𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱𝘀 ▶▶ amzn.to/3hLhnDS 𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐞 - Reduce prep time and improve your games with this monthly D&D magazine ▶▶ www.patreon.com/thedmlair 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐌 𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞 - Get back issues of Lair Magazine, map packs, 5e adventures, and other DM resources ▶▶ the-dm-lair.myshopify.com/
As for Giants.... Sometimes I think that the enviroment can be used to great effect when throwing giants at the player.... Hill giant in an open field? Not all that exciting... Hill giant on a ship? That giants fat butt is gonna be rocking the boat, and tossing the players around... Hill giant in a town or city? Ever see a Godzilla movie? Yeah watch out for falling buildings.... Then of course there is the rock throw attack.... Why does it always have to be a boulder? Maybe take the setting into account and sub in other things the giant could throw.... things present in the environment as hazards(like explosive barrels, or cannons, or horses or cattle, look out for that sheep! Keep him away from the pasture! Aw gross the coffins full of rot grubs!)
I'm actually writing my *own* TTRPG system that uses a combat system I designed *specifically* to allow everyone to *meaningfully* participate in the combat, and make it more cinematic and engaging. I'm not gonna detail it here in case someone tries to *steal* and claim it as their *own* , but that's the idea behind it because combat is ironically the most *boring* part of a traditional TTRPG, and I think the traditional combat system *itself* is at least *partially* to blame.
Why the DM also be a story teller: the DM should know what will happen IF the players DO NOT INTERVENE. If they choose to avoid a plot hook, a few sessions down the line they should learn that the city has fallen to the orc horde, or the dragon has laid waste to a village they liked. You can't have emergent stories without consequences, and thus a DM should know beforehand what the consrquences are...
I agree that the DM is a storyteller. However, the stories that the DM tells need to be much more open-ended than that of a novelist. I feel Luke was working a bit of a false dichotomy there. released content and is the model for many DMs I actually like the way that 1E did it: There were levels 1-3 modules, light hooks to later modules for levels 4-7, then hooks for 8-10, etc. The DM's job using that content was to string together an interesting story from them. This made the adventuring party feel more like a career of events rather than one big, world-spanning story. Even the classic I3-5 Desert of Desolation---one of Hickman's first modules---ran for levels 4-10, and had plenty of off-ramps along the way, where PCs could die, switch out, and so on. floating
The way that Luke was presenting it was a bit frustrating, there very much is a middle ground between a pre-planned adventure and an emergent story and I very much feel that that middle ground is the ideal space to operate. Relying on the story being fully emergent does allow for more player agency but it also severely limits the scope of your games, having a planned narrative taking place in the world that the players interact with as opposed to follow directly, allows them to uncover what's happening and make choices that can influence the outcome of said narrative since their actions are not a part of the pre-planned narrative but rather outside interference. Having some idea of what will happen allows a DM to better incorporate the players actions as they occur.
No, what happens in the game should be put it in place to advance the story, not to punish the players for not doing what the DM had planned. If its destroyed it should be part of the story either way.
3:41 Number 1: The Stakes must be Real 13:32 Number 2: The Power of Narration and Description 19:51 Number 3: Allow All Players to Participate in the Combat 23:07 Number 4: Pacing 25:18 Number 5: Combat is More than Hit Points and Damage
"How do you kill [it]?" and "How does [it] die?" are two of my player's favourite questions to hear in combat. The description depth they get into when answering those is generally way more visceral than when they describe their own actions
Well. That brings a whole new meaning to Hell's Kitchen. I can see it now. A bunch of angry demons dressed in aprons with a BBEG human shouting at them in the background.
@@agsilverradio2225 You and your party come across a clearing and you see smoke rising above the area you were told that you could find the BBEG... as you approach, you pick up the aroma of well smoked steak, chicken, and a another strange smell you've never smelled before. As you get closer you see different giants joking and laughing about with their fires and grills running. to the side you see what unmistakably is the Butcher carving up pigs, chickens, cows, and...the local villagers of a town nearby.... what do you do?
@@logantbirch It really is suprisingly effective. Boring village tavern conversation? Not if orgres come charging throw the wall!. Combat going far too quickly? Trap goes off and the room collapses allowing them to escape
I think you forgot one very important thing: Battle music. It makes all the difference. I even had my players choose any song as their character theme that plays during crits and such.
I've never found music to be that important... but I have noticed some players expect it or prefer it and others don't care that much. But the idea of crit music is pretty awesome. I'd love that as a player.
The thing that I have found with battle music is to make it apprpriate to the scale of the combat. Don't play Dark Souls 3 boss music when the party encounters two goblins. And don't pick something with lyrics or that would otherwise be distracting. At the end of the day, the goal of music is to enhance the tone.
There's a lot of value in the Hickman Revolution. A series of combats without a story is just a battle simulator. The key is to realize that the story is being crafted by the DM *and* the players at the same time. If the story ends prematurely by a TPK - that's ok! It's a tragedy.
I disagree that it's just a battle simulator. It's called emergent storytelling because the story emerges from what the party chooses to do or not do, which will naturally be a result of the Character, personality, and roleplay
@@Gevaudan1471 I'm guessing you've never been in a emergent story game, have you? It's a super popular style, because it's really not what you seem to think it is.
@@spudsbuchlaw I've been in games where the DM did no preparation and expected the players to spin an adventure out of whole cloth. Most game sessions consisted of players staring at their character sheets for 4 hours looking for a plot point. What you're describing sounds just like that, and it was excruciating.
When asked a question or when stating something, Old Man Commoner should always refer back to older editions of the game sparking confusion and frustration. It would also highlight his "Back in my daaaays" attitude.
I've been doing historical fencing for a few years now and it's made me realize that some DMs aren't really that knowledgeable about martial arts which can lead to some bland combat descriptions. One pet peeve of mine is a DM who interprets every missed hit roll as a missed attack or a dodge. I can tell you from experience that in melee combat, you rarely whiff an attack against an opponent within 5 feet of you. I prefer to interpret missed rolls as blocked attacks, because it's much more advantageous to stop and control an opponents weapon than to dance around it. If you look up any HEMA sparring video, you'll see that opponents block 90% of incoming attacks with their own weapons and rarely ever try to dodge. I feel that this at least is more dignified to your characters and makes the Paladin who's trained with the blade since a youth look like a competent warrior instead of an oaf who can't even hit a training dummy.
agreed, perhaps some basic knowledge on historical combat/martial arts would make it better in my opinion, especially on critical hits, instead of saying: "he thrusts his blade so hard and with so much force into the opponents breastplate that it concaves inwards..." i would much prefer a description such as "you grab the blade of the sword with one of your hands while lunging forward and proceeds to jam the tip of your sword in a gap between the plates right under the armpit..." or saying: "you stab the man at arms in the head, blood pours everywhere..." and instead saying: "you push the man at arm's head onto the wall, denting the back of his helmet and you grab your dagger and you stab him directly in the eye through the eyeslit..."
My preferred tactic would be to flavour missed attacks as either dodges or _well-executed_ blocks and parries. Attacks that _hit_ are instead flavoured, unless they're a particularly telling blow such as dropping a character below half hit points or doing a lot of damage from a crit, as _poorly_ executed blocks. Things where you're forced to take the attack a little too directly against your sword, and your arm rings from the impact. Or you get an incredibly near miss and have to bend awkwardly to avoid a vertical strike to the head, expending a disproportionate amount of stamina and throwing off your posture. That said, I have little experience with weapon-based martial arts. All I know is karate (including some training with the bo staff and kama, although that's not relevant here), and everything else is based on anime and fantasy and what I personally feel flows well and looks cool. Which _may_ in fact be piercing straight through a breastplate with a powerful thrust of a rapier or a whirling, backhanded strike with a starknife, but I still tend to prefer emphasizing grace, precision, and style over brutality. For me, the big thing is this: for missed attacks it is almost always best to assume the miss is a result of an action on the defender's part rather than a failure on the attacker's part.
D&D is a game where you can get hit by 20 arrows and still walk around like nothing is wrong. It's not a game that tries to simulate realistic combat or physics. I think circumventing realistic descriptions for more video game/anime style descriptions is fine. Especially since many video games are based on D&Ds style.
Being a relative newcomer to the D&D scene (2014 was my proper introduction year), I really appreciated hearing about the history of the culture surrounding D&D. The Hickman Revolution was interesting to hear about!
What it ultimately boils down to is that players need to be able to make choices that have weight. Depending on the game and the style, combat may be where the choices have weight and death is a meaningful threat. Or the narrative might be where the player have choices really matter. Combat can be more meaningful than just surviving (the stakes might not be the lives of the players). But a game where player's never lose, and are railroaded outside of combat better have pretty good snacks.
I feel like there should be a mix of both at any point in the campaign. For example if your characters are armed to the teeth and have combat experience in the middle of the campaign they’re probably not going to be afraid of dying to a group of bandits or something, but if said bandits are trying to kill an NPC who is important to the story (or the party at least) the stakes could actually be quite high. But there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a powerful enemy like a dragon or some sort of demon who directly threatens the lives of the party. I’d even say it’s not an issue if the party runs into this enemy unprepared and wipes to it.
I think you missed one important tips: 1. NEVER do a "Party vs. one enemy", always add mooks/grunt to a fight. Groups tend to burn a single monster within a few rounds, simply because they have (combined) much more actions per round.
@@thebeanqueen1669 This would be a solution for sure, But I would it also would change the general rules (one actor = 2 action) and mess with the players expectations of the situation. Also you will still have the issues, that the player will probably nuke the one monster in a few rounds (if you not increasing it's hp also, which would also setting the wrong expectations for the players). So instead of buffing the "one monster" I would simply give it some minions (also big mighty monsters/bosses should have minions or not?:D ). Also keep in mind that minions soak much more damage then their hp, because the players have to move around and damage beyond 0 hp simply vanishes. ;) And at the end, it's more fun for the players, when the fighter can slash through hordes of monsters or the wizard can finally us his fireball to blast half a dozen enemies. :)
@@Sarados1980 There are legendary actions in dnd5e, so it already breaks “general rule”, but - well - that's the damn point of THE Monster. There are even “lair” events which (usually) happen at static initiative of 20. You could easily make “The” Werewolf boss act twice, first time at their initiative and second at half their initiative, and it would still be sensible (Maybe I would limit him to one dash per round or something like that)
@@panszczur8087 Never tried this (playing mostly PF/SF). After thinking about it, I think if you differ between the monsters normal action and this "special actions" it could work (and I think I did it a few times with boss fights). Neitherless I would always add at least some grunts to the fight, so the mage can throw his fireball or the fighter could cleave/whirlwind and feels good about it. It also helps to prevent a static "tank & spank" scenario. ;)
My last boss has legendary actions, crowd control, area denial, nearly the action economy of the party, deadly attacks, and downed a few party members before they scraped by with a kill. It lasted six rounds and was really tense. I got great feedback to "make more fights like this." There are many creative alternatives to adding grunts. Grunts just sap player actions and resources. More dynamic and powerful bosses can fully transform how combat happens and make that encounter feel more unique.
Can't forget dm granted advantage. Whether this is for the specific action or just inspiration, it's a big motivator to players to get creative with their turns.
@@euansmith3699 I do that and even the opposite. Giving disadvantage is a lot more rare, it's usually some one to two turn debuff. Like in CoS my players tend to look around for animals, a lot. If they get a nat 1, I'll make them frightened for a minute. It's like they saw something they thought was there, but it (usually) isn't.
I've always disagreed with the whole emergent story being better than directed story thing when it comes to TTRPGs. Having done it both ways, there's little better than the players realizing this obscure fact or event from the beginning has become extremely important in the end. I always find that the argument that you need player deaths for stakes in combat to be just a lack of imagination. I have run games where literally player death was not allowed (3 failed death saves means a character is unconscious and injured to a point where healing magic won't work on them, and a TPK results in either capture or the whole party being left knocked out), but I still managed to put stakes in every battle. Having the whole quest fail, the whole village/nation/world be destroyed, having terrible things happen to beloved NPCs, all leaves losing combat being painful and something you want to avoid without taking away the characters people worked hard on. I generally only have characters die when an enemy's specific motivation is killing, that way the death can at least be dynamic and feel like it makes sense as opposed to random and senseless, and the other stakes keep combat from being boring. People taking too long on their turns...that one I still have an issue with...
I agree. I prefer a balance between emergent and directed. the DM needs to have stuff planned for the session which requires some amount of directed story telling ahead of time. the DM should also be willing to let the players determine if the directed story is worth perusing and go with the flow to all a new story to emerge, but, going all one way or the other isn't the answer.
It really depends on your preferences as a player too. I'm a big fan of JRPGs, and those a pure directed stories. Purely emergent storylines also just don't do it for me, because without having something to direct my actions, I have trouble deciding on what to do.
Yeah, I've had snowflake players too. They cry when they lose? If you like your PC and village, work to keep them alive and well. some of the best player reaction I've had is when they realize the grim results of their past failures. When they can handle defeat. If player death at random points makes your story fall apart, well I find that to be just lack of imagination. (not directed at original poster) killing and death are results of motivation, that is what it means to be a hero/adventurer. Different strokes for different folks I suppose
@@fuckyoutube000 I agree with the point, if not the delivery. 5e character generation is not that dime consuming or difficult. You could argue that an optimized character is, but then why would you need that in a a game you literally can't lose? The whole reason I allow players in some games ro make min/max PCs is so I can put in all the deadly deadly homebrew without feeling guilt about it. If you just want a character, have the character. I think a big issue is early levels. Most of the options people want to have in a PC do t come online until around level 5, so they spend weeks or months or more playing a character and trying to get it to be the thing they want. I think more high level entry adventures and an understanding that you can make a new character at party level of yours dies would go a long way to ease players into accepting death in D&D.
So what would you do in a situation where the roles are reversed? There's an immersive DM but the players just want to have the story unfold in front of them?
Prune players lol. Kidding, but not kidding. I have one player that's really just there to combat. Instead of trying to force the issue I eventually learned to just accept it. If that's his fun, then let him have it. I can story with the other players and he can follow along and attack. *shrugs* If that's your entire table then... you should've had a session 0 lol. Know exactly how much work is in store for you.
In my homebrew campaign, I decided, and even consulted my first DM about it, that I should have a structure of how the story goes. In any place the pc's will visit there will be things that are related to the big story. But I sure as hell don't tell them where to go. They have the agency to point a place on the map and go explore it. Whatever happens there is the story. BUT, that doesn't mean the things I planned for won't have an impact on the grand scheme, should the party decide to explore it or not. That way I believe is a very good way to bring forth a dynamic, breathing and living world, where ANY choice matters- even those you don't take in the end. I know how the final arc and battle should go. But I'll be damned if I know what the results will be. That's up to the party. The BBEG has a plan in motion, and whether the group will decide to deal with it or not is up to them. But my BBEG isn't going anywhere ;)
11:00 I kinda disagree with you, Luke. You're telling about this novelist stuff and absence of value of players' desisions like it's only black and white. I think it's more in the middle. You can be a storyteller, while giving players some amount of influence over the story. For example, my players never choose quests, but they do choose paths they're going to go, and how to react on encounters. Maybe my playstyle's a bit different from yours. To be honest, I usually play with beginers, so they don't know how "the game meant to be played" but I rarely see them not engaged with a story. That also pretty interesting for me as well because I don't know how my story's gonna end
In my most recent campaign, a player cast Banishment on another player's character. Because where they were counted as another plane, the character didn't just pop back after the spell ended. The guy ended up playing another character for a few sessions until his original character could show back up.
