Great tips on keeping combat engaging. I find concentrating on making the stats knowable through narrative really helps keep combat alive. Like you mention, describing a blade coming up against armour for high AC enemies, or lunging at the air as the high DEX enemy easily sidesteps your swing, not only makes trying to hit feel more visceral but, also let's the player know what they're up against and how they can apply tactics.
Some other ways I've found to help keep players engaged in combat are:
1. I'll narrate the action from the point of view of one of the PCs who's go it isn't. I'll usually pick PCs that are in proximity to each other in an effort to have them feel more involved with the peril of the greater battle around them.
2. I focus on giving hints about what the enemies plans are. Rather than just narrating how their attacks hits, or don't, once they've taken their action I'll describe how the PC observers their body weight shift in preparation to make a dash for something, or how they lean in, planting their feet for another attack. I find giving information out that players can form plans from gives their actions meaning. They're not just reducing their hit points, they're stopping them from achieving their goals.
3. I try to change the dynamic of the battlefield depending on what either side is trying to achieve. For example: The PCs sneak in; their first goal might be to get in position to take out all the guards in one room at once. Only one of the guards notices the PCs in time - their goal isn't to fight, their friends have just been killed, that would be certain doom. Their goal becomes 'get to the alarm to call backup'. When the guard moves for the alarm, the PCs goal becomes 'stop the alarm from going off'. If the guard gets to the alarm, the PCs goal changes again as they choose to either defend their position as reinforcements arrive, escape while they have the chance, or chase the guard rushing off to join the approaching backup. And so on.
Thank you for the comment! Lots of good stuff in there!
Your second point is really interesting. That's a narrative way to help mitigate the push from strategic to tactical with more players and more game state changes between turns. Gives people something to listen for and plan toward when it's not their turn.
I also like the idea of smaller, segmented goals to break up longer combat encounters.
I've liked Mothership's mechanics (and Mork Borg/CY_borg). The fact that most combat is really deadly for the people keeps it to the minimum too. I'm writing a module for Mothership right now so have been playtesting it a bit more than usual.
The name of the cybernetic parrot from the future was inadvertently misspelled in the original post. This has been corrected, and the editor has been sacked.
Great tips on keeping combat engaging. I find concentrating on making the stats knowable through narrative really helps keep combat alive. Like you mention, describing a blade coming up against armour for high AC enemies, or lunging at the air as the high DEX enemy easily sidesteps your swing, not only makes trying to hit feel more visceral but, also let's the player know what they're up against and how they can apply tactics.
Some other ways I've found to help keep players engaged in combat are:
1. I'll narrate the action from the point of view of one of the PCs who's go it isn't. I'll usually pick PCs that are in proximity to each other in an effort to have them feel more involved with the peril of the greater battle around them.
2. I focus on giving hints about what the enemies plans are. Rather than just narrating how their attacks hits, or don't, once they've taken their action I'll describe how the PC observers their body weight shift in preparation to make a dash for something, or how they lean in, planting their feet for another attack. I find giving information out that players can form plans from gives their actions meaning. They're not just reducing their hit points, they're stopping them from achieving their goals.
3. I try to change the dynamic of the battlefield depending on what either side is trying to achieve. For example: The PCs sneak in; their first goal might be to get in position to take out all the guards in one room at once. Only one of the guards notices the PCs in time - their goal isn't to fight, their friends have just been killed, that would be certain doom. Their goal becomes 'get to the alarm to call backup'. When the guard moves for the alarm, the PCs goal becomes 'stop the alarm from going off'. If the guard gets to the alarm, the PCs goal changes again as they choose to either defend their position as reinforcements arrive, escape while they have the chance, or chase the guard rushing off to join the approaching backup. And so on.
Thank you for the comment! Lots of good stuff in there!
Your second point is really interesting. That's a narrative way to help mitigate the push from strategic to tactical with more players and more game state changes between turns. Gives people something to listen for and plan toward when it's not their turn.
I also like the idea of smaller, segmented goals to break up longer combat encounters.
I've liked Mothership's mechanics (and Mork Borg/CY_borg). The fact that most combat is really deadly for the people keeps it to the minimum too. I'm writing a module for Mothership right now so have been playtesting it a bit more than usual.
Deadly combat doesn't last long! That helps mitigate some of the other issues described.
The name of the cybernetic parrot from the future was inadvertently misspelled in the original post. This has been corrected, and the editor has been sacked.