So, my current campaign is such that the party isn't really interested in doing a lot of combat. It's an episodic style, horror themed game with each session having a contained mystery that they generally solve by the end of the session. 7 to 8 hour sessions. They love having threats they can't face in combat like ghosts, hauntings, possessions, and too-strong bad guys chasing them slowly.
Generally, they like one combat per session.
What would you do to:
1. Make a single combat exciting but not too deadly and get them to spend resources
2. Add more combats that don't take too long but are interesting
3. Work combat into horror storytelling more naturally without it seeming like it's filler
I'm not trying to force them to change, they've been loving it, but I want to make sure I can add more variety to future sessions.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, my current campaign is such that the party isn't really interested in doing a lot of combat. It's an episodic style, horror themed game with each session having a contained mystery that they generally solve by the end of the session. 7 to 8 hour sessions. They love having threats they can't face in combat like ghosts, hauntings, possessions, and too-strong bad guys chasing them slowly.
Generally, they like one combat per session.
What would you do to:
1. Make a single combat exciting but not too deadly and get them to spend resources
2. Add more combats that don't take too long but are interesting
3. Work combat into horror storytelling more naturally without it seeming like it's fillerI'm not trying to force them to change, they've been loving it, but I want to make sure I can add more variety to future sessions.
Well first, it's important to think about how second edition approaches combats a bit differently than first edition (and 3.x) did. Those old editions had the idea that you have a bunch of combats through the day that gradually wear down your resources and by the time you get to the boss, you're worn out a bit and it's tough.
But this didn't work out so well in practice; groups found ways to conserve more resources than expected, or to take a long rest close to the end and come to the last few encounters with fresh resources. It also didn't work for overland encounters where you have only 1-2 encounters per day. And it didn't work for groups who play a few hours on a weekday and like to have maybe one nice combat in otherwise days or weeks if IC time.
So second edition does it differently: combats are balanced on their own, not as an attrition series. Do a Severe encounter freshly rested, and it feels severe. Do it as the third encounter (but you've healed up and regained focus) and it's still Severe.
The nice thing about this is that not relying on attrition means that it's also much easier if you have only a few combats in a session because you don't need to wear them down to make the last combat feel just right.
In other words, "spend resources" isn't really the target you're aiming for anymore. The new goal is "some nailbiting in the middle of the fight before the players get the upper hand".
To move on to your second question: the interestingness of a combat is only somewhat related to how hard or long they are. I think good ways to make combat interesting are:
- Location: vary your maps, and always put in some effect due to the terrain. It could be trees with archers in them, a swamp with patches of quicksand, a mountain pass with dangerous ledges and so forth. Avoid the wide open clearing or empty dungeon room.
- Monster abilities: second edition monsters almost all have 1-3 gimmick abilities. Read your monsters, look at their abilities and think of a setup where those abilities could do something interesting.
- Stakes: what is the point of the encounter? Is it just "well it was there so we fought it" or can you make it more interesting than that? Rushing to fight a monster because it's threatening a civilian is more interesting than fighting it just because it was in the next room you came into.
This also comes up to your third question: how to make combat not seem like filler. The answer to that I think is to ask why the enemies are there. What are the enemies' motivations, what are the player motivations in the encounter, what's at stake?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Make a single combat exciting but not too deadly and get them to spend resources
If you really want to have one combat that wears down your characters resources and feel interesting and epic, then multi-stage combat is the solution most video games have chosen (and even many films).
Basically, you design a few different fights, with transitions between them.
Example: The characters kill the BBEG. But suddenly, the room fills with necromantic energies, converging toward their enemy's corpse, raising it from the grave as a lich. "You really thought it was over? Mwhahahahaha!!!!"
Or once the boss is low in hit points, a bunch of his most lawful soldiers arrive and interpose themselves while the boss flee to the upper floors of his tower.
Or the classical "power behind the throne" stage, where a voice booms, echoing on the walls: "Do you really think BEG was the mastermind of all of that? I am the puppet master, mwhahahahaha!!!" and the shadow of a great dragon blocks the light of the sun.