The writer equivalent is pantsing vs. plotting. A plotter has an extensive, meticulous scene by scene outline, while a pantser sits down at the keyboard and lets the words flow (which was how my first novel turned into a trilogy). It's not an absolute binary, but a spectrum. Now I generally make a barebones outline of important plot points, and I'm not afraid to deviate if the story goes a different direction. As a DM I use a similar method - I have the encounters based on the players' plans prepared for the session, and on the campaign scale I have story hooks tied into the main "story line" and character based goals and flesh things out once I see which bait the players take.
Having giants that stomp (dex save or fall prone) before attacking is a neat way to spice things up. Or maybe they use their club in a sweeping motion and cause AOE effects. Giants can be cool when you spice them up.
It’s incredibly easy to do this and I am surprised more people don’t do this in VTT games. You can literally add any effect you want and have it tied into a link: *Noxious Belch* Creatures in a frontal cone of 15 ft must make a DC 13 CON save or fall prone, coughing and gasping until the end of their next turn. Boom an ogre belch action that varies things and keeps it spicy - obviously just an example - don’t use it to punish your players, but stick special stats and abilities on your otherwise vanilla baddies! It’s so easy!
I have a player running a College of Swords Bard. _Almost_ all he does is make attacks. He rarely uses his Flourishes too. So when 2 gnoll marauders, a gnoll huntsmaster, and 4 hyenas are all clumped up and chewing on the Warlock and Paladin, he's not dropping a _Thunderwave_ or _Shatter_ or anything. No, he's just whittling them away without even Flourishing. I'm cutting the Warlock a _little_ slack because he does only have two spell slots, but even he could stand to throw around some bigger spells too. Those combats went on and on not because the monsters had too many hit points, but because most of the party refused to be more aggressive.
That's definitely a good way to play it, but other styles work too. It can also work like a horror film, superhero or detective movie. It's not a great system for less combat oriented games but is OK. I'd tend to use a different game for some of the types of games but more people know d&d than other systems so it's easier to use.
@@jiminkpen9750 I'm sorry but using D&D 5e to play horror or investigative games is just eh... using D&D to play horror is like putting superman in a horror house or putting him in Gotham City, your PC demigods will just blaze through it.
@@josiahdublin7816 like I said its not as good for less combat-y games but easily done. All you need to do is have no spellcasting classes, next to no magic items (certainly no healing potions) and run it at low level. If you want it very deadly reduce the number of death saves before you actually die. Suddenly you have a system that looks and feels dangerous, monsters are scary and you can create the right sort of atmosphere for your game. I'd also suggest not using a map for combat and keep it descriptive.
@@mercuryknyght5238 Unless the combat ends up being short and punchy the "roles" in the many phases of the ship don't have much to do. Like there's a list of thing you can do but at earlier levels your looking at 1-3 options and they all come down to a simple check. It takes what's boring about combat in RPGs and magnifies it in my opinion.
I often find that adding battle injuries to npcs helps make it more realistic. It’s easier when there’s a description of the attack but a well placed hit could cause some damage that they can’t just ignore without it affecting their movements.
Ideas for People (For bludgeoning just assume the word break for any limb) 1. The Enemy Loses an Eye 2. The Enemy Loses their Hand 3. The Enemy Loses their arm 4. The Enemy Loses their foot 5. The Enemy Loses their leg 6. The Enemy Loses teeth 7. The Enemy Loses their ability to walk 8. The Enemy Loses their tongue (or part of it)
To me it is self evident that if someone says they are aiming for the head, that there will be damage of a successful it, rather than a computer game where cutting through arteries doesn't impact anything until the target reaches 0 hp.
Pausing at the 9:25 mark, and I have a few points on this argument. It seems to me what you are saying is: 1) Without chance of death, stakes are not real. 2) Without explicit stakes, you can't have emergent gameplay. Both of these premises ring false. Players can take actions in combat that affect things beyond survival. Who escapes, who is chased down, capture or kill, decide a fight isn't worth the spell slots and flee another direction -- all of these decisions can be made independent of the risk of death, and can create emergent gameplay. Also, when I'm watching My Hero Academia, I never think the Deku will die. We are told in the first two episodes that this is the story of how he becomes the world greatest hero. He can't die until at least that moment. Doesn't make the Overhaul fight any less intense. So, the idea that knowing a character will survive doesn't affect a directed experience. Taking that idea, how much does it affect an emergent experience. Considering that emergent experiences aren't 100% unpredictable (I don't expect Pokemon to show up in my D&D game), then you can take certain assumptions, such as PC survivability, and still feel the intensity of everything else that is emergent. You can still contribute decisions that make the experience emergent. I run a game in which PC death happens occasionally, but I play in a game in which it has never really been an issue. (This has more to do with the DM's incredibly low rolls than anything, but also because she has a more narrative mentality.) We still enjoy the personalities of the villains we fight, and often make decisions that make the DM improvise. Combat is still fun. This all table-dependent, of course. I've played in a cut-throat game or two, and those were fun as well. The experience isn't lessened by shifting or lessening the stakes; it's just a different experience.
You did expand on the stakes a bit more with the four intensities, but during the rant portion that did not come through at all. Four intensities is a very useful tool, though, thank you.
Hey man, really appreciate every single one of these videos. They have helped me very much DMing for the first time. I always watch your stuff while I work!
Love the advice, the length of 5E combat is an interesting beast. If players each have a turn, and if they have multiple competing choices about what to do, then unless they plan what they want to do combat will take quite a bit of time. The only way to really reduce the time is if there’s less time spent on choices, but they requires either limits or experience. It’s a sort of fascinating game design problem.
The reason it feels a chore is that initiative, action limits, and miniatures are all departures from the rhythm of the conversation that was taking place leading up to the combat. Imagine if exploring a dungeon was still done the old school way: in rounds.
Hmm well it’s only a chore for players that like to focus on RP And in that case I love to add mechanics that make the players RP mid combat. I ran like a horror boss, where the enemy had a pact with an evil theatre patron, so they had to do certain things like give heroic speeches or flavour their attacks and act like they are in a dramatic theatre show to avoid drawing the ire of the god
@@KnicKnac "Can I try to plant the spikey side of my pike-axe into Orc#4's face?" shouldn't bog anything down so much... Then roll, and announce numbers... "Orc#4's face rips open with the force of the slash and he stumbles back, nearly sitting right down, but (while you can tell it's obviously obscene, whatever he's saying) he's not dead yet... just REALLY pissed off... and you might be in trouble shortly... Also doesn't really bog anything down... Obviously a miss is "You tried X and wiffed it." or similar... He said "descriptive combat"... NOT "Shakespearean Purple Prose Combat"... That's all... Try nurturing a few technical terms for your Players and GM's to share as a sort of basic standard "jargon" at the table... The difference between a "Crescent Kick" and a "Roundhouse Kick" and "Slashing up and to the right" versus "Hacking straight down", and the like... Called shots would involve specific body parts and/or desired effects... "Trying to decapitate" or "Jam the Spear in his left eye" with relative deficits to hit accumulating based on size and difficulty (the smaller the target, the higher the difficulty, obviously)... AND reward them with benefits, advantages, and effects when they (and their dice) incidentally do well. I've almost never done that "Combat quickly and by the numbers" crap... AND I've NEVER had combats really "Bog down", even with relative noob's at the system... ANY system. When we've spent more than an hour and a half on combat, there's been a metric buttload of minions and a pretty serious "heavy" involved... It was going to be a "slog" no matter how it was run... BUT even in a relative slog, my Players (and I frankly) have always been laughing and throwing dice, shouting and swearing, and generally having a GREAT TIME raising all manners of Hell. It's how I read the room. If a "Combat Scene" makes the Table sound like we're really in combat, mixed with laughs and engaging faces all around, it's "just about right". ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 How many times can you do this until it gdts boring though? Eventually you gonna run out of cool descriptions for your characters. Even cool ways to miss
I have a general rule that I try not to kill player characters until they reach level 5. However, I often find other ways to have stakes, like protecting a beloved NPC or defending a town. Consequences at lower levels don’t mean PC death, but they still are present.
Another good way to practice combat description is to watch an action sequence in a movie or TV show that you like and practice describing it by talking or writing. Watching many will put good action sequences in your mind that you can recall at the table.
The only thing i think i dislike about a lot of your advice is it really boils down to the DM putting in 99% of the effort and the Players just doing as they please all the time. One of these days i'd love to see you do a video on how Players and DMs can work together at the same time to enrich the experience (as compared to your separate videos on how to be a good DM and a good Player, which is treated like two wholly separate issues)
Guilty. In one game that I GM'd, I was using a directive method over the emergent method. We ended up stopping partially due to this, and partially the player makeup. I accept the blame and hopefully have learned.
I love he mentions giants. Im running against the giants now and was disappointed with the mm stats. I've been using the special ones in Volo's(?) And making them do things like use nets to control pcs, grappling, and throwing pcs. Little tweaks like that have really helped, especially if you throw a pc off a high ledge towards a rhemoraz below. Gonna try disarms next time.
Maybe you'll end up saying this later in the video but I think the best solution to the issue of balancing fights needing stake to feel fun, with the need to have characters progress in the storyline is to get creative with the stakes a given battle presents. Most encounters I have my characters go through have a very real chance of loss, but only in the boss battles is that stake death. As a dm this can also be a way to inject greater motivations into a story. You can couch plothooks into it, and have events trigger that affect things characters care about like their wealth, communities, personal agency, families, or random innocents, or cause them to simply lose out on a cool things they might have gotten. Look at a fight the way you design puzzles with pass fail results of a massive variety rather than just life or death struggles. Going further into that not every encounter that utilizes combat skills has to actually be combat, it can be a game, a gamble, an obstacle course. I should take my own advice more though, and it's all easier said than done :P
For me the fun in a fight comes from strategy and thinking how my turn affects my party. For me a fragile PC is one I can't get invested in and I wish that perspective was more talked about by channels like this.
I'm in the in between on this one. I like a DM to loosely frame a rough plot with the understanding that death is on the table and that some if not all characters will not live to see the end of the events.
I was just talking with my buddy about this the other day. He is a numbers guy, and feels that description and story-telling are boring and get in his way of tactically winning battles. That's like the opposite of me... I am a description kind of player. I pretty much don't care what the plot is or where we go, as long as we're all describing cool stuff well enough. When I DM, however, I'm definitely a novelist, but there are definitely repercussions and the chance to lose. I picture it like a choose-your-own-adventure book, where there may be pre-planned events that will pop up, but the outcomes can vary greatly. Very module-esque. It's interesting how D&D attracts so many different kinds of people looking for so many different kinds of things. One player at our table just wants to kill things, and he doesn't care if it's numbers or description, or if there are stakes at all.
Jeez, the first 10 minutes of this video is the host re-phrasing "you need the threat of death for combat to be fun" over and over. He even recognized how long and rambling his tirade was, and then proceeded to harp on it for just a bit longer lol. I find the point rather trite personally. While I agree that 5e makes dying exceptionally rare, I don't think the threat of death is truly a core element to making combat exciting/engaging. All of the other points mentioned in the video are far more important in my opinion. The threat of death alone is simply a numerically challenging encounter style. Which means your characters are more likely to perish, which means you can't get as attached to any PC, and no PC can be as vital to the story narrative as they all need to be replaceable. This effect can actually weaken the narrative overall as your PCs become a bunch of faceless, friendless and detached video game characters who simply fulfill quests because the story needs them to. All character growth, character dynamics between PCs and NPCs as well as the fate of PCs having heavy implications for the world state are gone when the rate of PC death is *too* high. As a story invested player, I would lose interest in such an excessively death heavy campaign- unless I went into it knowing it was going to be a light-on-story numerically-challenging dungeon crawl experience from the get-go. Of course my example was rather hyperbolic, but I felt that the 10 minute tirade about death being a key element was equally hyperbolic, and almost encouraged an excessively kill-happy campaign at the cost of narrative potential. The reader/player of your story/game *needs* to be able to be invested in characters to care about what is happening.
I would tend to say more ‘the threat of consequences’, of which death is one. Damage to things or causes the characters care about, for example, could be another. Investment in the result.
Your comment points to the ultimate design flaw in D&D. Its a game of storytelling primarily through combat, but no one wants their character to die. Most people dont go through life looking for a fight, and yet that's exactly what we expect from our characters and our DMs. In many other games, combats are few and far between, where the story is told through some other mechanism. In Call of Cthulhu, it's investigation. In Legend of the Five Rings, it's courtly intrigue. In Shadowrun, it's the heist. In these games, combat is what happens when things go wrong. In D&D, it's expected, even encouraged. I submit that, for people with your mentality, D&D is not the game for you. And thats not an insult. I gave up on D&D a long time ago for the same reasons.
@@rdmrdm2659 great point, consequence itself is what is important, of which potential PC death is just one. For a story-vested player like myself, consequences to the NPCs and the world around me would be more engaging of a consequence than simply my PC perishing and me slotting in a replacement.
@@kdolo1887 entirely fair- you may be right about a highly story-vested player like myself having a better time with other table top games. I do like the concept of story-telling through combat, but that is a good point about the dichotomy between said concept and players not wanting their characters to die. There is definitely a balance- I think that PC death can make for some great emergent story telling, but like character death in any story this needs to be done with care. The death only has weight if the reader/players have had time to become invested in them, and the reader/player always needs characters to be invested in. One could ask, if the entire original party of 5 has been replaced, is this still the same story/adventure? D&D's very heavy luck elements compound these issues. Although D&D uses a tactical RPG type map, the amount of strategy one has available to them in combat can be quite limited- based on one's class, the enemy, the terrain and the DM's preferences. Too often a PC will effectively do the same things every turn. As a result of the high degree of randomness, even a player who played "smart" and made no mistakes can still lose. D&D 5e seems to have recognized this issue, and has made it very hard/borderline impossible for the player to die unless the DM is feeling cruel and has the enemies go for kills on downed PCs. So now the game is stuck in a weird place, where the book describes an incredibly combat heavy game where your characters are in constant mortal peril, yet this isn't reflected in the gameplay.
Cloud and storm giants are the most interesting ones out of the bunch for me. After facing slow and dumb ogres and trolls in early levels, I'd surely be scared when a cloud giant suddenly misty steps to close in on the wizard
Ya want something interesting look up Ogre Goblin Hucker. Range? 150 to 600 when throwing a goblin. Ogre Howdah has a fort on it's back. 4 small size creatures can fit in the fort with 3/4 cover.
