How do you run combat?

[Jay R]

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

An encounter that the PCs win in less than a round, lasts less than five minutes of real time. Having one of these occasionally isn't a problem, but nobody will consider it a real encounter. When Errol Flynn takes out the gate guards, nobody thinks it's a fight scene. It's just how he gets to Basil Rathbone for the real encounter. When Black Widow takes out the Russian interrogators, it's fun to watch, because it's so easy for her. But it's quickly over, and as an encounter, nobody confuses it with the battle of New York.

When the monsters can sometimes be too much for the party, then one of the tactical decisions is "run away". If all encounters are balanced, you have reduced the number of tactical decisions by one. [This only works if the party will ever actually run away. A tactical option they will never take is not a real option.]

More importantly, in a game in which the monsters are already placed, and the PCs either encounter them or not, PCs start sneaking around, and the Rogue and Ranger become more important. Then the PCs can say, "OK, we couldn't beat that many ogres in a straight-up fight. Can we lead them into an ambush, or start an avalanche? Let's get rid of that log across the ravine, and cast an illusion that it's still there." Then the ridge above them, and the canyon nearby, and the ravine, suddenly become real. The PCs can now beat encounters they never could before they started collecting intel. And sometimes the party decides to slip away, leaving the dragon's cave alone, but noting its location to come back five levels later.

This is the flip side of Tucker's Kobolds. When the PCs play smart, and gather intel in advance, and then set up their attack well, they can be much more effective than when they don't. This is equally true of the monsters. My players once ran from regular rats, and then slew a dragon, in the same session. All it took to get them to run from the rats was to have them roll a d20, without telling them what it was for, each time a rat bit them. [The rats had no disease - but the PCs didn't know that.] Then they came across a young adult blue dragon in a tight area where he couldn't turn around quickly, and defeated him.

But this only works if (a) the players want to do it, and (b) then they actually do it. As I said before, "Then it's possible for the fights to become exciting. But they will only be exciting to the extent that the players and the DM actually use tactical considerations."

[Pelle]

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

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

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

Yes, that's more or less it. I might have a scenario where the players will try to rescue some hostages from a goblin tribe in the woods. And, if I don't want to force the players decisions too much, I will try to define the parameters of the scenario in advance. Then I will let the players decide their own approach and let their actions have consequences.

So instead of preparing specific encounters they will face one after the other, I will try to design the scenario with potenial for interesting situations: Interesting locations (say a cave with the hostages, forest with trees and creeks and so on, a fortified hut where the chieftain and his guards live etc), varied monsters (say 100 goblins in total, including warriors, shamen, elite guards, wolves, a powerful chieftain, etc), daily routines (guards, patrols etc), motivations (the chieftain may be bribed, but will not be intimidated, the rest of the goblins will flee if the chieftain is killed), and so on.

Then the players can decide on their own approach (bribe them, assassinate the leader, frontal charge, guerrilla fight one patrol at the time, sneak in to grab the hostages and so on). Depending on their cleverness, they might face a lot of easy combats, some balanced combat encounters, no combats at all or they might have to flee.

The problem is that this not guarantee that every session will have some balanced encounters, where the players who enjoy the tactical combat game can have fun. If they employ a good strategy, and their actions have consequences, they may end up with no challenging combat encounters, even if the encounters are "interesting" in other aspects.

Yes, in play I include "interesting combats", but it often feels heavy handed and can be unsatisfying (to me). It requires a fair bit of suspension of disbelief, as you said. Any tips instead on how to set up the initial scenarios, so that I have higher chance to end up in more balanced combat encounters?

[Tanarii]

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

Over three decades of running games, I've found that what players in general want isn't lots of tactical decisions. What they want is for combat not to be slow and boring.

Complex tactical battles are often less interesting for players as a general rule. They'd rather have a bunch of quick & simple battles in a row that break up the slow exploring side of things, than a long slow and torturous battle.

There are exceptions to that rule. They are the kind of people that are extremely tactically minded, and commonly haunt forums to discuss complex builds and rules interactions. The kind of people that often enjoy complex turn based board games with no timer, and making the perfect move. If they're your players, you can run slow and tactically complex combats, and they'll love it.

Otherwise, keeping combat snappy is generally the best way to keep it interesting.

[Pelle]

The kind of people that often enjoy complex turn based board games with no timer, and making the perfect move. If they're your players, you can run slow and tactically complex combats, and they'll love it.

