combat system - I'd go so far as to say it's a bad system for TTRPG (though not universally bad, something like a wargame would be able to do just fine). If you have a hex grid and jump is a skill check that takes some math and an action you need to full attack, you are mechanically encouraged to poke at the giant's toe instead of jumping at his face and remove an eyeball.

More abstract combat systems like FATE avoid this rather handily, others have something to shake it up built in, e.g. Planet Mercenary's Mayhem deck.

A good start is a simple rule of thumb - you can't do an action if you can't tell me how you do it. You can't say "I full attack him", you need to say something like "I viciously stab him many more times than necessary with my sword". For systems that have a lot of full attacks, you may want to give a small bonus to attack if the description is interesting enough.

Next step is enemy actions - unless you're dealing with undirected mindless undead, they will have a plan. An animal will have a simple plan, human not so much. There will be hiding behind crates/corners, ambushes, retreats and routs. If the enemy is expecting you, be prepared to have a bad time with crossbowmen hidden in the bushes, wizards on top of roofs and a surprise assassin lurking in the latrines. This will also give you thing to do that aren't rolling attack or defense - person closest to latrine can roll to spot the assassin one round before he springs out.

Then there is the environment - are there people around, or exploitable features? In less strict systems, you can get away with using the dinner plate as a weapon without loosing out on damage, and even DnD has concealment, and someone noticing a fight and calling in the town guards should definitely be a thing.

The most abstract thing to work on are fighting styles. A specific mage order may be famous for using a spell in a certain way, a knightly order may be well known for their winged helmets, and so on. These are basically signature attacks or signature styles, and if your players ever come to a point where they can identify an otherwise nondescript guy just by the way he fights, you finally achieved mastery in this art.

[kyoryu]

A good start is a simple rule of thumb - you can't do an action if you can't tell me how you do it. You can't say "I full attack him", you need to say something like "I viciously stab him many more times than necessary with my sword". For systems that have a lot of full attacks, you may want to give a small bonus to attack if the description is interesting enough.

While I love Fate and agree with this advice in Fate, it's somewhat tougher in D&D. In D&D, the actual move you're using is actually important and impacts things, while the description really kind of doesn't. The opposite is often true in Fate - how you describe your action is going to determine how it can be resisted, possible outcomes/consequences, side effects, etc. Or in some cases even if the action is mechanically legal, what you describe has an obvious effect that bypasses your intent - the example I'm thinking of is someone trying to push away a ghoul. Well, he PUT HIS HANDS ON THE GHOUL, so what do you think would happen? That worked fine in Fate - I don't know if I'd do that in D&D.

[RedMage125]

I give narrative description to significant strikes, such as finishing blows (I do accept input from players of how they want to finish them), and all crits.

This is done, keeping in mind my general rule that when creatures are above 50% hp, they are usually not wounded. Below 50%, they are "bloodied" (I use this even in non-4e games), which means they've got some cuts, lacerations, burns, etc. The one caveat to this is that a crit is ALWAYS a "meat strike", even if it seems minor (rapier pierced the werewolf's arm, for example, or a shallow but freely bleeding slash across the chest).

[Kaptin Keen]

Poorly.

I'm good at telling stories - or so I convince myself - but quite terrible at actual combat. Maybe it's because the actual rules interest me very little.

[RazorChain]

No, not Black Leaf!

John Campell, get out of here. You're dead. You don't exist anymore

[Bogwoppit]

I try to add more description to a combat - "The goblin gabbles at you as its slashes skid ineffectively on your armour", and "With one well-placed blow you slice the <enemy> in two" - but in some game systems, where combat drags on for many rounds over dozens of minutes of real time, it can be hard to sustain.

That's why I think combat should last just a few rounds - five or six at most - and tend to take only a few minutes. Exceptions for the Big Climax Showdown - but that shouldn't be a simple fight anyway: it should be highly dynamic and full of twists and surprises.

