Just wondering if anyone has any tips on preventing just hack and slash combat, or preventing players from doing what they want to do. I am afraid that I'm restricting what they want to do due to rules. For example, trying to take down a dragon by hitting its wings, or wanting to use an action to stab a monster and carry it.
Generally speaking, it's not the job of the DM to prevent players from doing what they want to do - it's your job to entice them to follow the plot you have created, rather than railroad them.
In many respects, it's a group game and that requires a little understanding from the players of the game that if, for example, you've all agreed you're going to run a specific hardback adventure, if they have their characters ride in the opposite direction, it will be a bit tricky to get that adventure run.
As for specifics in combat, the rules provide a general framework. Think of it like this - the characters are almost certainly going to be aiming for the most effective blows they can in combat. When a player says their rogue is going to thrust their shortsword into the face of an armoured opponent, sure, it sounds like that will do more damage than striking them on the armour - that's what the dice rolls are for, to represent how successful the character is at striking such a blow.
A combat round is only 6 seconds, which is why actions are quite restrictive on what can be accomplished. There is nothing wrong with taking several rounds to accomplish a task. If a character wants to stab a monster and then pick it up, that's cool, just let them know that after they stab it, attempting to pick it up during a combat is a separate action and takes place on their turn the following round.
Stormknight said it - it's not the role of the DM to prevent the players from doing what they want to do.
Combat is one of the 3 core concepts of the game: Combat, Exploration, Interaction.
If you're worried about your Players derailing your adventure - then the best tactic is not to have an adventure planned out. Have an initial situation planned out, have all the factions and NPCs planned out, know what they want, how they'll act and react, and then let it unfold according to how the Players act.
And ... if the players solve your entire adventure idea in one encounter ... then, great! They found an innovative solution! Reward that. And - as a DM, none of what you planned goes to waste - it just all goes into the "slush pile" to be used later, disguised as something else ( No really, this isn't the "Dungeon of Unreasonable Monsters" that you guys never went to, it's the "Dungeon of Ridiculous Loot" ).
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Have to agree with all of the above. The DM is there to offer a story and facilitate what the PCs want to do. If you're telling them they can't do it you've removed any choice and agency that they have. Might as well just read them a book and let them know what they did, that you wanted them to. When planning my games, I never get too much detail. Trust me, probably 75% of what I prepare will never get used that session. Have the high points, the needed info and clues, the needed NPCs (with names. ALWAYS have a list of names. My PCs are notorious for asking everyones name. Not having a name takes something away from the suspension of disbelief. And yeah, what doesn't get used gets slipped into a folder for upcoming sessions.
Thanks for the advice everyone. But I think my worries are more towards a situation where the player wants to so something extraordinary. I guess giving disadvantages would be a good solution to called shots though. If your players said they wanted to shoot the dragon's wings, would you allow it, or tell them that they flat couldn't?
Thanks for the advice everyone. But I think my worries are more towards a situation where the player wants to so something extraordinary. I guess giving disadvantages would be a good solution to called shots though. If your players said they wanted to shoot the dragon's wings, would you allow it, or tell them that they flat couldn't?
My players haven't tried this, but I wouldn't allow actual called shots.
Or - at the most - I'd make it "fluff", not "crunch". Describe the hit, have it have some temporary narrative effect, and let it go.
You let the arrow go, watching it sink into the eye socket of the Dragon ... you hear it's roar of pain, and it claws the shaft free, spattering blood on the cavern floor, it swivels around looking at you with malevolent hatred, and rears back, the terrible sound of it inhaling, preparing to let loose its breath attack ...
While having the player roll exactly the same amount of damage, and not having any perception/vision/disadvantage effects imposed on the Dragon
If your players complained about this, you can also turn it around: "If I allow you to target and blind opponents and monsters, they can do the same to you - are you OK with the idea of going blind in the first round of combat?"
There are a lot of discussions about this online, over several editions of D&D - I'd recommend looking them up and seeing what the various arguments pro and against are.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Thanks for the advice everyone. But I think my worries are more towards a situation where the player wants to so something extraordinary. I guess giving disadvantages would be a good solution to called shots though. If your players said they wanted to shoot the dragon's wings, would you allow it, or tell them that they flat couldn't?
If my PCs say they want to hit their enemies head, and their attack succeeds, then they hit their enemies head. They don't get any additional damage or ill effects from it. I just describe it as such. That's not how the combat system works. If there is a specific reason they want to call a shot, maybe break a leg so the enemy can't run off like last time, then that's a different thing and up to the DMs discretion.
