Combat Stagnation

Introduction

A common online complaint about TTRPG systems I have seen is that combat can stagnate and turn the game into a slog. I think there are a couple of main contributors to this, and while I think you can have fun combat in any system, some mechanics do contribute to this. Other factors can include novelty wearing off, a lack of stakes or relevance, and a lack of dynamic elements in encounters. These all lead to the real issue: a shift from narrative immersion to pure mechanics. While there is intrinsic enjoyment in rolling dice, most people aren’t captivated by doing basic repetitive math.

Grind

Without going into the historical limitations of computer processing and the constraints this placed on video games, this was apparent in a lot of early computer game simulacra, which were further streamlined or simplified when games inspired by Ultima and Wizardry came to early consoles in the form of Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy. While not lacking their own merits, they are a good example of reducing combat down to its strictest mechanical elements, even though the math of the systems is handled on the backend. The players’ options are very limited compared to the possibilities in a TTRPG game.

These early games relied on the novelty of the medium itself (and the music and artwork), along with new monsters (more music and artwork) to hold the player’s interest, along with the stakes of the combat itself. But it could quickly reach a state where the player was encountering monsters they had seen before, or palette-swapped versions of them, and posed no danger for their characters. This could be a situation where the player was returning to an earlier location of the game or when the player was unable to make forward progress due to the mechanical value of their attributes, needing to improve these through repetitive and increasingly tedious encounters before they can continue. .This state of play carried forward into the MMO era as a strategy to keep players engaged when content could not be developed fast enough. This is often referred to as “grind.” Some players can find enjoyment in grinding as familiar or a distraction, but it cannot, by definition, be engaging.

Rogue

The Ultima/Wizardry evolutionary branch was not the only one. While comparatively more obscure, Roguelikes and Rogue Lites have recently seen a resurgence in popularity. If you aren’t familiar, the unfortunately named genre consists of games descended from Rogue, developed in the early ’80s and ran on the VAX-11. Rogue is a top-down dungeon crawler with procedurally generated levels and character text and symbols for graphics, with the player being represented on screen as a “@”. The binary was included with the BSD 4.2 release in 1983, spreading its popularity, and in 1984 version 5.4 was released to the public domain, allowing anyone to change or rework the game.

Many games inspired by Rogue followed, and while retaining the simple graphics and aesthetics, they soon increasingly grew in complex interactions. Nethack is known for its deep complexity, where many systems can interact. Pushing or throwing a boulder onto a pressure plate or a trap can activate it, or the boulder could be pushed into a hallway to block passage or pushed into a pit to fill it. Dwarf Fortress may be the ultimate example of the expansion of this level of complexity, allowing for a myriad of complex systems interactions. A popular Dwarf Fortress trap involved triggering water to flow into a volcano to release steam and burn fortress intruders. These games show how procedural generation and complex systems can create dynamic gameplay, a potential TTRPGs have even more freedom to explore, thanks to GM and player creativity.

Spelunky is a side-scrolling platformer, similar to Super Mario Brothers, mixed with Roguelike elements. The creator of the game, Derek Yu, in his book Spelunky, described one of his goals when creating Spelunky as “A ruleset of physical interactions that is shared by the player, non-player characters (NPCs), and items”. The procedural level generation combined with the system interactions is an endless source of unique events. Falling items, traps, and charging enemies all have the chance to create a string of complex interactions when multiple systems intersect, creating interesting scenarios that don’t rely on a prescripted narrative.

TTRPG Combat

While there are still obvious restraints on what can reasonably be expected to happen mechanically in a TTRPG, calculating and tracking several objects’ trajectories for the kinds of Spelunky-like interactions probably isn’t feasible. However, the best advantage over video games is the flexibility to resolve player actions dynamically at the table, without being limited to preset options. But failing to take advantage of that can result in a scenario similar to two people taking turns hitting each other in a parking lot. There are a couple of factors that could make this interesting for a player: this parking lot brawl might contain a large amount of narrative interest, the player could be new and still find taking turns rolling for hit and damage to be novel, or the character could be close to death, and a single die roll could lead to very different outcomes.

Realistically, the novelty will wear thin, and tedium will increase over time. Not every combat in a game where combat is likely can contain a strong narrative payload, and if every encounter is life or death, the game risks becoming a “meat grinder.” This can really come down to the system and style of play. If the stakes are high, and players aim to minimize or avoid combat, every encounter that depletes resources or impacts long-term goals adds meaning and tension. The opposite case arises when there is no reasonable chance of failure and no long-term consequences. If the players know they likely won’t die and can be assured of restoring all of their resources afterward, then a lot of weight is placed on other elements, like the narrative, to keep things interesting. Systems where all combatants have large health pools can exacerbate this problem further. Other factors like large group size or overly complex systems that take a long time to resolve outcomes contribute to this as well. Anything that pulls the player out of the narrative and reduces the experience to bookkeeping disrupts immersion.

There is a lot of good advice on keeping the combat dynamic and getting away from two people taking turns hitting each other in a parking lot. The environment can play a big role. Fighting on a rickety bridge over a volcano is always going to increase tension, but at the same time, most players will try to avoid ending up compromised in a precarious position like that. So the following are some things to consider to figure out how to keep things interesting.