[Vitruviansquid]

Try this sometime:

Run a campaign where you only use so many types of NPC opponents that the players will meet in combat. Let's say 5. Run a campaign where the only opponents that the players will ever meet are orcish swordsmen, orcish archers, heavy orcs with thick armor, fast warhounds, and orcish sorcerers of some kind. You can have unique named NPCs, but each needs to be a character who is significant throughout the arc or the campaign, not just the session.

This way, the only way to make combats interesting is to mess with the context outside of the NPCs. You must put your battles in interesting environments, you must put your battles in interesting conditions, you must make your battles meaningful to the plot of the campaign, you must learn to re-combine NPCs in interesting ways rather than introduce new ones.

[Tanarii]

Fast.

The key to good combat is appropriate pacing, and that pacing is almost always tense, not enough time to really think about what you're doing, and occasionally outright panic. Players should be on the edge of their seats, make decisions on the fly unless they have preplanned tactics, and make mistakes because of it. Don't let players play the game like it is chess. Don't waste time on flowery descriptions for everything just toss out the few need to enhance the excitement and that perfect touch if fear.

IMO etc etc

[RedMage125]

No, not Black Leaf!

John Campell, get out of here. You're dead. You don't exist anymore

This made my day.

[John Campbell]

But seriously, in 3.5/Pathfinder, where miniatures and battle map are almost required and everything you might attempt is some kind of combat maneuver or special ability that has rules telling you you can't do it because you don't have the right feat/class feature/skill trick/available actions, I honestly tend to just default to, "The hydra moves up 20', which brings it into range of the boat rail. Three of its heads attack Tintin, because he actually hurt it, while the other two attack Rognar and Grymlocke. :roll: Tintin gets hit once for 6, :roll, nat 20; roll: and it fails to confirm the crit on Rognar, but bites him for 9, and :roll, nat 1: um, whacks its head on the side of the boat trying to bite Grymlocke. Rognar, you're up."

In systems with more fast-and-loose combat rules, I'll get more descriptive. "You toss the grenade neatly through the window of the truck, and it bounces around down by the driver's feet. He goes wide-eyed, :roll, surprisingly good: but manages to snatch it up and throw it back at you. :roll, all 1s: Or tries to, but it hits the A-pillar and bounces back into the cab, landing in the lap of the guard in the passenger's seat, where it starts spewing white smoke that quickly fills the cab and billows out the window. :roll, roll: The driver and guard both slump over unconscious; Trom, soak 6S Stun because you're standing right by the window."

(Yeah, I just called Shadowrun 3 "more fast-and-loose", deal with it.)

(Both examples from actual play.)

[Grog Logs]

Almost every time I plan a combat I ask myself "What do I want to achieve with this combat." I try and put at least one clue/backstory, one gimmick, and one chance to shine in each combat.

*Sneaks away stealthily with this excellent advice*

[Jormengand]

Make the actual tactical elements of the combat interesting. There's a limit to how interesting a fight between two fighters fighting with fight-sticks can be (in the vast majority of systems, anyway), and no level of "He smashes vigourously through your armour with a blow from his mace, rending your face in twain!" can make it more interesting. Put people on the roof with bows so that people have to find a way up or shoot back. Make floorboards rickety. Set the entire fight in a smithy with an errant mule, a variety of red-hot pokers up for grabs, and a system of beams up in the ro... you know this is just turning into a pirates of the carribean reference, isn't it? Still, think how boring that fight would have been if Jack and Will had just been whacking at each other with swords the whole time. Now imagine how much more boring it would be if it was just DM descriptions of that happening.

[Tinkerer]

Make the actual tactical elements of the combat interesting. There's a limit to how interesting a fight between two fighters fighting with fight-sticks can be (in the vast majority of systems, anyway), and no level of "He smashes vigourously through your armour with a blow from his mace, rending your face in twain!" can make it more interesting. Put people on the roof with bows so that people have to find a way up or shoot back. Make floorboards rickety. Set the entire fight in a smithy with an errant mule, a variety of red-hot pokers up for grabs, and a system of beams up in the ro... you know this is just turning into a pirates of the carribean reference, isn't it? Still, think how boring that fight would have been if Jack and Will had just been whacking at each other with swords the whole time. Now imagine how much more boring it would be if it was just DM descriptions of that happening.