I think a better question is why would you not allow it? It sounds like you, as the DM, don't want them to. Why? If they want it to look cool, then go for it, and roll attacks and damage as normal. If they've given you a reason why they want to do what they want to do, well now you as a DM have some work to do. Assign disadvantage, or a DC check and let the dice fall where they may..
My best guess here is the PCs want to shoot the dragons wings to bring it down to the ground. Sounds like an intelligent strategy. Keep in mind dragons are intelligent and will become aware quite quickly what the PCs strategy is and go for the ranged combatants or move out of range of their weapons, hide behind cover and use its breath weapon. That sort of thing. If my group tried this I would probably say ok, disadvantage on attack rolls, once 50% of the dragons hp is gone, it has to land from the damage to its wings. An intelligent monster, which is what a dragon is, would figure out whats happening and flee or change tactics.
Remember, PCs are trying to come up with strategies and tactics, most of which are pretty good and will make you mutter 4 letter words under your breath when they take out your BBEG in the first of combat by doing something unexpected like pushing him through the portal to the Abyss. Then you get to improvise. Trust me.
Remember, PCs are trying to come up with strategies and tactics, most of which are pretty good and will make you mutter 4 letter words under your breath when they take out your BBEG in the first of combat by doing something unexpected like pushing him through the portal to the Abyss. Then you get to improvise. Trust me.
My reaction - "Wow - congratulations! You have defeated Blorg, scourge of the West Marches ... that was awesome!" - while I'm scribbling furiously, retconning the fact that Blorg is really a lowly lieutenant to Retch - the real BBEG ...
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Remember, PCs are trying to come up with strategies and tactics, most of which are pretty good and will make you mutter 4 letter words under your breath when they take out your BBEG in the first of combat by doing something unexpected like pushing him through the portal to the Abyss. Then you get to improvise. Trust me.
My reaction - "Wow - congratulations! You have defeated Blorg, scourge of the West Marches ... that was awesome!" - while I'm scribbling furiously, retconning the fact that Blorg is really a lowly lieutenant to Retch - the real BBEG ...
I react similarly. If I set up an encounter and it ends up being easier/shorter than I thought it might be, I let the players feel awesome about it - and I join them in feeling awesome about it, because from my point of view we are a team working towards the shared goal of having fun while playing a game that creates a story as we go.
I don't "retcon" anything about the campaign, though. If they managed to do something unexpected, I have the world treat them as people that can manage the unexpected and move on - even if it's the hopefully climactic showdown at the end of the story (well, near the end at least, still have to have resolution bits afterward), it is what it is and it plays out how it plays out. Even if the players are a bit underwhelmed and asking "...that was it?" at the time, I find that getting on to the next thing (whether it's their next goal within a campaign, or the next campaign itself) without trying to force the "important" battle to also be a "tough" battle has a similar effect on the players' feelings about the game over time as them knowing all the die rolls made are left as they lie (zero fudging, not even fudging the non-die portions of things - everything stays as-is once it enters play) does - the good moments are extra good because they feel genuinely earned, and the bad moments are easier to accept and move past because there was nothing they could have done to change them. I've even noticed some of the players enjoying the "bad moments," which I think is great - seeing a player have their character laying on the ground dying and still smiling and having a great time is something beautiful.
I react similarly. If I set up an encounter and it ends up being easier/shorter than I thought it might be, I let the players feel awesome about it - and I join them in feeling awesome about it, because from my point of view we are a team working towards the shared goal of having fun while playing a game that creates a story as we go.
I don't "retcon" anything about the campaign, though. If they managed to do something unexpected, I have the world treat them as people that can manage the unexpected and move on - even if it's the hopefully climactic showdown at the end of the story (well, near the end at least, still have to have resolution bits afterward), it is what it is and it plays out how it plays out. Even if the players are a bit underwhelmed and asking "...that was it?" at the time, I find that getting on to the next thing (whether it's their next goal within a campaign, or the next campaign itself) without trying to force the "important" battle to also be a "tough" battle has a similar effect on the players' feelings about the game over time as them knowing all the die rolls made are left as they lie (zero fudging, not even fudging the non-die portions of things - everything stays as-is once it enters play) does - the good moments are extra good because they feel genuinely earned, and the bad moments are easier to accept and move past because there was nothing they could have done to change them. I've even noticed some of the players enjoying the "bad moments," which I think is great - seeing a player have their character laying on the ground dying and still smiling and having a great time is something beautiful.