One of the reasons I tend to enjoy crunchier & deadlier RPG systems. Instead of a large HP pool to slowly whittle down, like chopping a tree, some or all of the hits have actual effects. Often more descriptive ones within the system, too. Can even shoehorn those hit & crit tables into D&D if need be. Games like Warhammer Fantasy RP/Zweihander for the descriptive crit tables and hit locations for those big or final blows. Against The Darkmaster/HARP which lend more details and effects for every hit. Even those which often provide extra die result spends for doing special moves and results such as the AGE system, Genesys/Star Wars FFG, and Conan 2d20 (which also has hit locations). They tend to exchange the large amount of repeated die results for fewer per combat, but with more leading descriptions of a cinematic nature on each. Still requires some improv but gives you a starting point.
So here's the thing... there's middle ground between "leave it up to luck" and "the characters are just along for the ride." My players know I will not kill them due solely to bad die rolls. But they know that the story- and their characters- may change significantly based on a spate of bad luck. My players also know I will not hesitate to let them die if they're dumb. But a campaign is more than a really long board game. It *is* a story, and the players are the protagonists. It means they have a bigger role to play in the world than that of the local innkeeper, and the gods are not going to wipe them off the face of the earth simply because the dice were grumpy during one session.
(27:25) - Modify your Monsters. Why does a 'Giant' just have to be a big 'fighter' and just hit things. There should be Giant Wizards, and Bards, and Clerics... Every Monster should be like a possible character. This also spices up combat and makes things more unique and unpredictable. "Oh look it's a Giant. This should be easy." - A fireball explodes around the party. "WHAT? Where did that come from?" - The Giant chuckles loudly as a grin crosses his face. The party sees his hands waving around forming symbols and a chant of incantations begins.... Combat Encounters should be 'Party' vs 'Party'. How many player groups consist of all Barbarians, or all Fighters, or all Paladins? Very few (unless specifically designed for that). Why should the Monsters be all one 'class' ? they shouldn't. mix and match. give them varying abilities. This makes Combat more interesting than just 'Swing and Damage'
Yes. There is a sizable population of the hobby that thinks of the game as collaborative storytelling, which it kind of is, but this line of thinking tends to create plot armour and the expectation that your PC will live to the conclusion. I think it's healthier to think of it as collaborative interaction with the game world. When I DM I roll all combat rolls in public. I encourage players to ask the DMs to do the same. Sure, your PC might die, but that's what happens sometimes when you interact with a dangerous game world. If you are scared of dying, then play your PC cautiously. Each to their own of course, but if players are accustomed to the safety on mode, I highly recommend they try something more dangerous (perhaps as a one-shot, or short campaign) just to see how they like it. I once played in a campaign where the DM said in session zero that he'd only kill a PC if previously discussed and agreed with the player. It was not fun.
The first point, I’m already thinking about the encounter I ended on in our last session. It’s the first time, since the party just reached level 7 and I wanted to both: a. Throw them a really tough fight; and b. Reward one of the players for their backstory attention (I’ll have similar quests for others). It’s against a platoon of drow and they are particularly hunting one of the players whose a “free” drow. I can’t get too much into all the factors in play but it’s going to be very exciting and risky since Drow typically don’t take prisoners in this case. I’m hoping my players play smart and so far, they are. Ended after the first turn since they took time to prepare and talk with each other before they engaged.
Having combat with additional strategic objectives is always nice. I ran a necro lair with some undead creatures in septic tanks. When the tanks break and the creatures get loose there is also an explosive toxic gas gradually spreading in the area. So are the PC's going to KO the necro and take him in for interrogation? Are they going to prevent the gas from spreading? Are they taking the necro out, but ignore the gas... causing a massive explosion in the middle of the city? With the gas spreading further and creating some necrotic effects in the direct area. A seemingly simple combat with massive possible outcomes. -- Also spreading PC's is nice. My players invaded a hag's lair. However a creature grappled the druid and teleported to the top of the tower and dropped the Druid. So she was now no longer part of the combat and no longer a problem either. Good luck trying to get back to the fight in time. However you do need to provide the druid with something else to do. Threat to the Assets. I love taking a creature from the older edition. Sure you got the Rust Monster. However do you remember the creature that does the same, but to magic items? Threats to PC's. How about we bring back enemies that drain levels. However instead of draining levels they now give PC's a level of exhaustion. The Exhaustion mechanic is heavily under used and can ramp up threats fast and drastically. As well as cutting off limbs of PC's that prevents a cleric from both using a weapon AND shield. Choices now have to be made. Regenerating limbs is not that common. When it is they're such high level they can enjoy it for all I care. If a PC dies and they got a nice "story" going I might be nice and let them come back once in some way or another. But after that they're on their own. And using resurrections etc isn't an auto-success either. I use Matt Mercer's way of doing that. With increasing DC to succesfully bring someone back. Add Verticality. Too many battles are only in the 2d plane. Even with mini's they often are. Do what you can as DM to make clear the players need to think in 3d. You want interesting monsters. Look at Star Spawns and how they work together. You can always level them down to work for lower tier campaigns. They're intense
Thanks for this video. 4 Rules I put into my game: 1. Resurrections is like next to impossible to do and in the world there have only been 4 instances in recorded history of it being done 2. Not all scenarios can be handled with a sword 3. Critical failures will probably involve something hilarious happening to the person / npc but deadly is rare 4. Random events may happen like wind change if the players are taking too long to make a decision when the opponents have keen smell. This added a great o shit setup.
This is why I prefer 3.5. Because it's so much easier to die, it makes combat always be filled with more tension. I also find battle music to be very helpful in making combat exciting.
watching these videos has given me more insight in my d&d games. and i thank you for this. i've also come to understand the "story" of a campeign is a byproduct of the DM presenting a problem, and the players answering that presentation. to ignore is a valid answer, (while not wise it is valid)
I love emergent campaigns. I write adventures for that night, and write for different areas of the world and determine what happens at different locations. Political intrigues, wars, famines, etc during the time the players use in-game. Whatever the players decide to do, it uses time, resources, etc and the world continues to turn. They have options for something more their level, but there are also paths that lead to high level encounters which they are not ready for by a long shot. Foreshadow some of the bad things that have happened to people who tried and failed which seem around their level, and if they continue, so be it. I have key moments planned out to happen at certain times during the campaign, but if they do not follow the right plot hooks for their level, they may miss defending a village at the right time and find once they arrive, the village has fallen. Same with assassinations, political talks, etc. The get direction through dreams, prophecies, job boards, npc dialogue etc, and it is completely up to them to follow or not. As stated, I prepare all given options, plus the regional intrigues happening at the time and set them on track. If they do something else, the Other stuff happens as if they aren't there. Living worlds may take some extra work, but so wroth it when the players realize they missed a clue that could have saved the village they were just in, but didn't investigate the tracks leading from the village into the woods only to find a band of goblinoids raided and murdered the village, and now fortified it as their new fort, and have begun pillaging caravans travelling nearby.
Omg I needed to hear this SO bad. I obsess go a crippling degree about being a directive storyteller because it helps me feel like there's some safety in the bumpers. My players have always loved my games, but I strengthened my desire for structure through loode improv within the session while behind the screen I was hodgepodging a "big bad" for "Act I". Emergent storytelling sounds way more fun and I hope one day I'm able to release the reigns and let the character where they will and react more than feel the need to jump ahead. I'm great in the moment, but I'm bad on the spot. I wish I could learn the difference and act accordingly... or at least acknowledge when something is working and roll with it instead of burning myself out worrying about what's coming next. Thank you so much, Luke as always.
My players are skittish about combat in our current campaign. It's a medium-power sandbox sci-fi setting of my own devising using the Hero System. I don't balance combat (I haven't for years) and I roll everything within view. I also enforce the optional Characteristic Maxima to keep PC/NPC characteristics within check. A character's BODY is like hit points, and with the Maxima in place, those "hit points" stay within the 8 - 23 range for an entire campaign lasting 100+ sessions. (For reference, a modern hunting rifle deals 2d6+1 BODY Damage. ) I also don't use any rezzing or the equivalent of healing potions, though my scii-fi includes improved healing times measured in days instead of weeks, as would be normal. I also never make it an absolute requirement to engage in combat. The net result is a group of crafty PCs that will only throw in when the stakes are very high. Everyone is alert when weapons are drawn and tension is high. Seven 5-hour session in, and offering an opportunity every session, they haven't felt the need. But everyone seems engaged with the locations and NPCs. I doubted myself and asked them if I should "motivate" them more to engage in combat. The answer was a resounding No. The last 99-session campaign (with mostly the same players) had a significant combat every three sessions or so and was under the same Characteristic Maxima and lethality limitations. My takeaway is that, if this campaign was a movie, it would be one if those "oh crap! That was a gunshot!" Kind rather than the "BRAKKA BRAKKA BRAKKA!" Type like Commando. If I had to pick, the former is the kind of movie that is interesting to me, and apparently my players. At least this time around.
An interact-able environment also helps spice things up: In a warehouse, maybe there is some suspended cargo that can be cut down or using the winch. In a swamp, maybe there is some methane that is bubbling up from beneath the surface that can be ignited. In a town, maybe there is a barrel that can be kicked down a slope towards your pursuers. Make these interactions work both ways, and maybe the hostile npcs will pull a lever to drop a portcullis that separates the party in combat.
A thing ive found that really helps my players is dynamic battlefields. If youre just in a room, its a boring numbers game - but if you add some elevation, traps, dangerous areas, difficult terrain, ect.. it makes things much more engaging. Its always players vs. enemies vs. environment.
Adding to character death: For me it depends on the feel of the game and what the group is about. I both like knowing that my character will probably not die, if the party tries to make informed choices. On the other hand there's these games where there are no safeguards. But I like knowing beforehand since it creates a different feel. A Grim dark game will feature death and will rough up the party more often for example. But yeah it depends on the party and everyone should agree on how deadly the game is.
As a side note: I have a player who doesn't want their character to die. They're fine with changing characters. But instead of death they rather have their character be so heavily wounded that they can't participate anymore or have them seem to be dead. First I thought: ok if you don't want them to die, why play? But then I remembered that I might not know the whole story and that's fine. They're a friend and we're all here to have fun. The group and I was ok with it, and so we still play. Other DMs might have chosen differently. But I think that sometimes it's fine to put "It's just a game" aside and see that behind these characters are still people with different walks of life. We found a solution that works for everyone. And that's the most important.
@@9akisha9 Well said. When it comes down to it, we're all people at the table and we all have a right to be heard in terms of what will enhance our fun and what will kill it. That doesn't mean pandering to every whim, especially if those whims trample on others, but it does mean listening and respecting people's feelings. Being a decent person costs nothing.
The best compliment I ever got from one of my players. They were all new and so after a couple sessions I asked what their favourite parts of the game was so I could try and add more of those in it. My rogue told me she “loves the descriptions of hits and misses during combat.” That was the best thing anyone’s ever told me as a DM
You did a beautiful thing on it on December 21, 2021. And I agree that the old-school gamers like myself were not kind to players who did not do so well. But as a referee I would always coach the players how to be better. I agree with pretty much everything in the video but I do differ on a couple things: I don’t Railroad players with a storyline. I let players experience a multi linear story that they choose the outcome. And the outcome affects later on events. If I plan something ahead expecting a certain outcome, and it doesn’t happen, then I didn’t plan enough. Doing a lots of if-then-therefore charts helps. Anticipate the possible outcomes including the one in which you have no idea what might happen is really good in learning how to write stories. You’re not the author as the game master. You set up the situation. The players end up being co-authors. I agree that there should be a separation between the math side of describing combat. And then you have the descriptive side. Although I wait until everyone has finished their declared action, formulate in my head what’s happening simultaneously. Quickly visualize it, and describe the entire simultaneous action and what each person’s action did…. at the end of the round. therefore if somebody else had a critical later on in the combat they aren’t cheated out of being involved. Plus any action in the chain of the simultaneous action can have an effect. The only other small sidenote there is I don’t let players necessarily declare if they hit. They simply state what they rolled. Behind the screen I apply modifiers if necessary. if they hit I didn’t tell them to roll the necessary. And again behind the screen apply any modifiers up or down. this also increases suspense. Still liking the video, don’t get me wrong
(22:00) - Banishment : you can have them start a separate combat for that individual (or some other scene) and flip flop as needed. This way they are still engaged. Also, encourage the players to attack the bad guy that cast the spell to break concentration and thus getting the player back before 'time' is up. Wall of Force : Hopefully there is a way around the wall to re-engage in combat. If not, the players need to have the ability to bring down the Wall (casting spells, disrupting caster, etc) Again, encourage the players to find a solution and quickly. Polymorph : Have the players go and hit the polymorphed player (assuming it was polymorphed into something small and 'helpless') This drops the HP = 0 and reverts the player. These are tricks that PLAYERS should learn how to 'defeat' these spells (or any spell they know) as they could be used against them.
Utilize the 2e book Player's Option: Combat & Tactics to make combat more lethal. Make full use of the critical hit system, but up the severity by one die category and disallow for saves vs. death to avoid injuries. Since you can still roll low on the severity table, there is always the possibility that a critical won't have any specific effect. This makes combat a heck of a lot more dangerous than just trading swings until someone runs out of hit points.
@the_DM_Lair I wish I could talk to you about how I used a Giant spider nest as a combat area. It's my first time DMing and I think it included a lot of really fun interactions to make combat more interesting. The Giant spider broodmother kept entering and leaving the "cave of webs" to either attack or do a web attack, then run back to safety outside the webbed walls. The spider swarms that followed "mother" around would attack whoever was webbed. The whole floor was coated in webs so it was rough terrane. I wish I could have done more but the players were only lvl3 and they were almost wiped tpk'd as is... Well, the mother ran away when things were going south for it. But as the players lit the nest on fire and attempted to escape through the "web tunnel" strung between the trees of the dense woods, The mother was harassing them by doing her hit-and-run tactics again. Webbing them to the wall of the tunnel so the "baby, dinner plate sized, spiders" would attack them while they were stuck. The players finally hit her with a saved action when she came to the wall and she crashed through the web tunnel with her momentum. A great sense of pride came to me when one of the players said "Ohh god, she's dead. I hated her!" HAHA
@@kendrickrochelanzot2053 those seem very situational and would require a good alignment. I've played in & DMed a lot of games where that would likely not be enough of a consequence to matter. Do you have any other ideas?
@@valintinesmith7807 Losing valuables, getting thrown in prison, getting maimed and taking temporary (or permanent) debuffs like losing stats, feats or abilities. Losing credibility or privileges as a group due to your failure. All of these would matter to a character, even if they were neutral evil and genuinely didn't care about anyone or anything.
Number one rule for me when it comes to playing or dm'ing is, if someone isn't dead or dying, you're not having fun. At least when it comes to the BBEG battles. No one wants to just swing their sword back and forth, while wereing a blindfold with no consequences.