Multi stage combat asks for a lot of work, as you need to design multiple stages, and even more than you need (as you can count on your player's wit to block some of them, either by casting Gentle Repose on the body of the BBEG or scouting properly before the fight and eliminating any possible reinforcements). You also need to give your players one round between each stages, to regroup and heal a bit. But if you manage to properly handle it they will use a lot of their resources, it will give multiple characters their chance to shine, it will last for a dozen of rounds without being repetitive, etc... It can be one of the most epic fight they have ever lived.
The main issue with multi stage combat is realism. You need the stages to chain organically, and that's really where you can mess up, if a stage comes out of the blue or if you have to block characters abilities during a transition.
But, well, nothing is easy in the job of GMing.
Thanks for the tips, I guess I had forgotten that about the encounters being internally balanced and was worried that they're just going to nova things as they level up.
To expand on the "fights not feeling like filler" question, I guess I'm looking for some suggestions about why a fight might exist so I can put some more in.
I've been defaulting to horror stories where there is a big threat that they can't physically confront either because it's not tangible or it's too tough to fight. So when they come across some enemies I want them to fight, it sometimes feels like "they're not the big bad, they're just goons guarding a mcguffin or threatening an npc, but ultimately in this scenario they're a speedbump".
Maybe suggestions of horror-esque shows that have a decent amount of fighting so I know how to work it into the tension of the story arc better? I don't actually watch much horror stuff so my experience is limited.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at some of the old (non-5E) modules of Ravenloft, probably focusing on the DnD 2nd ed. which does include some unstoppable enemies whom you can thwart, but not through direct combat (though that's present).
Planescape also did a good job w/ atmosphere and lesser PCs having to contend against greater foes and settings they could never be complacent in, like sending low-level PCs to Hell.
In both case there'd be distinct places & people who'd spell instant death for PCs, and the PCs knew enough to be able to avoid them, yet could never fully evade them. Pervasive threats.
In two cases elsewhere there'd be an endless horde (one Lovecraftian, the other undead) in dense fog, yet they specifically weren't interested in the PCs (unless the PCs were overt/aggressive/etc.), but would fight PCs when convenient. They were searching for something (though someone could work just as well). PCs had better beat them to it or there goes the region. :)
I think players knowing that failure is an option helps build the suspense. Yeah, those "GM won't let something egregious happen" or "there'll be a deus ex machina" mindsets can dilute suspense.
Oh, and remember, Hope was in Pandora's Box perhaps for a nefarious reason...it's what makes all the other evils' flavors more vivid. :)
Just wanted to say 7-8 hours sessions with 1 combat just seems interesting to me. Out of curiosity is that what every player really wants? I am just surprised is all, sinc either have never had a group that wanted like 10% combat.
I admit I am a little jealous our weekly group only gets to play 3 hours a day so sometimes we have only combat or only RP.
In general I feel 1 combat a session is going to be tough since putting one severe encounter a day could easily lead to a team wipe while anything less and it could just feel anticlimatic.
I do hope you figure out a way to make it work better. There are definitely tons of ways to make interesting combats though with all the monsters.
I guess if your group doesn't mind tough combats and potentially TPK I would just make a deadly encounter every encounter and just use monsters that are fun/unique.
On the other hand if you players want an "easy" day I would just have a moderate encounter and try to have interesting environmental factors.
Just wanted to say 7-8 hours sessions with 1 combat just seems interesting to me. Out of curiosity is that what every player really wants? I am just surprised is all, sinc either have never had a group that wanted like 10% combat.
I admit I am a little jealous our weekly group only gets to play 3 hours a day so sometimes we have only combat or only RP.
Yeah, this campaign they're really into solving mysteries. Not to toot my own horn but I've been going hog wild with spooky narration and characters that they've enjoyed. Last campaign was super combat heavy though, so it might just be them taking a break.
Also it's impossible to keep everyone at the table at once since they're always getting up to do something. It's like herding cats. So we probably get less done than a normal group would in 7 hours.
I do hope you figure out a way to make it work better. There are definitely tons of ways to make interesting combats though with all the monsters.
I guess if your group doesn't mind tough combats and potentially TPK I would just make a deadly encounter every encounter and just use monsters that are fun/unique.
On the other hand if you players want an "easy" day I would just have a moderate encounter and try to have interesting environmental factors.
I think what I'm getting from you and the others is that I should just embrace the one encounter and make it purposeful, fun, and challenging, and just be thankful that I have a group that enjoys the RP side of things the rest of the time.