The question is how to do this, especially when the rules actually actively discourage it in some systems (see any system which allows a free attack upon disengaging with the enemy). I really don't want to remove that aspect since it is what allows the fighter their small but crucial amount of battlefield control. I've played around with a few methods but I haven't actually tied it down to anything concrete yet.

The most promising method I've worked out ties back to 1st editions abstraction of combat, the parties are constantly moving and circling each other. I have the two (or more) parties make an opposed roll and the victor gets to move the combat a certain distance in their chosen direction, thus possibly putting themselves in an advantageous position. I've played around with what the opposed roll is based on however haven't really settled on anything.

Probably the second most promising is importing the stunt mechanic from various other systems, however this raises a handful of issues, not the least of which is feeling a bit off for the systems which I imported it to.

[Jay R]

Rolling dice back and forth is not about fighting. Deciding what action to take, and why, when there are many options, is about fighting.

Have terrain - trees to hide behind, doorways to blockade, hummocks or treasure to trip over, streams to be pushed into. Use minis so people can see what's happening. [Using dice or other non-figure placeholders shows the situation, but makes immersion much harder. I don't want my d8 to sneak attack the d12; I want my Rogue to sneak attack the enemy wizard.] Cheap cardboard minis work fine, and are available from the Giant or from Steve Jackson Games.

Then it's possible for the fights to become exciting. But they will only be exciting to the extent that the players and the DM actually use tactical considerations. When my Ranger is trying to trip the orc who's attacking the Rogue, or bullrush the ogre who's chasing the wizard, then I'm thinking about fighting. But if I just roll attacks and hit points, I'm not.

[Pelle]

How do you engineer interesting combat situations when you are not running a linear adventure?

For example, often it doesn't make sense narratively to include lots of different enemies, and often players avoid the interesting combat grounds that were prepared. Or if players are competent, most combats should turn into either evades or cakewalks, due to only picking fights where they have advantage.

[Tinkerer]

How do you engineer interesting combat situations when you are not running a linear adventure?

For example, often it doesn't make sense narratively to include lots of different enemies, and often players avoid the interesting combat grounds that were prepared. Or if players are competent, most combats should turn into either evades or cakewalks, due to only picking fights where they have advantage.

It depends on how they are proceeding. First off the suggestion that the players only pick fights when they have advantage seems a little off to me since it is assuming that no being in the world has desire to pick a fight with the players, and assuming that the players have no goals of their own which may come into conflict with evading or waiting (such as a hostage situation).

I can't say that I've ever run into an issue with including several different types of enemies in an area, if you are running into that issue it might be because you lack sufficient types of enemies. For instance if an area is dominated by goblins then in my world we have at minimum 9 different types of goblins (melee warriors, archers, sneaky gits, psionics, mages, clerics, leaders, civilians, cavalry), at least 6 types of monsters which are regularly trained (and sometimes ridden) by goblins, a few dozen types of monsters which could be utilized by any binders which the goblins have, goblin allies, and any local wildlife which could be in the area. Any three of those can be combined in interesting ways to create a unique challenge.

The obvious way around having the players avoid interesting combat grounds is to simply have interesting combat grounds everywhere.

It's tricky to comment based on such a limited description though, the big question is "What are your players doing?"

[Pelle]

The obvious way around having the players avoid interesting combat grounds is to simply have interesting combat grounds everywhere.

It's tricky to comment based on such a limited description though, the big question is "What are your players doing?"

Yes, that was my conclusion as well. It is not enough to make a fantasy setting that makes sense and is consistent, it also has to be crafted such that there will be interesting combat encounters everwhere. I guess I find those two challenging to combine. It just feels a bit contrived that every combat encounter is perfectly balanced and varied, independently of which precautions the characters (don't) make. For example, having different types of goblins is ok, but if they always arrive in convenient numbers for balanced encounters, that is strange. If the players do something stupid causing an alarm to go off, the whole tribe should be coming down on them, not one family at the time.