One thing to add: Brutal combat is fun but never make anything hopeless. Always have that bit of hope on the horizon or some constant tactic yo assist. When I ran Dungeon of the Mad Mage, as it's mostly a long Dungeon with a few breaks, I added a mechanic that every step they took, they healed 1 hit point. This made the combat a lot more active with players, even spell casters, acting intelligent but not cowardly. Something else I added were rooms with odd symbols that if you matched it's Alignment, you gained a Boon and if not, you gained a weakness of some kind. There were already symbols in DOTMM but they felt very rear so I added more. Another thing to do is remove the death saves, if you drop to 0 hp, you're dead. However to balance this, add their Proficiency to their AC, making their lv progression feel more impactful. Take and leave what you will.
We had a person get pretty frustrated because he didn't get to act in 5 combats in a row. We just kept destroying the enemies before he could reach them.
I played and ran lots of old school D&D in the old days. Let me tell you, the current game systems and the focus on story are far better and more fun than old days. The first game session I ever ran back in the early 80s was a full party wipe because I ran the stats faithfully. The next few weren't much better. To be fair, I was 9, but I was the only GM in my small town, so people were kinda trapped until I could figure it out. Once I got out into the world, I saw very clearly that the only way you could keep players coming back in the figure out how to control the gas pedals so that characters could live long enough to actually have fun. Obviously there needs to be a sense of risk and danger and consequences are real... To this day, I like to keep the players right on the red line, so they have to play smart or fall off the cliff, and when they finally do complete the adventure, the players feel exalted... But the way you stated position felt quite extreme. You seemed to be advocating killing characters every session, and wiping out half the party on a regular basis. If that was your actual advice, that's gonna keep a lot of characters out of combat, too, until they can roll up a new character or get rezzed. I'm sure there are a few players out there that want that kind of game, rolling up new characters every session. If so, go for it. Each to their own. But this seems pretty niche. I'm concerned that if a newbie DM takes this advice a little too seriously, and they wipe out their newbies over and over, the group isn't gonna last long. Making a new character (or two or three) every session because the last one died gets pretty boring. That's why in the game Paranoia you had a serial number for a name, so when you died, you could just move to the next clone of yourself, change your secret affiliations, and be done. D&D isn't really designed to handle constant death like that in a streamlined manner.
If D&D isn't capable of handling constant death, then why is its primary focus on combat? Seems like a glaring flaw to me. Also, like he said, loss doesnt have to mean character death. As he says, assets and strategic position are potentially up for forfeiture, so loss of equipment, standing within the realm, that shiny magic sword, the life of a beloved NPC, or of one that could provide you a clue, all sorts of things can hang in the balance between victory and defeat.
I think the better point he made wasn't to have death happen more often, but have *defeat* be a real option. Stakes don't have to just be player death, they can be failing a quest objective, letting an important enemy escape, the enemy completing an evil ritual to become more powerful etc. The story still continues, but now you're dealing with a real consequence, a serious setback that the PCs have to deal with. Example from my game: my party was trying to free kidnapped townspeople before they could be taken away and some as slaves. We tried to sneak through the BBEG's lair but failed and ended up fighting him. And lost- when all but one of us was down, we finally surrendered and stopped trying to stop him leaving with the slaves. They left and, when my stealthy character tried to spy on where they were going and got caught, set off explosives, collapsing the exit tunnel behind them. I had to sprint back down the tunnel with explosions going off behind me. We made it out of the lair by the front way and then had to track the slavers to the city where they planned to sell the slaves, and got involved in organized crime intrigue there. So, we failed to free the slaves but had a new appreciation for what we were up against and an evolving story with new challenges to deal with the consequences of our failure.
#3 Yes! I once sat out a whole hour long combat as a player because I was feared and couldn’t make my save. I was like…why am I here then. I very rarely as a GM use spells that take my players out for more than one round since then. Especially since I have some bad luck rollers whose spells rarely hit. If they were out for a bunch of rounds on top of their missing, they would not be having fun.
This is so awesome!! This is still literally my first go to and who I still everyone to atleast start with. I can't explain enough enough about how this is so great.
YES! Finally! Narration CMs (No one can master this game(s). You must master YOUR campaign.)! You can't let combat be an accounting of dice rolls. The dice rolls are contentious suggestions. Your narration is the reality. At the start of the vid you raised a common problem with the puzzlewit wizard. I respect players taking time out of their lives to play this game, but they need to do homework to be prepared. I let players help with highly intelligent characters, but discussions have to be brief or wizzy loses a turn.
Most of the times, I try to describe how I attack, or how I move or what I say before attacking. I even once tried to use spellwords for casting spells to make it more interesting. There's also different arguments that could be made: Plan your turn AHEAD of time. I agree, that it makes the battle more fluent and interesting, if you don't start to plan your turn, WHEN it's your turn. I try that, it doesn't work that well, because I also want to know what's going on on the battlefield, which means I try to listen to what the other players or enemies do. Since a round of combat happens in 6 seconds, one could argue, that you don't have time to "react" on what your whole group does, which means you don't need to listen to the player's turns, unless they do in fact, affect you. But you should have at least a rough idea of what you can do and want to do, and only change the course of action slightly depending on your surroundings. If too much happened on the battlefield and you don't know what to do right now? Have something prepared you can always do, and do that, while planing or in preperation for your next turn. Martial Classes can become somewhat boring during combat, because there's not THAT much of a variety they can do. And yes, they can do more than simply "attacking". The worst case for martial classes, is if the combat starts with the enemies being 100ft or more away from you, and you're a melee-fighter, watching the ranged fighers/casters to kill every enemy that's closest to you at the moment. (I had that once...) This only affects you, if you're playing the martial class. Next are the casters that simply don't know their spells. It would be wise to have a cheat-sheet of some sorts with spells that could be used in certain situations. Or just dividing/marking them in certain groups, so it's easier to pick your spells in combat. Also, it helps IMMENSIVELY if casters know what spells they have and AT LEAST partially, what those spells do. I played enough with spellcasters that were like "oh, I didn't know I had that spell" or "I only read the first line of the description" (and know imagine this with a spell like Phantasmal Force, just as an example.) This only affects you, if others play the caster class, because you're "forced" to watch them decide.
Especially when casters are involved (full casters especially) combat can get a little dull and tedious. That’s why I always plan my turn well in advance when I can even forming strategies with my party (slightly meta gamey but it’s for the benefit of the party and the DM more so than me, makes everything go just that little bit quicker). Plus certain classes and subclasses have better flavour than others to me and I always play those classes to give me more descriptive flavour to work with, describing what my spells look like, describing my Mortal Kombat fatality level gory kills etc (I’m currently playing Matt Mercer’s blood cleric in a long form campaign and loving it specifically because of the concept and flavour opportunities especially paired with the Dhampir lineage). I personally find descriptions like this more interesting than “I rolled a nat 20 to hit with Inflict Wounds at level 2, 84 necrotic damage.”. Instead I’d say “I rolled a nat 20 to hit with Inflict Wounds at level 2 as a blast of toxic green energy strikes the goblin directly in the heart, instantly rotting his entire body away into nothing. 84 necrotic damage.”. Option 2 sounds much more interesting.
Prof Dungeonmaster has a great option he calls cinematic advantage where he give attack advantage for cool things that are related to ability checks, like swinging from chandeliers (acrobatics check) or using the environment in clever ways.
Don't you think that cheapens the intensity? Things like that are on the outskirts of normal uses of skills or attacks, if you give bonuses to make hard things easier....that feels like it would take away from the crazy success or failures that make for truly memorable moments. I make this comment out of curiosity without having looked at his way of implementing that mechanic.
@@diversezebra6754 IIRC, he doesn't give advantage on the check itself but on the related attack roll, so, if you swing on a chandelier to get close enough to attack someone, you do the acrobatics check at a suitable DC but then get advantage on the attack roll. It has, however ben a while since i watched the relevant video, so I might have got that wrong.
@@diversezebra6754 I think my understanding is the same as @malcolm rowe. The player would suggest a crazy stunt that would, if successful offer advantage to a subsequent attack roll. The DM sets a suitable difficulty. If successful in the check, the chacracter succeeds and gets the advantage and a great story. If he fails there's a negative consequence such as disadvantage, damage or say falling on their arse (plus an amazing story!🙂). I confess I'm not DMing at the moment so haven't tried this specific technique as described yet but we've used similar things in our gaming group for years to encourage memorable behaviour from players. Some of them are the stories we still tell years later.
"Use Your Words." works great not only for combat, but for exploration and social interactions. I have players who just roll a d20 and tell me they're searching the room. I ask them, "What are you searching?" meaning to lead them into revealing more detail in their search. I usually get "The. Room." as an answer, so then I go into detail for them, hoping they eventually take the cue. Social interaction doesn't always require voice acting, but it should include a little more than just rolling skill checks against NPCs like deception or insight. Get the players to at least describe what they're doing, their goal from the interaction, and the jist of what they communicate.
I recently utilized the Herald of Darkness in the Tome of Beasts from Kobold Press. It's a CR7 Fiend that can throw around the Frightened, Blinded, and Paralyzed Conditions across multiple targets nearly every turn in combat on top of a fair amount of Necrotic damage. And it can do all of that in a single turn before it's bonus action to instantly destroy an object a PC may be holding (such as their weapon), or becoming incorporeal. The Barbarian died in the Encounter because she was Blinded and Frightened, and couldn't resist any of the damage she was taking for the majority of the fight. And the Paladin lost his shotgun that held a lot of sentimental value to him, and was helpless to stop it from happening because he was Frightened and Paralyzed at the time.
This is such a great video LMAO I like that you covered a bunch of stuff that’s kind of TTRPG theory that seem ‘obvious’ but often goes over the heads of most DMs
17:20 I’ve uttered it often to my players with varying degrees of success, and to quote Matt Mercer for making it memeworthy now: “how do you want to do this?”
On the Hickman Revolution, I disagree that there are only two options (either the master has a defined story or does not know where the story is going). In my experience, players get easily tired of both. The best results I have gotten is to have a healthy mix of knowing key story beats (with the possibility of death), having empty spaces where you let the players do what they want, and most importantly asking the players what are they planning to do between sessions. Some players might even have plans for character arcs and where the personality of their characters are going to go
Agreed in regards to player agency Luke. Set the story "outline" and let the players determine what happens. Much more enjoyable for everyone! (In my opinion and experience :)
Combat is dynamic. It should always be dynamic. Big monsters step over or through. Things are in the way. Stuff happens. Reinforcements might show up. Line of sight can play a factor. One of my favorite combats, it was 2 Cyclops against a group of 8. The half orc got clobbered, but kept getting back up through abilities and lucky rolls. After the third time the ugly squishy refused to stay down, the 1 Cyclops called over his buddy. This pulled him out of combat with the rogue, whose player stopped the game to protest the illogical move the cyclops was making. "He is going to take attacks of opportunity and it makes no sense tactically." My response. "Dude, you come up to his thigh and are barely stinging him. His buddy called for help. You are not of concern with him. He could also just push you out of the way if he wanted." The two Cyclops then proceed to beat and kill the orc (who got back up a total of 7 times) but keep looking back JUST TO MAKE SURE green squishy wasn't getting back up again. The group still talks about that encounter as an epic death, the orc player included, nearly ruined by 1 player's insisting that the monster wouldn't do that. By the way, that player no longer plays with us. This was not his first or last outburst.
I've used a loud stopwatch sound effect to help lend a sense of haste when players are being slow. And when the players ignore it, they automatically take the Dodge action. They don't ignore it twice.
Fun fact: "The Hickmans" didn't write the Dragonlance novels as Luke suggests. That was the original Ravenloft module The Dragonlance novels, however, were written by Tracy Hickman and *Margaret Weis* Didn't even take me 20 secs in Google
An interesting 'on the fence' version of this. My current campaign, about 23 sessions deep, was started when my players specifically created characters and motivations out of random inspiration in the mini aisle of a hobbytown. They wanted a revenge plot where they play evil undead characters. The end of the campaign was set by the players before I even had a campaign. So I crafted their targets of revenge, the setting around them, and let them loose.
𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱𝘀 ▶▶ amzn.to/3hLhnDS
𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐞 - Reduce prep time and improve your games with this monthly D&D magazine ▶▶ www.patreon.com/thedmlair
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐌 𝐋𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞 - Get back issues of Lair Magazine, map packs, 5e adventures, and other DM resources ▶▶ the-dm-lair.myshopify.com/
As for Giants.... Sometimes I think that the enviroment can be used to great effect when throwing giants at the player....
Hill giant in an open field? Not all that exciting...
Hill giant on a ship? That giants fat butt is gonna be rocking the boat, and tossing the players around...
Hill giant in a town or city? Ever see a Godzilla movie? Yeah watch out for falling buildings....
Then of course there is the rock throw attack.... Why does it always have to be a boulder? Maybe take the setting into account and sub in other things the giant could throw.... things present in the environment as hazards(like explosive barrels, or cannons, or horses or cattle, look out for that sheep! Keep him away from the pasture! Aw gross the coffins full of rot grubs!)
Well we know you're not a novelist, because you talk in circles for 11 mins.
I'm actually writing my *own* TTRPG system that uses a combat system I designed *specifically* to allow everyone to *meaningfully* participate in the combat, and make it more cinematic and engaging. I'm not gonna detail it here in case someone tries to *steal* and claim it as their *own* , but that's the idea behind it because combat is ironically the most *boring* part of a traditional TTRPG, and I think the traditional combat system *itself* is at least *partially* to blame.
That's why I can't stand critical role, Because every footstep is a committee discussion!
Why the DM also be a story teller: the DM should know what will happen IF the players DO NOT INTERVENE. If they choose to avoid a plot hook, a few sessions down the line they should learn that the city has fallen to the orc horde, or the dragon has laid waste to a village they liked.
You can't have emergent stories without consequences, and thus a DM should know beforehand what the consrquences are...
Thank you. I am tired of always hearing that the GM is not a story teller when he absolutely is for exactly that reason.
I agree that the DM is a storyteller. However, the stories that the DM tells need to be much more open-ended than that of a novelist. I feel Luke was working a bit of a false dichotomy there. released content and is the model for many DMs
I actually like the way that 1E did it: There were levels 1-3 modules, light hooks to later modules for levels 4-7, then hooks for 8-10, etc. The DM's job using that content was to string together an interesting story from them. This made the adventuring party feel more like a career of events rather than one big, world-spanning story. Even the classic I3-5 Desert of Desolation---one of Hickman's first modules---ran for levels 4-10, and had plenty of off-ramps along the way, where PCs could die, switch out, and so on.
floating
The way that Luke was presenting it was a bit frustrating, there very much is a middle ground between a pre-planned adventure and an emergent story and I very much feel that that middle ground is the ideal space to operate. Relying on the story being fully emergent does allow for more player agency but it also severely limits the scope of your games, having a planned narrative taking place in the world that the players interact with as opposed to follow directly, allows them to uncover what's happening and make choices that can influence the outcome of said narrative since their actions are not a part of the pre-planned narrative but rather outside interference. Having some idea of what will happen allows a DM to better incorporate the players actions as they occur.
No, what happens in the game should be put it in place to advance the story, not to punish the players for not doing what the DM had planned. If its destroyed it should be part of the story either way.
