Why 90% of D&D Combat Is Boring 

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/

“I rolled a 4, for 1 damage” “yeah that actually kills a bunch of orcs” that one got me 😂

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...

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

I always have steaks in my encounters. A good BBQ is amazing to distract that raging barbarian. (lol)

My Rule 1: If it's boring, add an explosion. Suprising how often this helps

"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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Luke was having a good time with the zoom feature, lol

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...

If there's one thing from Critical Role that players and DMs NEED to do, it's descriptive combat.

Bravo, sir. Exactly what I would say. Long, slow clap.

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?

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

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.

D&D should be played like an action movie full of cinematic, pulpy, swashbuckling action and high adventure.

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!

When the party splits and one group gets into combat, I let the players with absent characters play the bad guys.

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.

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.

For descriptions I close my eyes and visualise the scene and then simply describe what I see. Also adjectives, use lots of adjectives.

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.

An adventure should have an intro, a motivator, a struggle, a disaster, a bigger struggle, a twist, a final battle, & a conclusion.

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.

Who is watching it at release time?

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.

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 ;)

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.

“Use your words” This is a parental like relationship. Luke talks to us like we talk to our kids lol….

My group started playing Starfinder recently and I have to say, we’re really enjoying Paizo’s chrunchier combat system.

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.

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.

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!

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."

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'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.

You can have high stakes without having player characters die.

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.

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.

Thanks for not boring me in a discussion of boring combat! :)

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.

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

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!

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.

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

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

Ironically two weeks ago I was trying for a TPK. I was “cheating” a little bit, the monsters were knocking the PCs unconscious instead of killing them, but I was trying to kill every PC and capture them. I got two of them down before they ended up figuring out the weakness of their opponents and winning the fight. I wasn’t cheating, I was following the rules. But I was trying for a TPK with the opponents who they were facing! Unfortunately one of the players figured out that the monsters were sensitive to light and they lit torches which gave the monsters disadvantage to hit.

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.

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.

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

I don't agree that DM's aren't storytellers. Everybody at the table is a storyteller. Everyone is collectively telling a story to each other as they go along. What DM's are not are writers. Where the story is written down ahead of time and cannot change. Where the players are simply playing a pre determined role. That is not D&D.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The rogue is so weird without the cloak and his stabby stabby dagger. At least he's still saying that the barbarian sucks

That 999 damage reminded me the time when me as paladin dealt the same amount of damage as our barbarian with no crits lol

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.

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.

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.

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'

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.

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.

Hey Luke, with regard to the initial rant/discussion/preamble; are WotC Adventures not pre-determined (Directed Story)? Does this mean they remove player agency? The adventures published by the game writers? Are you implying that the only way a game can be deemed not to be pre-determined to be a seat-of-their-pants-DM who doesn't even know where the game is going themselves? Maybe rolling on a random table like the UNE booklet? I often read/hear people describe D&D as "collaborative storytelling", yet your talk here seems to almost pooh-pooh the telling of a "story" in favour of a more "realistic/gritty" scenario (Emergent Story) where PCs constantly die. While i agree totally there must be stakes, does failure HAVE to result in the player rolling up a new character? It seems you delineate a very thin line between planning out your world, and the events that may/can occur, and seemingly railroading and/or 'writing-a-novel'. There seems to me to be some logic conflict in all this, unless i am missing your point (and note, i do agree with you, but maybe it's me being a terminology-nazi)? Please take me school, I want to understand this point you made. Cheers mate.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

@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

For combat descriptions I HIGHLY recommend Joe Abercrombe! The First Law trilogy is a great one to start on

one thing that is kind of less well known but works really well is layered maps. just like adding any sort of difference in altitude can by really useful for increasing engagement

I usually have a couple of text based RP's going that help me practice the narrative combat stuff. Good tips!

Yeah! I love How-to and foundational GM advice! Keep 'em coming! :D Thanks!

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.

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

great vid dude! Keep up the good work!!

That intro made me feel like I was having a stroke

okay now i once had a combat encounter (in 5TH EDITION! by the way) that lasted around 1 hour! (i don't know if that's the longest for everyone but for me, yes)

Yeah, tome of beasts 1 and 2, and the creature codex are really good, though kobald press could buff some of there subclass options for PCs though as they tend to be on the weaker end of things. Except lust cleric ,wyrdsinger, and dragon mage, and maybe even fire or air mage. mwah, beautiful.

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.

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.

As a GM I use a mix between the story I want told and player choices. The overall story (A powerful dragon with a necromancer are trying to conquer the land!) is going to be told. Sometime in the future the forces of good will make a stand against the dragon and necromancer. What role the players have in this is up to them. They can: -Level up, find the right magic, find the right research, and fight the dragon and necromancer themselves, or -they travel from city to city building allies to answer the call when they decide on a showdown. Now it's not just the players but all of the NPCs they recruited over months of play, or -They find a great king/hero and help him gain enough power to stop the threat, or -The PCs find out about and sneak into a secret chamber and destroy the crystal that gives the necromancer all his power just as the necromancer goes to war with the kingdom, or -Whatever cool thing happens along the way. I don't like to railroad my PCs but I do like to have an over-arching plot that will move along but can be influenced by the PCs. The main conflict will come to a head but how and what part they play is up to the PCs choices.

This is a question but my combats are deadly and result in pc death but my pcs have access to resurrection magic now and I am wondering how do I up the tension with that. btw I haven't watch the whole vid at the time of writing this so if it is answered in the vid then sorry.

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.

My first character, fighter of course, lasted 15 minutes. I was hooked.

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.

I heard an idea on TikTok yesterday. It said that if your players take more damage than half of their Max HP they lose a body part of the dms choice. (You may have to switch up the numbers here if you’re high lvl but idk) Now that’s awesome I believe and it can give you new story arcs, character development etc. For Example, a player loses an arm in battle. Another player bandages him up and the damaged player just has to live with only one arm (eg he can only wield one handed weapons or whatever else you can think of). The players may spend time getting him a new arm, human, kybernetic, golem (yes that’s a reference) or whatever else they can think of.

This is why the baddies have to be active in the background with their own motivations. Once that is established, the game world evolves and your players drive their own story.

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.