I can definitely see this - and to a certain extent, I agree.
I have no issues with the players - as I like to put it - finding the big red "I win button" in the first encounter. Like I've said other places, I don't have a vested interest in any specific outcome or story path - and anything I've prepared that they "circumvented" I can use elsewhere.
What I would try to avoid is the " ... that was it? " reaction.
Sometimes you cannot avoid that without being obvious that you're retconning - and in those cases, I would not. Believability and consistency in the game world is one of those things you cannot damage without mortally wounding your campaign.
But ... if the adventure is coming to a premature and unsatisfying end for the Players, because I underestimated their abilities - and I can move things around in the background without anyone noticing to fix that ... I might.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just wondering if anyone has any tips on preventing just hack and slash combat, or preventing players from doing what they want to do. I am afraid that I'm restricting what they want to do due to rules. For example, trying to take down a dragon by hitting its wings, or wanting to use an action to stab a monster and carry it.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersGenerally speaking, it's not the job of the DM to prevent players from doing what they want to do - it's your job to entice them to follow the plot you have created, rather than railroad them.
In many respects, it's a group game and that requires a little understanding from the players of the game that if, for example, you've all agreed you're going to run a specific hardback adventure, if they have their characters ride in the opposite direction, it will be a bit tricky to get that adventure run.
As for specifics in combat, the rules provide a general framework. Think of it like this - the characters are almost certainly going to be aiming for the most effective blows they can in combat. When a player says their rogue is going to thrust their shortsword into the face of an armoured opponent, sure, it sounds like that will do more damage than striking them on the armour - that's what the dice rolls are for, to represent how successful the character is at striking such a blow.
A combat round is only 6 seconds, which is why actions are quite restrictive on what can be accomplished. There is nothing wrong with taking several rounds to accomplish a task. If a character wants to stab a monster and then pick it up, that's cool, just let them know that after they stab it, attempting to pick it up during a combat is a separate action and takes place on their turn the following round.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Stormknight said it - it's not the role of the DM to prevent the players from doing what they want to do.
Combat is one of the 3 core concepts of the game: Combat, Exploration, Interaction.
If you're worried about your Players derailing your adventure - then the best tactic is not to have an adventure planned out. Have an initial situation planned out, have all the factions and NPCs planned out, know what they want, how they'll act and react, and then let it unfold according to how the Players act.
And ... if the players solve your entire adventure idea in one encounter ... then, great! They found an innovative solution! Reward that. And - as a DM, none of what you planned goes to waste - it just all goes into the "slush pile" to be used later, disguised as something else ( No really, this isn't the "Dungeon of Unreasonable Monsters" that you guys never went to, it's the "Dungeon of Ridiculous Loot" ).
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Have to agree with all of the above. The DM is there to offer a story and facilitate what the PCs want to do. If you're telling them they can't do it you've removed any choice and agency that they have. Might as well just read them a book and let them know what they did, that you wanted them to. When planning my games, I never get too much detail. Trust me, probably 75% of what I prepare will never get used that session. Have the high points, the needed info and clues, the needed NPCs (with names. ALWAYS have a list of names. My PCs are notorious for asking everyones name. Not having a name takes something away from the suspension of disbelief. And yeah, what doesn't get used gets slipped into a folder for upcoming sessions.
Thanks for the advice everyone. But I think my worries are more towards a situation where the player wants to so something extraordinary. I guess giving disadvantages would be a good solution to called shots though. If your players said they wanted to shoot the dragon's wings, would you allow it, or tell them that they flat couldn't?
My players haven't tried this, but I wouldn't allow actual called shots.
Or - at the most - I'd make it "fluff", not "crunch". Describe the hit, have it have some temporary narrative effect, and let it go.
You let the arrow go, watching it sink into the eye socket of the Dragon ... you hear it's roar of pain, and it claws the shaft free, spattering blood on the cavern floor, it swivels around looking at you with malevolent hatred, and rears back, the terrible sound of it inhaling, preparing to let loose its breath attack ...
While having the player roll exactly the same amount of damage, and not having any perception/vision/disadvantage effects imposed on the Dragon
If your players complained about this, you can also turn it around: "If I allow you to target and blind opponents and monsters, they can do the same to you - are you OK with the idea of going blind in the first round of combat?"
There are a lot of discussions about this online, over several editions of D&D - I'd recommend looking them up and seeing what the various arguments pro and against are.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.