DMs not a story teller unless they ralroad
“I rolled a 4, for 1 damage” “yeah that actually kills a bunch of orcs” that one got me 😂
I presumed that they were the barely alive ones torched by the fireball.
Haha, yeah because the GM is also bored. Then he doesn't let the other guy die, because if the dm is gunna suffer so WILL YOU ALL!
It's that moment when the DM is ready to end the combat 🤣
The orcs are so weak that they're just sharing a hit point, lol.
3:41 Number 1: The Stakes must be Real
13:32 Number 2: The Power of Narration and Description
19:51 Number 3: Allow All Players to Participate in the Combat
23:07 Number 4: Pacing
25:18 Number 5: Combat is More than Hit Points and Damage
Underrated comment
I played Mork Borg where 70% of all combat is "Roll D20 to attack and D4 for damage" you can imagine how boring it would be without descriptions
"How do you kill [it]?" and "How does [it] die?" are two of my player's favourite questions to hear in combat. The description depth they get into when answering those is generally way more visceral than when they describe their own actions
I always have steaks in my encounters. A good BBQ is amazing to distract that raging barbarian. (lol)
Well. That brings a whole new meaning to Hell's Kitchen.
I can see it now. A bunch of angry demons dressed in aprons with a BBEG human shouting at them in the background.
Steaks you say. I am gaming with you!
Plot twist: the BBQ was orginised by the BBEG!
@@agsilverradio2225 You and your party come across a clearing and you see smoke rising above the area you were told that you could find the BBEG... as you approach, you pick up the aroma of well smoked steak, chicken, and a another strange smell you've never smelled before.
As you get closer you see different giants joking and laughing about with their fires and grills running. to the side you see what unmistakably is the Butcher carving up pigs, chickens, cows, and...the local villagers of a town nearby.... what do you do?
My Rule 1: If it's boring, add an explosion. Suprising how often this helps
Genius! 😂🙌
@@logantbirch It really is suprisingly effective. Boring village tavern conversation? Not if orgres come charging throw the wall!. Combat going far too quickly? Trap goes off and the room collapses allowing them to escape
Transformers Movie franchise summed up.
Underground -> earthquake
My players in a Ravenloft game felt this.
Suffice to say, powers failures occurred.
I think you forgot one very important thing: Battle music. It makes all the difference. I even had my players choose any song as their character theme that plays during crits and such.
Is it? I never used this, because thought it doesn't matter
I've never found music to be that important... but I have noticed some players expect it or prefer it and others don't care that much. But the idea of crit music is pretty awesome. I'd love that as a player.
The thing that I have found with battle music is to make it apprpriate to the scale of the combat. Don't play Dark Souls 3 boss music when the party encounters two goblins. And don't pick something with lyrics or that would otherwise be distracting. At the end of the day, the goal of music is to enhance the tone.
Like bravely default?
That's a good idea when someone does something amazing
Yo.... crit music!
There's a lot of value in the Hickman Revolution. A series of combats without a story is just a battle simulator.
The key is to realize that the story is being crafted by the DM *and* the players at the same time.
If the story ends prematurely by a TPK - that's ok! It's a tragedy.
"Hey, look, fellow party members, we've all got an invitation to the Red Wedding. I love weddings!"
I disagree that it's just a battle simulator. It's called emergent storytelling because the story emerges from what the party chooses to do or not do, which will naturally be a result of the Character, personality, and roleplay
@@spudsbuchlaw Relying solely on your players to generate plot is excruciatingly lazy.
@@Gevaudan1471 I'm guessing you've never been in a emergent story game, have you? It's a super popular style, because it's really not what you seem to think it is.
@@spudsbuchlaw I've been in games where the DM did no preparation and expected the players to spin an adventure out of whole cloth. Most game sessions consisted of players staring at their character sheets for 4 hours looking for a plot point.
What you're describing sounds just like that, and it was excruciating.
When asked a question or when stating something, Old Man Commoner should always refer back to older editions of the game sparking confusion and frustration. It would also highlight his "Back in my daaaays" attitude.
Wizard has a d4 hit die right?
You don't have a "back in my day" problem you have a boneless GM problem if that happens in your games.
I've been doing historical fencing for a few years now and it's made me realize that some DMs aren't really that knowledgeable about martial arts which can lead to some bland combat descriptions. One pet peeve of mine is a DM who interprets every missed hit roll as a missed attack or a dodge. I can tell you from experience that in melee combat, you rarely whiff an attack against an opponent within 5 feet of you. I prefer to interpret missed rolls as blocked attacks, because it's much more advantageous to stop and control an opponents weapon than to dance around it. If you look up any HEMA sparring video, you'll see that opponents block 90% of incoming attacks with their own weapons and rarely ever try to dodge. I feel that this at least is more dignified to your characters and makes the Paladin who's trained with the blade since a youth look like a competent warrior instead of an oaf who can't even hit a training dummy.
Some? You mean most DMs?
agreed, perhaps some basic knowledge on historical combat/martial arts would make it better in my opinion, especially on critical hits,
instead of saying: "he thrusts his blade so hard and with so much force into the opponents breastplate that it concaves inwards..."
i would much prefer a description such as "you grab the blade of the sword with one of your hands while lunging forward and proceeds to jam the tip of your sword in a gap between the plates right under the armpit..."
or saying: "you stab the man at arms in the head, blood pours everywhere..."
and instead saying: "you push the man at arm's head onto the wall, denting the back of his helmet and you grab your dagger and you stab him directly in the eye through the eyeslit..."
My preferred tactic would be to flavour missed attacks as either dodges or _well-executed_ blocks and parries. Attacks that _hit_ are instead flavoured, unless they're a particularly telling blow such as dropping a character below half hit points or doing a lot of damage from a crit, as _poorly_ executed blocks. Things where you're forced to take the attack a little too directly against your sword, and your arm rings from the impact. Or you get an incredibly near miss and have to bend awkwardly to avoid a vertical strike to the head, expending a disproportionate amount of stamina and throwing off your posture.
That said, I have little experience with weapon-based martial arts. All I know is karate (including some training with the bo staff and kama, although that's not relevant here), and everything else is based on anime and fantasy and what I personally feel flows well and looks cool. Which _may_ in fact be piercing straight through a breastplate with a powerful thrust of a rapier or a whirling, backhanded strike with a starknife, but I still tend to prefer emphasizing grace, precision, and style over brutality.
For me, the big thing is this: for missed attacks it is almost always best to assume the miss is a result of an action on the defender's part rather than a failure on the attacker's part.
100%!
D&D is a game where you can get hit by 20 arrows and still walk around like nothing is wrong. It's not a game that tries to simulate realistic combat or physics. I think circumventing realistic descriptions for more video game/anime style descriptions is fine. Especially since many video games are based on D&Ds style.
Luke was having a good time with the zoom feature, lol
Being a relative newcomer to the D&D scene (2014 was my proper introduction year), I really appreciated hearing about the history of the culture surrounding D&D. The Hickman Revolution was interesting to hear about!
What it ultimately boils down to is that players need to be able to make choices that have weight. Depending on the game and the style, combat may be where the choices have weight and death is a meaningful threat. Or the narrative might be where the player have choices really matter. Combat can be more meaningful than just surviving (the stakes might not be the lives of the players). But a game where player's never lose, and are railroaded outside of combat better have pretty good snacks.
I feel like there should be a mix of both at any point in the campaign.
For example if your characters are armed to the teeth and have combat experience in the middle of the campaign they’re probably not going to be afraid of dying to a group of bandits or something, but if said bandits are trying to kill an NPC who is important to the story (or the party at least) the stakes could actually be quite high.
But there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a powerful enemy like a dragon or some sort of demon who directly threatens the lives of the party. I’d even say it’s not an issue if the party runs into this enemy unprepared and wipes to it.
I think you missed one important tips:
1. NEVER do a "Party vs. one enemy", always add mooks/grunt to a fight. Groups tend to burn a single monster within a few rounds, simply because they have (combined)
much more actions per round.
Just give the monster more turns 4head
@@thebeanqueen1669 This would be a solution for sure, But I would it also would change the general rules (one actor = 2 action) and mess with the players expectations of the situation. Also you will still have the issues, that the player will probably nuke the one monster in a few rounds (if you not increasing it's hp also, which would also setting the wrong expectations for the players).
So instead of buffing the "one monster" I would simply give it some minions (also big mighty monsters/bosses should have minions or not?:D ).
Also keep in mind that minions soak much more damage then their hp, because the players have to move around and damage beyond 0 hp simply vanishes. ;)
And at the end, it's more fun for the players, when the fighter can slash through hordes of monsters or the wizard can finally us his fireball to blast half a dozen enemies. :)
@@Sarados1980 There are legendary actions in dnd5e, so it already breaks “general rule”, but - well - that's the damn point of THE Monster.
There are even “lair” events which (usually) happen at static initiative of 20.
You could easily make “The” Werewolf boss act twice, first time at their initiative and second at half their initiative, and it would still be sensible (Maybe I would limit him to one dash per round or something like that)
@@panszczur8087 Never tried this (playing mostly PF/SF).
After thinking about it, I think if you differ between the monsters normal action and this "special actions" it could work (and I think I did it a few times with boss fights).
Neitherless I would always add at least some grunts to the fight, so the mage can throw his fireball or the fighter could cleave/whirlwind and feels good about it.
It also helps to prevent a static "tank & spank" scenario. ;)
My last boss has legendary actions, crowd control, area denial, nearly the action economy of the party, deadly attacks, and downed a few party members before they scraped by with a kill. It lasted six rounds and was really tense. I got great feedback to "make more fights like this."
There are many creative alternatives to adding grunts. Grunts just sap player actions and resources. More dynamic and powerful bosses can fully transform how combat happens and make that encounter feel more unique.
Can't forget dm granted advantage. Whether this is for the specific action or just inspiration, it's a big motivator to players to get creative with their turns.
Indeed, come up with something cool, unique, interesting or fun, and gain Advantage. 👍
@@euansmith3699 I do that and even the opposite. Giving disadvantage is a lot more rare, it's usually some one to two turn debuff. Like in CoS my players tend to look around for animals, a lot. If they get a nat 1, I'll make them frightened for a minute. It's like they saw something they thought was there, but it (usually) isn't.
I've always disagreed with the whole emergent story being better than directed story thing when it comes to TTRPGs. Having done it both ways, there's little better than the players realizing this obscure fact or event from the beginning has become extremely important in the end. I always find that the argument that you need player deaths for stakes in combat to be just a lack of imagination. I have run games where literally player death was not allowed (3 failed death saves means a character is unconscious and injured to a point where healing magic won't work on them, and a TPK results in either capture or the whole party being left knocked out), but I still managed to put stakes in every battle. Having the whole quest fail, the whole village/nation/world be destroyed, having terrible things happen to beloved NPCs, all leaves losing combat being painful and something you want to avoid without taking away the characters people worked hard on. I generally only have characters die when an enemy's specific motivation is killing, that way the death can at least be dynamic and feel like it makes sense as opposed to random and senseless, and the other stakes keep combat from being boring. People taking too long on their turns...that one I still have an issue with...
I agree. I prefer a balance between emergent and directed. the DM needs to have stuff planned for the session which requires some amount of directed story telling ahead of time. the DM should also be willing to let the players determine if the directed story is worth perusing and go with the flow to all a new story to emerge, but, going all one way or the other isn't the answer.
It really depends on your preferences as a player too. I'm a big fan of JRPGs, and those a pure directed stories. Purely emergent storylines also just don't do it for me, because without having something to direct my actions, I have trouble deciding on what to do.
Yeah, I've had snowflake players too. They cry when they lose? If you like your PC and village, work to keep them alive and well.
some of the best player reaction I've had is when they realize the grim results of their past failures. When they can handle defeat.
If player death at random points makes your story fall apart, well I find that to be just lack of imagination. (not directed at original poster)
killing and death are results of motivation, that is what it means to be a hero/adventurer.
Different strokes for different folks I suppose
@@fuckyoutube000 I agree with the point, if not the delivery. 5e character generation is not that dime consuming or difficult. You could argue that an optimized character is, but then why would you need that in a a game you literally can't lose? The whole reason I allow players in some games ro make min/max PCs is so I can put in all the deadly deadly homebrew without feeling guilt about it. If you just want a character, have the character. I think a big issue is early levels. Most of the options people want to have in a PC do t come online until around level 5, so they spend weeks or months or more playing a character and trying to get it to be the thing they want. I think more high level entry adventures and an understanding that you can make a new character at party level of yours dies would go a long way to ease players into accepting death in D&D.
I make a clear different from the story and what happen in the game play.
Bravo, sir. Exactly what I would say. Long, slow clap.
Thanks, Professor Dungeon. Good to see you about. I peak at your stuff from time to time. Very cool.
So what would you do in a situation where the roles are reversed? There's an immersive DM but the players just want to have the story unfold in front of them?
Prune players lol. Kidding, but not kidding. I have one player that's really just there to combat. Instead of trying to force the issue I eventually learned to just accept it. If that's his fun, then let him have it. I can story with the other players and he can follow along and attack. *shrugs*
If that's your entire table then... you should've had a session 0 lol. Know exactly how much work is in store for you.
Tell them to read a book and find better players who actually want to play a game.
For descriptions I close my eyes and visualise the scene and then simply describe what I see. Also adjectives, use lots of adjectives.
In my homebrew campaign, I decided, and even consulted my first DM about it, that I should have a structure of how the story goes. In any place the pc's will visit there will be things that are related to the big story. But I sure as hell don't tell them where to go. They have the agency to point a place on the map and go explore it. Whatever happens there is the story. BUT, that doesn't mean the things I planned for won't have an impact on the grand scheme, should the party decide to explore it or not. That way I believe is a very good way to bring forth a dynamic, breathing and living world, where ANY choice matters- even those you don't take in the end. I know how the final arc and battle should go. But I'll be damned if I know what the results will be. That's up to the party. The BBEG has a plan in motion, and whether the group will decide to deal with it or not is up to them. But my BBEG isn't going anywhere ;)
That's very much the approach I'm trying to take as well :)
11:00 I kinda disagree with you, Luke. You're telling about this novelist stuff and absence of value of players' desisions like it's only black and white. I think it's more in the middle. You can be a storyteller, while giving players some amount of influence over the story. For example, my players never choose quests, but they do choose paths they're going to go, and how to react on encounters. Maybe my playstyle's a bit different from yours.
To be honest, I usually play with beginers, so they don't know how "the game meant to be played" but I rarely see them not engaged with a story. That also pretty interesting for me as well because I don't know how my story's gonna end
An adventure should have an intro, a motivator, a struggle, a disaster, a bigger struggle, a twist, a final battle, & a conclusion.
Sounds like a "story"! 🤘
@@taylorvansickle8756 Well duh. D&D games DO have stories.
In my most recent campaign, a player cast Banishment on another player's character. Because where they were counted as another plane, the character didn't just pop back after the spell ended. The guy ended up playing another character for a few sessions until his original character could show back up.