Motivation

NPCs should have goals just as PCs do. The same as when players are interacting with NPCs in a non-violent manner, considering the NPC combatants’ goals can introduce dynamic elements by changing from the default “stand in one place and fight until they are killed” behavior. If the NPCs are guarding an area and the players attack, they are likely to want to sound the alarm and call for help. This could play out in a number of ways, from an NPC attempting to run off to get help while the remaining NPCs work to prevent the players from being able to follow, or maybe there is something like a nearby bell they can ring that the players want to stop them from reaching. Similarly, if the NPCs have an item they are keeping from the players, but this situation could be reversed as well. If the NPCs are trying to recover an item one player has, they could focus on trying to bypass or immobilize players to get to the one with the item.

Most of your world’s denizens will want to live, and unless backed into a corner, will take different actions in different scenarios. Bandits or hired soldiers will likely try to break off the attack or retreat when it becomes clear they aren’t going to win in the same fashion as a hunting animal. Once it’s clear the risk outweighs the reward, they will try to disengage, or if intelligent enough and cornered, negotiate a surrender.

Random or surprised groups may try to fall back to a more defensible area in addition to calling for reinforcements. Falling back to a choke point like the top of a staircase or leading players into a trap increases the tactical complexity of encounters.

Environment

Mentioned briefly earlier, the environment itself has a lot of potential to increase the dynamics of combat. Players generally won’t want to fight in precarious positions, but the enemies can always try to force them back into or lure them into compromised positions. If the environment can finish off the players, that’s all the better as well from the NPCs perspective. Environments should offer both hazards and opportunities for players to use creatively, making the setting an active part of combat. In addition to just hazardous terrain or a narrow ledge, enemies could attempt to lure players into an area with a potential trap and then leave the area triggering the trap and blocking the players in. Imagine a room where the NPCs can dislodge a support allowing water to flood the room. Once the players are inside, the NPCs could attempt to position themselves by the exits, then leave, triggering the flood and attempting to lock the players inside.

The hazards can be direct or indirect, targeted, or random. Boulders sliding down a hill triggered by an earthquake would indiscriminately run over anyone in their path. The danger could be something not directly dangerous; imagine two groups of intruders fighting in a castle where neither wants to make noise and wake up the castle’s residents, or there is a valuable but delicate item that could easily be knocked over or destroyed. Players will generally want to minimize risk, and in static scenarios, will work out an optimal strategy, so anything that changes the equation and results in different solutions will help keep things from being repetitive.

Time limitations

Imposing time constraints increases urgency and forces players to act differently, adding tension to encounters. Another classic option is to restrict the amount of time players have. An enemy finishing a ritual, reinforcements arriving, or the dungeon slowly flooding all introduce another element that can force players to act differently. Slowly and methodically clearing out a dungeon looking for traps and patrols might be the optimal strategy when time isn’t an element, but when the players know they have to get out of the collapsing dungeon, they will definitely behave differently.

Systems Interactions and Agency

Players should have the ability to interact meaningfully with the environment and system mechanics. Quick, creative thinking, or careful planning shouldn’t be overridden just to keep combat dynamic. There is always a sense of accomplishment in spotting a problem and avoiding it or mitigating a hazard. Forcing the players to fight on a bridge over a volcano when they saw it coming and had no chance to avoid it gets old quick. As long as the players are interacting with the fiction of the world on its own terms, then the goal is accomplished. A player checking for enemies behind them hiding, waiting to catch them in the middle of the bridge from both sides, is engaging with your world at face value. Spawning in enemies just to surprise them without reason makes the world feel less credible.

Consider fire-based spells in 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons, where the rules specify that “A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn’t being worn or carried.” This approach offers clarity, but it can limit the ways players might creatively interact with the environment. In earlier editions like AD&D, a Fireball’s volume would remain constant but would adjust its shape if cast in a confined area, allowing for more flexibility in interpreting how spells impact the surroundings. Allowing players to use spells to interact dynamically with the environment—like setting a map on fire even if it’s being held—can enhance immersion by making the world feel more tangible and reactive.

Enough online discourse seems centered around trying to discipline players out of a “Murder Hobo” mindset and to engage more thoroughly with the narrative of the world. Starting fire seems to be a common behavior that, the discourse suggests, players must be disciplined out of, but players can and should make complete use of their environment to even the odds. When players engage with their environment creatively—like trying to smoke out enemies by lighting fires—they are immersed in the world. Limiting this behavior reduces their agency.

In the end, keeping combat dynamic and engaging in TTRPGs hinges on making encounters feel alive and meaningful. By considering the motivations of NPCs, utilizing the environment creatively, and introducing time constraints or other evolving factors, GMs can break away from repetitive, purely mechanical gameplay. Encouraging player agency and realistic interactions with the world ensures that combat remains an immersive, narrative-driven experience rather than a tedious grind. Whether through strategic use of the system or imaginative storytelling, the goal is always the same: to keep players engaged, invested, and excited about the next encounter.