Yes, enjoy what's enjoyable.
As a player I like lots of combat, so when my horror RPG had less, as GM I had to reflect on if the players were enjoying themselves. It seemed so, right? Laughter, etc.
Nevertheless, I checked in regularly with them and whew, they were having a blast. They liked their PCs, the interactions with the NPCs, and their RPing goals enough that sessions with little to no combat were just as entertaining as clearing out the haunted house...by which I mean surviving, since it was horror and they didn't win so much as not lose.
I think two key aspects were:
-Focusing on story progression so the the RPing was meaningful and not simply banter. So we'd speed up or slow down to get to key moments where choices had to be made, NPCs had to be swayed (etc.),
-While violence wasn't always present, threats were. Those could be threats of violence, yet there were other kinds of threats to the PCs' well-being, social status, their NPC circles, and so forth. They always had issues to deal with, rivals to outmaneuver, and powerful people to placate, all while dealing with existential threats of purest evil.
As someone who also tends to run games with only one combat, my advise would be:
-Consider how important resources are in your game. The typical resources I look at are hp, ammo, spells, consumables, and x/time abilities. Like mentioned above, combats aren't really based on resource attrition, and if you only hace one battle, you don't really have much to worry about if you don't whittle down their resources, but with that said, lacking a surplus of resources is a common aspect of many horror movies, so it's worth considering some resource sinks.
Resource sinks don't always have to be fights either. Puzzles that are hard or dangerous to solve with skills, but easier and safer with a spell is still a sink. As a bonus, knowing they only have one fight actually takes a lot of pressure off of casters to store everything away for combat, so why not reward them for taking object reading or augury? If your horror has a supernatural bent, curses are also fun resource sinks. The curse itself might be a sink (like sealing away the use of a spell slot, making the character so hungry they have to eat all their food to avoid fatigue, or inflicting the drained condition, and thus lowering max hp), or the curse might inflict such an obstructive condition or penalty that it's worth blowing a remove curse spell on. The same can be done with poisons and diseases.
-The environment can be dangerous, too! Traps can be a nice way of making the place feel dangerous without doing a combat, or spicing up a battlefield, though I recommend not using them so much that they lose their impact and surprise factor. Likewise, hazardous environment conditions (extreme heat/cold, miasmic air, constant maddening whispers that slowly gnaw at your sanity, etc) that hurt you for taking too much time can also be used to add a sense of urgency.
-Really play around and have fun with the RP. One of my favorite aspects of psychological aspects to my games is confirming and subverting player hunches, and making callbacks to their actions, for good or ill.
Like, if the group for whatever reason, is scared of the creepy doll I mentioned in the first part of the game, and they decide to destroy it just to be safe, I'm absolutely going to mention that later on when the main haunt is gonna show up
So second edition does it differently: combats are balanced on their own, not as an attrition series. Do a Severe encounter freshly rested, and it feels severe. Do it as the third encounter (but you've healed up and regained focus) and it's still Severe.
Really have to disagree with this. Attrition plays a huge role in Pathfinder 2. A spellcaster on their third encounter of the day is going to feel dramatically different than one on their first, especially if most of those are meaningful encounters. Likewise, a severe encounter is going to be a lot more manageable if it's a one-combat day and they can blow everything they have on it, rather than needing to balance their resources across several fights.
You have a lot of recovery options between combat, but most of them are very time consuming at that same time, it's not reliable that you'll be able to take advantage of all of them after every combat. You're almost always going to be going into a subsequent fight with less than the first one on a combat-heavy day.
Have you tried to make combat in stages?
Maybe they encounter a very powerful creature and it's just 2-3 rounds max, and then it flees/retreat etc. and shows up later.
Between stages you can still have the threat of the encounter still there, so they don't feel safe.
When my group started out, testing Pf2e. I made a caravan encounter, the PC had to fight their way towards the front of the caravan, each cart was a stage. Every stage was pretty easy, except the last one (the boss), and adding up the attrition it got pretty exciting.
They also knew, and could see, what was ahead of them so they could plan and reserve spells etc.
It was the only encounter we had that session - it was long, but with a nice pace, thanks to some RP in-between stages, so it never felt like a 3 hour combat.