The writer equivalent is pantsing vs. plotting. A plotter has an extensive, meticulous scene by scene outline, while a pantser sits down at the keyboard and lets the words flow (which was how my first novel turned into a trilogy). It's not an absolute binary, but a spectrum. Now I generally make a barebones outline of important plot points, and I'm not afraid to deviate if the story goes a different direction.
As a DM I use a similar method - I have the encounters based on the players' plans prepared for the session, and on the campaign scale I have story hooks tied into the main "story line" and character based goals and flesh things out once I see which bait the players take.
Having giants that stomp (dex save or fall prone) before attacking is a neat way to spice things up.
Or maybe they use their club in a sweeping motion and cause AOE effects. Giants can be cool when you spice them up.
It’s incredibly easy to do this and I am surprised more people don’t do this in VTT games.
You can literally add any effect you want and have it tied into a link:
*Noxious Belch*
Creatures in a frontal cone of 15 ft must make a DC 13 CON save or fall prone, coughing and gasping until the end of their next turn.
Boom an ogre belch action that varies things and keeps it spicy - obviously just an example - don’t use it to punish your players, but stick special stats and abilities on your otherwise vanilla baddies!
It’s so easy!
When the party splits and one group gets into combat, I let the players with absent characters play the bad guys.
That's great
I can see that going wrong but also very cool
When the party splits, I don't do anything different. We follow turn order for everyone as usual.
I have a player running a College of Swords Bard. _Almost_ all he does is make attacks. He rarely uses his Flourishes too. So when 2 gnoll marauders, a gnoll huntsmaster, and 4 hyenas are all clumped up and chewing on the Warlock and Paladin, he's not dropping a _Thunderwave_ or _Shatter_ or anything. No, he's just whittling them away without even Flourishing. I'm cutting the Warlock a _little_ slack because he does only have two spell slots, but even he could stand to throw around some bigger spells too. Those combats went on and on not because the monsters had too many hit points, but because most of the party refused to be more aggressive.
D&D should be played like an action movie full of cinematic, pulpy, swashbuckling action and high adventure.
That's definitely a good way to play it, but other styles work too. It can also work like a horror film, superhero or detective movie. It's not a great system for less combat oriented games but is OK. I'd tend to use a different game for some of the types of games but more people know d&d than other systems so it's easier to use.
Here's a tip: Go play other systems, Savage Worlds Adventure Edition is perfect for that.
@@jiminkpen9750 I'm sorry but using D&D 5e to play horror or investigative games is just eh... using D&D to play horror is like putting superman in a horror house or putting him in Gotham City, your PC demigods will just blaze through it.
@@josiahdublin7816 You are 100% correct sir.
@@josiahdublin7816 like I said its not as good for less combat-y games but easily done.
All you need to do is have no spellcasting classes, next to no magic items (certainly no healing potions) and run it at low level. If you want it very deadly reduce the number of death saves before you actually die. Suddenly you have a system that looks and feels dangerous, monsters are scary and you can create the right sort of atmosphere for your game. I'd also suggest not using a map for combat and keep it descriptive.
My group started playing Starfinder recently and I have to say, we’re really enjoying Paizo’s chrunchier combat system.
Starfinder has become one of my favorite systems, the only problem is our group has to homebrew the ship combat quite heavily
@@HauntedScourge why is that?
Yeah, why?
@@mercuryknyght5238 Unless the combat ends up being short and punchy the "roles" in the many phases of the ship don't have much to do.
Like there's a list of thing you can do but at earlier levels your looking at 1-3 options and they all come down to a simple check. It takes what's boring about combat in RPGs and magnifies it in my opinion.
I often find that adding battle injuries to npcs helps make it more realistic. It’s easier when there’s a description of the attack but a well placed hit could cause some damage that they can’t just ignore without it affecting their movements.
Ideas for People
(For bludgeoning just assume the word break for any limb)
1. The Enemy Loses an Eye
2. The Enemy Loses their Hand
3. The Enemy Loses their arm
4. The Enemy Loses their foot
5. The Enemy Loses their leg
6. The Enemy Loses teeth
7. The Enemy Loses their ability to walk
8. The Enemy Loses their tongue (or part of it)
I have an entire system that utilizes wounds and residual damage.
To me it is self evident that if someone says they are aiming for the head, that there will be damage of a successful it, rather than a computer game where cutting through arteries doesn't impact anything until the target reaches 0 hp.
Pausing at the 9:25 mark, and I have a few points on this argument. It seems to me what you are saying is:
1) Without chance of death, stakes are not real.
2) Without explicit stakes, you can't have emergent gameplay.
Both of these premises ring false. Players can take actions in combat that affect things beyond survival. Who escapes, who is chased down, capture or kill, decide a fight isn't worth the spell slots and flee another direction -- all of these decisions can be made independent of the risk of death, and can create emergent gameplay.
Also, when I'm watching My Hero Academia, I never think the Deku will die. We are told in the first two episodes that this is the story of how he becomes the world greatest hero. He can't die until at least that moment. Doesn't make the Overhaul fight any less intense. So, the idea that knowing a character will survive doesn't affect a directed experience.
Taking that idea, how much does it affect an emergent experience. Considering that emergent experiences aren't 100% unpredictable (I don't expect Pokemon to show up in my D&D game), then you can take certain assumptions, such as PC survivability, and still feel the intensity of everything else that is emergent. You can still contribute decisions that make the experience emergent.
I run a game in which PC death happens occasionally, but I play in a game in which it has never really been an issue. (This has more to do with the DM's incredibly low rolls than anything, but also because she has a more narrative mentality.) We still enjoy the personalities of the villains we fight, and often make decisions that make the DM improvise. Combat is still fun.
This all table-dependent, of course. I've played in a cut-throat game or two, and those were fun as well. The experience isn't lessened by shifting or lessening the stakes; it's just a different experience.
You did expand on the stakes a bit more with the four intensities, but during the rant portion that did not come through at all. Four intensities is a very useful tool, though, thank you.
Hey man, really appreciate every single one of these videos. They have helped me very much DMing for the first time. I always watch your stuff while I work!
Awesome, thank you!!! :D
Love the advice, the length of 5E combat is an interesting beast. If players each have a turn, and if they have multiple competing choices about what to do, then unless they plan what they want to do combat will take quite a bit of time. The only way to really reduce the time is if there’s less time spent on choices, but they requires either limits or experience. It’s a sort of fascinating game design problem.
I'll never understand why some folks treat combat as a chore.
@@Gevaudan1471I agree. It’s the game time when most character abilities are being used, so it’s kinda weird that some would think of it as a chore.
The reason it feels a chore is that initiative, action limits, and miniatures are all departures from the rhythm of the conversation that was taking place leading up to the combat.
Imagine if exploring a dungeon was still done the old school way: in rounds.
Hmm well it’s only a chore for players that like to focus on RP
And in that case I love to add mechanics that make the players RP mid combat.
I ran like a horror boss, where the enemy had a pact with an evil theatre patron, so they had to do certain things like give heroic speeches or flavour their attacks and act like they are in a dramatic theatre show to avoid drawing the ire of the god
If there's one thing from Critical Role that players and DMs NEED to do, it's descriptive combat.
To a certain point. Don't want to bog down the session.
@@KnicKnac "Can I try to plant the spikey side of my pike-axe into Orc#4's face?" shouldn't bog anything down so much... Then roll, and announce numbers...
"Orc#4's face rips open with the force of the slash and he stumbles back, nearly sitting right down, but (while you can tell it's obviously obscene, whatever he's saying) he's not dead yet... just REALLY pissed off... and you might be in trouble shortly...
Also doesn't really bog anything down... Obviously a miss is "You tried X and wiffed it." or similar...
He said "descriptive combat"... NOT "Shakespearean Purple Prose Combat"... That's all...
Try nurturing a few technical terms for your Players and GM's to share as a sort of basic standard "jargon" at the table... The difference between a "Crescent Kick" and a "Roundhouse Kick" and "Slashing up and to the right" versus "Hacking straight down", and the like... Called shots would involve specific body parts and/or desired effects... "Trying to decapitate" or "Jam the Spear in his left eye" with relative deficits to hit accumulating based on size and difficulty (the smaller the target, the higher the difficulty, obviously)... AND reward them with benefits, advantages, and effects when they (and their dice) incidentally do well.
I've almost never done that "Combat quickly and by the numbers" crap... AND I've NEVER had combats really "Bog down", even with relative noob's at the system... ANY system. When we've spent more than an hour and a half on combat, there's been a metric buttload of minions and a pretty serious "heavy" involved... It was going to be a "slog" no matter how it was run... BUT even in a relative slog, my Players (and I frankly) have always been laughing and throwing dice, shouting and swearing, and generally having a GREAT TIME raising all manners of Hell.
It's how I read the room. If a "Combat Scene" makes the Table sound like we're really in combat, mixed with laughs and engaging faces all around, it's "just about right". ;o)
@@KnicKnac Oh yea, dont want this combat game to be combat focused... GO play FATE. D&D is clearly not for you.
That's why I can't stand critical role, Because every footstep is a committee discussion!
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 How many times can you do this until it gdts boring though? Eventually you gonna run out of cool descriptions for your characters. Even cool ways to miss
I have a general rule that I try not to kill player characters until they reach level 5. However, I often find other ways to have stakes, like protecting a beloved NPC or defending a town. Consequences at lower levels don’t mean PC death, but they still are present.
Another good way to practice combat description is to watch an action sequence in a movie or TV show that you like and practice describing it by talking or writing. Watching many will put good action sequences in your mind that you can recall at the table.
The only thing i think i dislike about a lot of your advice is it really boils down to the DM putting in 99% of the effort and the Players just doing as they please all the time. One of these days i'd love to see you do a video on how Players and DMs can work together at the same time to enrich the experience (as compared to your separate videos on how to be a good DM and a good Player, which is treated like two wholly separate issues)
Hey man so happy to see how close you are to 100k subs can’t wait for you to get that button!
“Use your words” This is a parental like relationship. Luke talks to us like we talk to our kids lol….
Surprisingly, or not, for beginners it seems to be essential advice actually
Did you just call Luke your Daddy?
"You're gonna feel rough at first..."
Now listen, son...
:D
Guilty. In one game that I GM'd, I was using a directive method over the emergent method. We ended up stopping partially due to this, and partially the player makeup. I accept the blame and hopefully have learned.
I love he mentions giants. Im running against the giants now and was disappointed with the mm stats. I've been using the special ones in Volo's(?) And making them do things like use nets to control pcs, grappling, and throwing pcs. Little tweaks like that have really helped, especially if you throw a pc off a high ledge towards a rhemoraz below. Gonna try disarms next time.
Maybe you'll end up saying this later in the video but I think the best solution to the issue of balancing fights needing stake to feel fun, with the need to have characters progress in the storyline is to get creative with the stakes a given battle presents. Most encounters I have my characters go through have a very real chance of loss, but only in the boss battles is that stake death. As a dm this can also be a way to inject greater motivations into a story. You can couch plothooks into it, and have events trigger that affect things characters care about like their wealth, communities, personal agency, families, or random innocents, or cause them to simply lose out on a cool things they might have gotten. Look at a fight the way you design puzzles with pass fail results of a massive variety rather than just life or death struggles. Going further into that not every encounter that utilizes combat skills has to actually be combat, it can be a game, a gamble, an obstacle course. I should take my own advice more though, and it's all easier said than done :P
For me the fun in a fight comes from strategy and thinking how my turn affects my party. For me a fragile PC is one I can't get invested in and I wish that perspective was more talked about by channels like this.
I'm in the in between on this one. I like a DM to loosely frame a rough plot with the understanding that death is on the table and that some if not all characters will not live to see the end of the events.
There have been many games that I have run that never got to the end game because the PCs died or took off in another direction.
I was just talking with my buddy about this the other day. He is a numbers guy, and feels that description and story-telling are boring and get in his way of tactically winning battles. That's like the opposite of me... I am a description kind of player. I pretty much don't care what the plot is or where we go, as long as we're all describing cool stuff well enough. When I DM, however, I'm definitely a novelist, but there are definitely repercussions and the chance to lose. I picture it like a choose-your-own-adventure book, where there may be pre-planned events that will pop up, but the outcomes can vary greatly. Very module-esque.
It's interesting how D&D attracts so many different kinds of people looking for so many different kinds of things. One player at our table just wants to kill things, and he doesn't care if it's numbers or description, or if there are stakes at all.
Jeez, the first 10 minutes of this video is the host re-phrasing "you need the threat of death for combat to be fun" over and over. He even recognized how long and rambling his tirade was, and then proceeded to harp on it for just a bit longer lol.
I find the point rather trite personally. While I agree that 5e makes dying exceptionally rare, I don't think the threat of death is truly a core element to making combat exciting/engaging. All of the other points mentioned in the video are far more important in my opinion.
The threat of death alone is simply a numerically challenging encounter style. Which means your characters are more likely to perish, which means you can't get as attached to any PC, and no PC can be as vital to the story narrative as they all need to be replaceable. This effect can actually weaken the narrative overall as your PCs become a bunch of faceless, friendless and detached video game characters who simply fulfill quests because the story needs them to. All character growth, character dynamics between PCs and NPCs as well as the fate of PCs having heavy implications for the world state are gone when the rate of PC death is *too* high.
As a story invested player, I would lose interest in such an excessively death heavy campaign- unless I went into it knowing it was going to be a light-on-story numerically-challenging dungeon crawl experience from the get-go.
Of course my example was rather hyperbolic, but I felt that the 10 minute tirade about death being a key element was equally hyperbolic, and almost encouraged an excessively kill-happy campaign at the cost of narrative potential. The reader/player of your story/game *needs* to be able to be invested in characters to care about what is happening.
I would tend to say more ‘the threat of consequences’, of which death is one. Damage to things or causes the characters care about, for example, could be another. Investment in the result.
Your comment points to the ultimate design flaw in D&D. Its a game of storytelling primarily through combat, but no one wants their character to die. Most people dont go through life looking for a fight, and yet that's exactly what we expect from our characters and our DMs. In many other games, combats are few and far between, where the story is told through some other mechanism. In Call of Cthulhu, it's investigation. In Legend of the Five Rings, it's courtly intrigue. In Shadowrun, it's the heist. In these games, combat is what happens when things go wrong. In D&D, it's expected, even encouraged.
I submit that, for people with your mentality, D&D is not the game for you. And thats not an insult. I gave up on D&D a long time ago for the same reasons.
@@rdmrdm2659 great point, consequence itself is what is important, of which potential PC death is just one. For a story-vested player like myself, consequences to the NPCs and the world around me would be more engaging of a consequence than simply my PC perishing and me slotting in a replacement.
@@kdolo1887 entirely fair- you may be right about a highly story-vested player like myself having a better time with other table top games.
I do like the concept of story-telling through combat, but that is a good point about the dichotomy between said concept and players not wanting their characters to die.
There is definitely a balance- I think that PC death can make for some great emergent story telling, but like character death in any story this needs to be done with care. The death only has weight if the reader/players have had time to become invested in them, and the reader/player always needs characters to be invested in. One could ask, if the entire original party of 5 has been replaced, is this still the same story/adventure?