In play though, my players don't really either evade all challenging encounters or facilitate easy encounters. Setting up ambushes is for example a way to engineer an interesting encounter. It's just that when I try harder to avoid railroading the game becomes less linear. And the further away I get from linear adventure and CaS, the more difficult I have rationalizing interesting combats popping up everywhere (balanced, varied enemies and terrain).

I mean, you can have adventures where the players need to free a hostage or get the MacGuffin in a particular location, and plan an interesting encounter around that, but that feels closer to a linear adventure to me. Actually though, my players asked for less sandbox feel, and for me to provide them with more clear direct goals, which will make it easier to plan fun combats...

[Jay R]

How do you engineer interesting combat situations when you are not running a linear adventure?

Don't have any monsters stand and wait for them in the middle of a flat, bare plain.

Really, it's that simple. Every combat takes place somewhere. Have it be somewhere interesting.

[Pelle]

Really, it's that simple. Every combat takes place somewhere. Have it be somewhere interesting.

Yes, and hopefully that makes sense for the context.

I think I know how to build an interesting combat. It's justifying it narratively I'm asking about. Why are the monsters arriving in CR appropriate portions, instead of banding together or fleeing?

(I see I have here assumed that interesting combats are not too unbalanced. Not sure if that was based on this thread or not.)

[Tanarii]

Yes, and hopefully that makes sense for the context.

I think I know how to build an interesting combat. It's justifying it narratively I'm asking about. Why are the monsters arriving in CR appropriate portions, instead of banding together or fleeing?

(I see I have here assumed that interesting combats are not too unbalanced. Not sure if that was based on this thread or not.)

Why assume that? Work with your players and see what they want. Combat-as-war (encounters aren't guaranteed to be balanced) vs combat-as-sport (encounters will almost always be balanced).

[Pelle]

Why assume that? Work with your players and see what they want. Combat-as-war (encounters aren't guaranteed to be balanced) vs combat-as-sport (encounters will almost always be balanced).

That was a bit stupid, not sure why. I think I must have interpreted it that way in the context of this thread, or some other one that has been on my mind.

Anyways, when people want to fight interesting combats, it seems likely they want lots of tactical decisions. If the combat is too unbalanced either way, and may last less than a round, I don't see that happening easily.

I prefer combat as war myself, and like to handwave the easy combats. Some of my players really enjoy the tactical chess game however, and to please them I would like to include more "interesting combats". Hence asking for how to engineer the situations, justifing narratively why they happen or why you end up with them.

[Tinkerer]

Yes, that was my conclusion as well. It is not enough to make a fantasy setting that makes sense and is consistent, it also has to be crafted such that there will be interesting combat encounters everwhere. I guess I find those two challenging to combine. It just feels a bit contrived that every combat encounter is perfectly balanced and varied, independently of which precautions the characters (don't) make. For example, having different types of goblins is ok, but if they always arrive in convenient numbers for balanced encounters, that is strange. If the players do something stupid causing an alarm to go off, the whole tribe should be coming down on them, not one family at the time.

Wait... where are your players attacking the goblins? In general they should be fighting goblin bandits or war parties or scouting troops or something of that nature. It sounds like your players are attacking the settlement itself which is a quite foolish idea and should rightfully be punished by having the whole tribe descend on them. And if the players bother the goblin settlement that much then you start with the ambushes and assassins as word of the players deeds reaches their leaders.

Indeed having the goblins be encountered in somewhat balanced encounters does require a fair bit of suspension of disbelief just like every TV show and CRPG requires. I can't really say that I've had many people complain about it though since it is such an established trope. It also helps that I normally play RPGs with much higher floors and lower ceilings than D&D. If I'm throwing them up against something they have no chance against I make sure that it is painfully obvious that they really stand no chance, like an army or the Tarrasque or something at level 1.

Plus if your players are attacking the goblins in a cave or something that is when the enemies arrogance should really take hold. The enemies should be confident that they can win, they aren't about to lay down their lives against hopeless odds for no reason. When the tide of battle turns against them they should try and flee to alert the others.