Exactly, I would place some of my players in that category; Stressing out over exact distances, 5-foot steps, tumble checks, spell durations, countless modifiers.

They will also do their best to make good strategic options, thus it can sometimes be hard to justify including these tactically complex situations. Therefore I'm looking for better ways to set them up without feeling contrived/arbitrary/fiat. Based on the responses I have gotten so far, I haven't really been convinced that it is possible to please both CaW and CaS players in the same game in a narratively satisfying way

[Tanarii]

They will also do their best to make good strategic options, thus it can sometimes be hard to justify including these tactically complex situations. Therefore I'm looking for better ways to set them up without feeling contrived/arbitrary/fiat. Based on the responses I have gotten so far, I haven't really been convinced that it is possible to please both CaW and CaS players in the same game in a narratively satisfying way

Run a CaS game for a while and see if they enjoy it more.

'Justifying' in-world, or naturalism (gygaxian or otherwise) if that's what you actually mean, isn't really what CaS vs CaW is about. But if you find it easier to run CaS over CaW if you're trying to avoid worrying overly about what 'makes sense' in the game world, the give it a whirl and see how it works out. Do it as a series of one shots to give a break from your main game, a trial run.

[Jay R]

Some people are obviously using the word "tactical" differently than I do.

When you trip an opponent to keep him from moving, when you choose which opponent to hit, when you move five feet so one of the enemies can't hit you, when you use a flanking maneuver, or attack a troll with fire, or choose which spell to cast, you are making tactical decisions.

Put in a couple of trees or a wall to affect when PCs can flank, add a chest or a stone that people can trip over, and some cover to hide behind, and you have created a situation with some interesting tactical possibilities.

[But you can't necessarily make people use them. The American colonials at Lexington provided walls and trees for cover, but the British troops just walked forward in a line, not using them.]

[Tanarii]

Put in a couple of trees or a wall to affect when PCs can flank, add a chest or a stone that people can trip over, and some cover to hide behind, and you have created a situation with some interesting tactical possibilities.

You mean the things that pretty much every single combat ever should have in them, barring a possible exception of getting flanked while going down an empty dungeon/cave passageway?

Your idea of 'tactically interesting' looks like 'required basics even in the simplest of battles' to me.

[Tinkerer]

You mean the things that pretty much every single combat ever should have in them, barring a possible exception of getting flanked while going down an empty dungeon/cave passageway?

Your idea of 'tactically interesting' looks like 'required basics even in the simplest of battles' to me.

You'd be surprised at how many open plains combats can come up in some groups. Or how quickly things can devolve into effectively open plain combat. Could you possibly provide an example of what you are referring to when you talk about tactically interesting? Often the tactically interesting parts come as a result of the combination of two or three simple elements combining to create a greater whole.

One major tip that I have is to build a large selection of random terrain maps for times when combat may come up when you aren't already playing on a map. Keep a good selection of urban maps, wilderness maps for any type of terrain which may pop up, and maybe a handful of dungeon maps (you are usually already on a map in those cases). Ooh, I just realized what the next thread I post is gonna be. I personally then subdivide these maps into a handful of different categories such as sparse, centerpiece (where they are based around a center point which I can populate with whatever), cluttered, slow (swamps and the like), rift (where there is a large piece of impassable terrain running through it), bridge, and established battlefield.

Plus making all of those maps really helped speed up my map creation process. I used to be the world's slowest map maker, causing the session to come to a screeching halt whenever I had to draw out a map. But when you sit down and grind out 100 maps in the course of an evening it forces you to get fast. Like any skill practice makes perfect.

And in regards to tactical combat slowing down the flow that is an easy one to remedy. Throw a timer on the party, and on yourself of course.

[Jay R]

You mean the things that pretty much every single combat ever should have in them, barring a possible exception of getting flanked while going down an empty dungeon/cave passageway?

Your idea of 'tactically interesting' looks like 'required basics even in the simplest of battles' to me.

Yes, exactly. I'm trying to get across the idea that they are required basics. Thanks for backing up my point.

[Lorsa]

I try to run my combats as emotionally engaging as possible, and try to stress my players to make quick decisions. When they respond instinctively rather than intellectually after five minutes of careful considering, I feel as though I have succeeded.

That is my intention, though it gets tweaked depending on which group I have and what they are interested in. People find emotional engagement in different things, and I always try to figure out what makes these specific players tick.

[Tanarii]

Yes, exactly. I'm trying to get across the idea that they are required basics. Thanks for backing up my point.

Oh. Right then. You're welcome.