D&D's very heavy luck elements compound these issues. Although D&D uses a tactical RPG type map, the amount of strategy one has available to them in combat can be quite limited- based on one's class, the enemy, the terrain and the DM's preferences. Too often a PC will effectively do the same things every turn. As a result of the high degree of randomness, even a player who played "smart" and made no mistakes can still lose.
D&D 5e seems to have recognized this issue, and has made it very hard/borderline impossible for the player to die unless the DM is feeling cruel and has the enemies go for kills on downed PCs. So now the game is stuck in a weird place, where the book describes an incredibly combat heavy game where your characters are in constant mortal peril, yet this isn't reflected in the gameplay.
@@kdolo1887 meh. I have no problem whatsoever in any way using that mentality with D&D and it’s various incarnations.
Cloud and storm giants are the most interesting ones out of the bunch for me. After facing slow and dumb ogres and trolls in early levels, I'd surely be scared when a cloud giant suddenly misty steps to close in on the wizard
Ya want something interesting look up Ogre Goblin Hucker. Range? 150 to 600 when throwing a goblin. Ogre Howdah has a fort on it's back. 4 small size creatures can fit in the fort with 3/4 cover.
One of the reasons I tend to enjoy crunchier & deadlier RPG systems. Instead of a large HP pool to slowly whittle down, like chopping a tree, some or all of the hits have actual effects. Often more descriptive ones within the system, too. Can even shoehorn those hit & crit tables into D&D if need be.
Games like Warhammer Fantasy RP/Zweihander for the descriptive crit tables and hit locations for those big or final blows. Against The Darkmaster/HARP which lend more details and effects for every hit. Even those which often provide extra die result spends for doing special moves and results such as the AGE system, Genesys/Star Wars FFG, and Conan 2d20 (which also has hit locations). They tend to exchange the large amount of repeated die results for fewer per combat, but with more leading descriptions of a cinematic nature on each. Still requires some improv but gives you a starting point.
Thanks for not boring me in a discussion of boring combat! :)
So here's the thing... there's middle ground between "leave it up to luck" and "the characters are just along for the ride." My players know I will not kill them due solely to bad die rolls. But they know that the story- and their characters- may change significantly based on a spate of bad luck. My players also know I will not hesitate to let them die if they're dumb. But a campaign is more than a really long board game. It *is* a story, and the players are the protagonists. It means they have a bigger role to play in the world than that of the local innkeeper, and the gods are not going to wipe them off the face of the earth simply because the dice were grumpy during one session.
(27:25) - Modify your Monsters. Why does a 'Giant' just have to be a big 'fighter' and just hit things. There should be Giant Wizards, and Bards, and Clerics... Every Monster should be like a possible character. This also spices up combat and makes things more unique and unpredictable.
"Oh look it's a Giant. This should be easy." - A fireball explodes around the party. "WHAT? Where did that come from?" - The Giant chuckles loudly as a grin crosses his face. The party sees his hands waving around forming symbols and a chant of incantations begins....
Combat Encounters should be 'Party' vs 'Party'. How many player groups consist of all Barbarians, or all Fighters, or all Paladins? Very few (unless specifically designed for that). Why should the Monsters be all one 'class' ? they shouldn't. mix and match. give them varying abilities. This makes Combat more interesting than just 'Swing and Damage'
Yes. There is a sizable population of the hobby that thinks of the game as collaborative storytelling, which it kind of is, but this line of thinking tends to create plot armour and the expectation that your PC will live to the conclusion. I think it's healthier to think of it as collaborative interaction with the game world. When I DM I roll all combat rolls in public. I encourage players to ask the DMs to do the same. Sure, your PC might die, but that's what happens sometimes when you interact with a dangerous game world. If you are scared of dying, then play your PC cautiously. Each to their own of course, but if players are accustomed to the safety on mode, I highly recommend they try something more dangerous (perhaps as a one-shot, or short campaign) just to see how they like it.
I once played in a campaign where the DM said in session zero that he'd only kill a PC if previously discussed and agreed with the player. It was not fun.
I like the idea of putting a sand timer in front of the players and saying "when this runs out it's the monsters turn."
I did it since 2000. It's great! Sadly roll20 doesnt have such a feature.
The final fantasy approach to combat definitely has its merits.
The first point, I’m already thinking about the encounter I ended on in our last session. It’s the first time, since the party just reached level 7 and I wanted to both: a. Throw them a really tough fight; and b. Reward one of the players for their backstory attention (I’ll have similar quests for others). It’s against a platoon of drow and they are particularly hunting one of the players whose a “free” drow.
I can’t get too much into all the factors in play but it’s going to be very exciting and risky since Drow typically don’t take prisoners in this case. I’m hoping my players play smart and so far, they are. Ended after the first turn since they took time to prepare and talk with each other before they engaged.
Having combat with additional strategic objectives is always nice. I ran a necro lair with some undead creatures in septic tanks. When the tanks break and the creatures get loose there is also an explosive toxic gas gradually spreading in the area. So are the PC's going to KO the necro and take him in for interrogation? Are they going to prevent the gas from spreading? Are they taking the necro out, but ignore the gas... causing a massive explosion in the middle of the city? With the gas spreading further and creating some necrotic effects in the direct area. A seemingly simple combat with massive possible outcomes. -- Also spreading PC's is nice. My players invaded a hag's lair. However a creature grappled the druid and teleported to the top of the tower and dropped the Druid. So she was now no longer part of the combat and no longer a problem either. Good luck trying to get back to the fight in time. However you do need to provide the druid with something else to do.
Threat to the Assets. I love taking a creature from the older edition. Sure you got the Rust Monster. However do you remember the creature that does the same, but to magic items?
Threats to PC's. How about we bring back enemies that drain levels. However instead of draining levels they now give PC's a level of exhaustion. The Exhaustion mechanic is heavily under used and can ramp up threats fast and drastically. As well as cutting off limbs of PC's that prevents a cleric from both using a weapon AND shield. Choices now have to be made. Regenerating limbs is not that common. When it is they're such high level they can enjoy it for all I care. If a PC dies and they got a nice "story" going I might be nice and let them come back once in some way or another. But after that they're on their own. And using resurrections etc isn't an auto-success either. I use Matt Mercer's way of doing that. With increasing DC to succesfully bring someone back.
Add Verticality. Too many battles are only in the 2d plane. Even with mini's they often are. Do what you can as DM to make clear the players need to think in 3d.
You want interesting monsters. Look at Star Spawns and how they work together. You can always level them down to work for lower tier campaigns. They're intense
Thanks for this video.
4 Rules I put into my game:
1. Resurrections is like next to impossible to do and in the world there have only been 4 instances in recorded history of it being done
2. Not all scenarios can be handled with a sword
3. Critical failures will probably involve something hilarious happening to the person / npc but deadly is rare
4. Random events may happen like wind change if the players are taking too long to make a decision when the opponents have keen smell. This added a great o shit setup.
starts at 11:22
My first character, fighter of course, lasted 15 minutes. I was hooked.
This is why I prefer 3.5. Because it's so much easier to die, it makes combat always be filled with more tension. I also find battle music to be very helpful in making combat exciting.
I feel like what you describe in this video about the DM telling a story and removing all the stakes demonstrates the problem with EXU very well.
watching these videos has given me more insight in my d&d games. and i thank you for this. i've also come to understand the "story" of a campeign is a byproduct of the DM presenting a problem, and the players answering that presentation. to ignore is a valid answer, (while not wise it is valid)
Awesome. I'm happy I could help!
I love emergent campaigns. I write adventures for that night, and write for different areas of the world and determine what happens at different locations. Political intrigues, wars, famines, etc during the time the players use in-game. Whatever the players decide to do, it uses time, resources, etc and the world continues to turn. They have options for something more their level, but there are also paths that lead to high level encounters which they are not ready for by a long shot. Foreshadow some of the bad things that have happened to people who tried and failed which seem around their level, and if they continue, so be it.
I have key moments planned out to happen at certain times during the campaign, but if they do not follow the right plot hooks for their level, they may miss defending a village at the right time and find once they arrive, the village has fallen. Same with assassinations, political talks, etc.
The get direction through dreams, prophecies, job boards, npc dialogue etc, and it is completely up to them to follow or not. As stated, I prepare all given options, plus the regional intrigues happening at the time and set them on track. If they do something else, the Other stuff happens as if they aren't there.
Living worlds may take some extra work, but so wroth it when the players realize they missed a clue that could have saved the village they were just in, but didn't investigate the tracks leading from the village into the woods only to find a band of goblinoids raided and murdered the village, and now fortified it as their new fort, and have begun pillaging caravans travelling nearby.
Good post brother
Omg I needed to hear this SO bad. I obsess go a crippling degree about being a directive storyteller because it helps me feel like there's some safety in the bumpers.
My players have always loved my games, but I strengthened my desire for structure through loode improv within the session while behind the screen I was hodgepodging a "big bad" for "Act I".
Emergent storytelling sounds way more fun and I hope one day I'm able to release the reigns and let the character where they will and react more than feel the need to jump ahead.
I'm great in the moment, but I'm bad on the spot. I wish I could learn the difference and act accordingly... or at least acknowledge when something is working and roll with it instead of burning myself out worrying about what's coming next.
Thank you so much, Luke as always.
My players are skittish about combat in our current campaign. It's a medium-power sandbox sci-fi setting of my own devising using the Hero System. I don't balance combat (I haven't for years) and I roll everything within view.
I also enforce the optional Characteristic Maxima to keep PC/NPC characteristics within check. A character's BODY is like hit points, and with the Maxima in place, those "hit points" stay within the 8 - 23 range for an entire campaign lasting 100+ sessions. (For reference, a modern hunting rifle deals 2d6+1 BODY Damage. ) I also don't use any rezzing or the equivalent of healing potions, though my scii-fi includes improved healing times measured in days instead of weeks, as would be normal. I also never make it an absolute requirement to engage in combat.
The net result is a group of crafty PCs that will only throw in when the stakes are very high. Everyone is alert when weapons are drawn and tension is high. Seven 5-hour session in, and offering an opportunity every session, they haven't felt the need. But everyone seems engaged with the locations and NPCs.
I doubted myself and asked them if I should "motivate" them more to engage in combat. The answer was a resounding No. The last 99-session campaign (with mostly the same players) had a significant combat every three sessions or so and was under the same Characteristic Maxima and lethality limitations.
My takeaway is that, if this campaign was a movie, it would be one if those "oh crap! That was a gunshot!" Kind rather than the "BRAKKA BRAKKA BRAKKA!" Type like Commando. If I had to pick, the former is the kind of movie that is interesting to me, and apparently my players. At least this time around.
Who is watching it at release time?
An interact-able environment also helps spice things up:
In a warehouse, maybe there is some suspended cargo that can be cut down or using the winch.
In a swamp, maybe there is some methane that is bubbling up from beneath the surface that can be ignited.
In a town, maybe there is a barrel that can be kicked down a slope towards your pursuers.
Make these interactions work both ways, and maybe the hostile npcs will pull a lever to drop a portcullis that separates the party in combat.
A thing ive found that really helps my players is dynamic battlefields. If youre just in a room, its a boring numbers game - but if you add some elevation, traps, dangerous areas, difficult terrain, ect.. it makes things much more engaging. Its always players vs. enemies vs. environment.
Adding to character death: For me it depends on the feel of the game and what the group is about. I both like knowing that my character will probably not die, if the party tries to make informed choices. On the other hand there's these games where there are no safeguards. But I like knowing beforehand since it creates a different feel. A Grim dark game will feature death and will rough up the party more often for example.
But yeah it depends on the party and everyone should agree on how deadly the game is.
As a side note: I have a player who doesn't want their character to die. They're fine with changing characters. But instead of death they rather have their character be so heavily wounded that they can't participate anymore or have them seem to be dead.
First I thought: ok if you don't want them to die, why play? But then I remembered that I might not know the whole story and that's fine. They're a friend and we're all here to have fun. The group and I was ok with it, and so we still play.
Other DMs might have chosen differently. But I think that sometimes it's fine to put "It's just a game" aside and see that behind these characters are still people with different walks of life. We found a solution that works for everyone. And that's the most important.
@@9akisha9 Well said. When it comes down to it, we're all people at the table and we all have a right to be heard in terms of what will enhance our fun and what will kill it. That doesn't mean pandering to every whim, especially if those whims trample on others, but it does mean listening and respecting people's feelings. Being a decent person costs nothing.
The best compliment I ever got from one of my players. They were all new and so after a couple sessions I asked what their favourite parts of the game was so I could try and add more of those in it. My rogue told me she “loves the descriptions of hits and misses during combat.” That was the best thing anyone’s ever told me as a DM
You did a beautiful thing on it on December 21, 2021. And I agree that the old-school gamers like myself were not kind to players who did not do so well. But as a referee I would always coach the players how to be better. I agree with pretty much everything in the video
but I do differ on a couple things: I don’t Railroad players with a storyline. I let players experience a multi linear story that they choose the outcome. And the outcome affects later on events. If I plan something ahead expecting a certain outcome, and it doesn’t happen, then I didn’t plan enough.
Doing a lots of if-then-therefore charts helps. Anticipate the possible outcomes including the one in which you have no idea what might happen is really good in learning how to write stories. You’re not the author as the game master. You set up the situation. The players end up being co-authors.
I agree that there should be a separation between the math side of describing combat. And then you have the descriptive side.
Although I wait until everyone has finished their declared action, formulate in my head what’s happening simultaneously. Quickly visualize it, and describe the entire simultaneous action and what each person’s action did…. at the end of the round.
therefore if somebody else had a critical later on in the combat they aren’t cheated out of being involved. Plus any action in the chain of the simultaneous action can have an effect.
The only other small sidenote there is I don’t let players necessarily declare if they hit. They simply state what they rolled. Behind the screen I apply modifiers if necessary.
if they hit I didn’t tell them to roll the necessary. And again behind the screen apply any modifiers up or down.
this also increases suspense.
Still liking the video, don’t get me wrong
Just recently found your channel and now binging. So many good tips - just hoping some of it will be retained in the heat of battle. Thank you!!
(22:00) - Banishment : you can have them start a separate combat for that individual (or some other scene) and flip flop as needed. This way they are still engaged. Also, encourage the players to attack the bad guy that cast the spell to break concentration and thus getting the player back before 'time' is up.
Wall of Force : Hopefully there is a way around the wall to re-engage in combat. If not, the players need to have the ability to bring down the Wall (casting spells, disrupting caster, etc) Again, encourage the players to find a solution and quickly.
Polymorph : Have the players go and hit the polymorphed player (assuming it was polymorphed into something small and 'helpless') This drops the HP = 0 and reverts the player.
These are tricks that PLAYERS should learn how to 'defeat' these spells (or any spell they know) as they could be used against them.
Utilize the 2e book Player's Option: Combat & Tactics to make combat more lethal. Make full use of the critical hit system, but up the severity by one die category and disallow for saves vs. death to avoid injuries. Since you can still roll low on the severity table, there is always the possibility that a critical won't have any specific effect. This makes combat a heck of a lot more dangerous than just trading swings until someone runs out of hit points.
@the_DM_Lair I wish I could talk to you about how I used a Giant spider nest as a combat area. It's my first time DMing and I think it included a lot of really fun interactions to make combat more interesting. The Giant spider broodmother kept entering and leaving the "cave of webs" to either attack or do a web attack, then run back to safety outside the webbed walls. The spider swarms that followed "mother" around would attack whoever was webbed. The whole floor was coated in webs so it was rough terrane. I wish I could have done more but the players were only lvl3 and they were almost wiped tpk'd as is...
Well, the mother ran away when things were going south for it. But as the players lit the nest on fire and attempted to escape through the "web tunnel" strung between the trees of the dense woods, The mother was harassing them by doing her hit-and-run tactics again. Webbing them to the wall of the tunnel so the "baby, dinner plate sized, spiders" would attack them while they were stuck. The players finally hit her with a saved action when she came to the wall and she crashed through the web tunnel with her momentum. A great sense of pride came to me when one of the players said "Ohh god, she's dead. I hated her!"
HAHA
You can have high stakes without having player characters die.
Would you care to elaborate please
@@valintinesmith7807 there actually are a few ways, namely the lives of nocs or perhaps political reasons
@@kendrickrochelanzot2053 those seem very situational and would require a good alignment. I've played in & DMed a lot of games where that would likely not be enough of a consequence to matter. Do you have any other ideas?
@@valintinesmith7807 Captured or inprisoned. Saved for meal later. Humiliation and many more. Imagination is the limit !
@@valintinesmith7807 Losing valuables, getting thrown in prison, getting maimed and taking temporary (or permanent) debuffs like losing stats, feats or abilities. Losing credibility or privileges as a group due to your failure. All of these would matter to a character, even if they were neutral evil and genuinely didn't care about anyone or anything.
just because you cant tell a good story doesn't mean I cant change the rolls to give players a better game
For combat descriptions I HIGHLY recommend Joe Abercrombe! The First Law trilogy is a great one to start on
Number one rule for me when it comes to playing or dm'ing is, if someone isn't dead or dying, you're not having fun. At least when it comes to the BBEG battles. No one wants to just swing their sword back and forth, while wereing a blindfold with no consequences.
One thing to add: Brutal combat is fun but never make anything hopeless. Always have that bit of hope on the horizon or some constant tactic yo assist.
When I ran Dungeon of the Mad Mage, as it's mostly a long Dungeon with a few breaks, I added a mechanic that every step they took, they healed 1 hit point. This made the combat a lot more active with players, even spell casters, acting intelligent but not cowardly.
Something else I added were rooms with odd symbols that if you matched it's Alignment, you gained a Boon and if not, you gained a weakness of some kind.
There were already symbols in DOTMM but they felt very rear so I added more.
Another thing to do is remove the death saves, if you drop to 0 hp, you're dead. However to balance this, add their Proficiency to their AC, making their lv progression feel more impactful.
Take and leave what you will.
We had a person get pretty frustrated because he didn't get to act in 5 combats in a row. We just kept destroying the enemies before he could reach them.
I played and ran lots of old school D&D in the old days. Let me tell you, the current game systems and the focus on story are far better and more fun than old days.
The first game session I ever ran back in the early 80s was a full party wipe because I ran the stats faithfully. The next few weren't much better. To be fair, I was 9, but I was the only GM in my small town, so people were kinda trapped until I could figure it out. Once I got out into the world, I saw very clearly that the only way you could keep players coming back in the figure out how to control the gas pedals so that characters could live long enough to actually have fun. Obviously there needs to be a sense of risk and danger and consequences are real... To this day, I like to keep the players right on the red line, so they have to play smart or fall off the cliff, and when they finally do complete the adventure, the players feel exalted... But the way you stated position felt quite extreme.
You seemed to be advocating killing characters every session, and wiping out half the party on a regular basis. If that was your actual advice, that's gonna keep a lot of characters out of combat, too, until they can roll up a new character or get rezzed. I'm sure there are a few players out there that want that kind of game, rolling up new characters every session. If so, go for it. Each to their own. But this seems pretty niche. I'm concerned that if a newbie DM takes this advice a little too seriously, and they wipe out their newbies over and over, the group isn't gonna last long. Making a new character (or two or three) every session because the last one died gets pretty boring. That's why in the game Paranoia you had a serial number for a name, so when you died, you could just move to the next clone of yourself, change your secret affiliations, and be done. D&D isn't really designed to handle constant death like that in a streamlined manner.
If D&D isn't capable of handling constant death, then why is its primary focus on combat? Seems like a glaring flaw to me. Also, like he said, loss doesnt have to mean character death. As he says, assets and strategic position are potentially up for forfeiture, so loss of equipment, standing within the realm, that shiny magic sword, the life of a beloved NPC, or of one that could provide you a clue, all sorts of things can hang in the balance between victory and defeat.
@@kdolo1887 consider the number of gun fights Rambo or john McCain has been in, compared to the number of times they've been shot.
I think the better point he made wasn't to have death happen more often, but have *defeat* be a real option. Stakes don't have to just be player death, they can be failing a quest objective, letting an important enemy escape, the enemy completing an evil ritual to become more powerful etc. The story still continues, but now you're dealing with a real consequence, a serious setback that the PCs have to deal with. Example from my game: my party was trying to free kidnapped townspeople before they could be taken away and some as slaves. We tried to sneak through the BBEG's lair but failed and ended up fighting him. And lost- when all but one of us was down, we finally surrendered and stopped trying to stop him leaving with the slaves. They left and, when my stealthy character tried to spy on where they were going and got caught, set off explosives, collapsing the exit tunnel behind them. I had to sprint back down the tunnel with explosions going off behind me. We made it out of the lair by the front way and then had to track the slavers to the city where they planned to sell the slaves, and got involved in organized crime intrigue there. So, we failed to free the slaves but had a new appreciation for what we were up against and an evolving story with new challenges to deal with the consequences of our failure.
#3 Yes! I once sat out a whole hour long combat as a player because I was feared and couldn’t make my save. I was like…why am I here then. I very rarely as a GM use spells that take my players out for more than one round since then. Especially since I have some bad luck rollers whose spells rarely hit. If they were out for a bunch of rounds on top of their missing, they would not be having fun.
This is so awesome!! This is still literally my first go to and who I still everyone to atleast start with. I can't explain enough enough about how this is so great.
YES! Finally! Narration CMs (No one can master this game(s). You must master YOUR campaign.)! You can't let combat be an accounting of dice rolls. The dice rolls are contentious suggestions. Your narration is the reality.
At the start of the vid you raised a common problem with the puzzlewit wizard. I respect players taking time out of their lives to play this game, but they need to do homework to be prepared. I let players help with highly intelligent characters, but discussions have to be brief or wizzy loses a turn.
Most of the times, I try to describe how I attack, or how I move or what I say before attacking. I even once tried to use spellwords for casting spells to make it more interesting.
There's also different arguments that could be made: Plan your turn AHEAD of time.
I agree, that it makes the battle more fluent and interesting, if you don't start to plan your turn, WHEN it's your turn.
I try that, it doesn't work that well, because I also want to know what's going on on the battlefield, which means I try to listen to what the other players or enemies do.
Since a round of combat happens in 6 seconds, one could argue, that you don't have time to "react" on what your whole group does, which means you don't need to listen to the player's turns, unless they do in fact, affect you. But you should have at least a rough idea of what you can do and want to do, and only change the course of action slightly depending on your surroundings. If too much happened on the battlefield and you don't know what to do right now? Have something prepared you can always do, and do that, while planing or in preperation for your next turn.
Martial Classes can become somewhat boring during combat, because there's not THAT much of a variety they can do. And yes, they can do more than simply "attacking".
The worst case for martial classes, is if the combat starts with the enemies being 100ft or more away from you, and you're a melee-fighter, watching the ranged fighers/casters to kill every enemy that's closest to you at the moment. (I had that once...)
This only affects you, if you're playing the martial class.
Next are the casters that simply don't know their spells.
It would be wise to have a cheat-sheet of some sorts with spells that could be used in certain situations. Or just dividing/marking them in certain groups, so it's easier to pick your spells in combat.
Also, it helps IMMENSIVELY if casters know what spells they have and AT LEAST partially, what those spells do.
I played enough with spellcasters that were like "oh, I didn't know I had that spell" or "I only read the first line of the description" (and know imagine this with a spell like Phantasmal Force, just as an example.)
This only affects you, if others play the caster class, because you're "forced" to watch them decide.
Especially when casters are involved (full casters especially) combat can get a little dull and tedious. That’s why I always plan my turn well in advance when I can even forming strategies with my party (slightly meta gamey but it’s for the benefit of the party and the DM more so than me, makes everything go just that little bit quicker). Plus certain classes and subclasses have better flavour than others to me and I always play those classes to give me more descriptive flavour to work with, describing what my spells look like, describing my Mortal Kombat fatality level gory kills etc (I’m currently playing Matt Mercer’s blood cleric in a long form campaign and loving it specifically because of the concept and flavour opportunities especially paired with the Dhampir lineage). I personally find descriptions like this more interesting than “I rolled a nat 20 to hit with Inflict Wounds at level 2, 84 necrotic damage.”. Instead I’d say “I rolled a nat 20 to hit with Inflict Wounds at level 2 as a blast of toxic green energy strikes the goblin directly in the heart, instantly rotting his entire body away into nothing. 84 necrotic damage.”. Option 2 sounds much more interesting.
Prof Dungeonmaster has a great option he calls cinematic advantage where he give attack advantage for cool things that are related to ability checks, like swinging from chandeliers (acrobatics check) or using the environment in clever ways.
Don't you think that cheapens the intensity? Things like that are on the outskirts of normal uses of skills or attacks, if you give bonuses to make hard things easier....that feels like it would take away from the crazy success or failures that make for truly memorable moments.
I make this comment out of curiosity without having looked at his way of implementing that mechanic.
@@diversezebra6754 IIRC, he doesn't give advantage on the check itself but on the related attack roll, so, if you swing on a chandelier to get close enough to attack someone, you do the acrobatics check at a suitable DC but then get advantage on the attack roll.
It has, however ben a while since i watched the relevant video, so I might have got that wrong.
@@diversezebra6754 I think my understanding is the same as @malcolm rowe. The player would suggest a crazy stunt that would, if successful offer advantage to a subsequent attack roll. The DM sets a suitable difficulty. If successful in the check, the chacracter succeeds and gets the advantage and a great story. If he fails there's a negative consequence such as disadvantage, damage or say falling on their arse (plus an amazing story!🙂). I confess I'm not DMing at the moment so haven't tried this specific technique as described yet but we've used similar things in our gaming group for years to encourage memorable behaviour from players. Some of them are the stories we still tell years later.
"Use Your Words." works great not only for combat, but for exploration and social interactions. I have players who just roll a d20 and tell me they're searching the room.
I ask them, "What are you searching?" meaning to lead them into revealing more detail in their search.
I usually get "The. Room." as an answer, so then I go into detail for them, hoping they eventually take the cue.
Social interaction doesn't always require voice acting, but it should include a little more than just rolling skill checks against NPCs like deception or insight. Get the players to at least describe what they're doing, their goal from the interaction, and the jist of what they communicate.
I recently utilized the Herald of Darkness in the Tome of Beasts from Kobold Press. It's a CR7 Fiend that can throw around the Frightened, Blinded, and Paralyzed Conditions across multiple targets nearly every turn in combat on top of a fair amount of Necrotic damage. And it can do all of that in a single turn before it's bonus action to instantly destroy an object a PC may be holding (such as their weapon), or becoming incorporeal.
The Barbarian died in the Encounter because she was Blinded and Frightened, and couldn't resist any of the damage she was taking for the majority of the fight. And the Paladin lost his shotgun that held a lot of sentimental value to him, and was helpless to stop it from happening because he was Frightened and Paralyzed at the time.
This is such a great video LMAO I like that you covered a bunch of stuff that’s kind of TTRPG theory that seem ‘obvious’ but often goes over the heads of most DMs
The failed barbarian suicide got me. 🤣
Then you did it again during all the, "I got no words, Luke!!!"
Nice video, man.
17:20 I’ve uttered it often to my players with varying degrees of success, and to quote Matt Mercer for making it memeworthy now: “how do you want to do this?”
It isn't a bad phrase. Letting players celebrate a bloody end to a touch foe or foes.
On the Hickman Revolution, I disagree that there are only two options (either the master has a defined story or does not know where the story is going). In my experience, players get easily tired of both. The best results I have gotten is to have a healthy mix of knowing key story beats (with the possibility of death), having empty spaces where you let the players do what they want, and most importantly asking the players what are they planning to do between sessions. Some players might even have plans for character arcs and where the personality of their characters are going to go
Agreed in regards
to player agency Luke. Set the story "outline" and let the players determine what happens. Much more enjoyable for everyone! (In my opinion and experience :)
Combat is dynamic. It should always be dynamic. Big monsters step over or through. Things are in the way. Stuff happens. Reinforcements might show up. Line of sight can play a factor.
One of my favorite combats, it was 2 Cyclops against a group of 8. The half orc got clobbered, but kept getting back up through abilities and lucky rolls. After the third time the ugly squishy refused to stay down, the 1 Cyclops called over his buddy. This pulled him out of combat with the rogue, whose player stopped the game to protest the illogical move the cyclops was making. "He is going to take attacks of opportunity and it makes no sense tactically."
My response. "Dude, you come up to his thigh and are barely stinging him. His buddy called for help. You are not of concern with him. He could also just push you out of the way if he wanted."
The two Cyclops then proceed to beat and kill the orc (who got back up a total of 7 times) but keep looking back JUST TO MAKE SURE green squishy wasn't getting back up again.
The group still talks about that encounter as an epic death, the orc player included, nearly ruined by 1 player's insisting that the monster wouldn't do that. By the way, that player no longer plays with us. This was not his first or last outburst.
I've used a loud stopwatch sound effect to help lend a sense of haste when players are being slow. And when the players ignore it, they automatically take the Dodge action. They don't ignore it twice.
Fun fact: "The Hickmans" didn't write the Dragonlance novels as Luke suggests. That was the original Ravenloft module
The Dragonlance novels, however, were written by Tracy Hickman and *Margaret Weis*
Didn't even take me 20 secs in Google
The rogue is so weird without the cloak and his stabby stabby dagger. At least he's still saying that the barbarian sucks
Sssh he is in disguise!
OK, one of the best sets of advice I've seen from you. The truth is nearly all of this applies to a lot more than just combat.
An interesting 'on the fence' version of this.
My current campaign, about 23 sessions deep, was started when my players specifically created characters and motivations out of random inspiration in the mini aisle of a hobbytown.
They wanted a revenge plot where they play evil undead characters. The end of the campaign was set by the players before I even had a campaign.
So I crafted their targets of revenge, the setting around them, and let them loose.