General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
This'll probably get me kicked in the nads, but my answer would be: "I don't care how long any combat takes, as long as everyone is interested and engaged." Whether it's a fight with a BBEG or an orc with a pie is irrelevant, IMO.
And my side-comment would be that anyone who chose "5-10 minutes"—and likely anyone who chose "10-20 minutes" as well—should probably stop playing D&D and find a RPG that better fits their sensibilities.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
This'll probably get me kicked in the nads, but my answer would be: "I don't care how long any combat takes, as long as everyone is interested and engaged." Whether it's a fight with a BBEG or an orc with a pie is irrelevant, IMO.
And my side-comment would be that anyone who chose "5-10 minutes"—and likely anyone who chose "10-20 minutes" as well—should probably stop playing D&D and find a RPG that better fits their sensibilities.
Buzz-
I agree in concept with your point, but would observe that the more players are "interested and engaged" the faster combat tends to go. Wandering attention is what sucks away time-- when folks are really worried about that last hit taking them into negative hp they stay focused on their actions.
I am surprised at the number of folks looking around the 10-15 minute range, though-- you guys must be tactical geniuses! Seriously! I voted 30 minutes, although find most non-BBEG encounters to actually take about 45 minutes to run.
This'll probably get me kicked in the nads, but my answer would be: "I don't care how long any combat takes, as long as everyone is interested and engaged." Whether it's a fight with a BBEG or an orc with a pie is irrelevant, IMO.
This makes sense. I can fully agree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz
And my side-comment would be that anyone who chose "5-10 minutes"—and likely anyone who chose "10-20 minutes" as well—should probably stop playing D&D and find a RPG that better fits their sensibilities.
You lost me here. I enjoy combat and noncombat activity during a game. That means that a system that turns a 10-20 minute brawl into a two-plus hour slugfest is not going to be appreciated. Your point above being the primary reason.
At the moment encounter length is causing my group serious concerns. We are a veteran group of D&D players with many editions and years of experience behind us and we all love trying out anything new to see if it improves the game experience yet 4th edition is really messing with our heads. For instance, last night we did the last combat in the keep on the shadowfells and it took the group 3 hours to get Kalarel to bloodied before we stopped the session. This was 9 rounds of combat, so 3 per hour or 1 full round every 20 minutes. Given that there were 9 initiative phases (5 for the players, 4 for creatures) that means roughly 2 minutes per player/creature turn. Now given this includes all the messing about, making drinks, checking powers and there were no distratcions from the game of any type i cant help but think this is an extraordinary amount of time to be taking over a combat. It certainly put me and the guys on another downer for 4e as virtually all combats we have tried are taking much too long. I am resolved to find a solution to this issue but tampering with hit points (i was pondering over the idea of halving all hit points) sounds like a recipe for everybody to suddenly become tanks or ranged classed.
That sounds way to long, saying that, I havent run this encounter yet, but nothing Ive run has taken this long in 4e, unless there was significant disruptions.
What was taking 2 minutes for everyones turn? Are they paying attention? By the time it is their turn they should already know what they are going to do if they are.
__________________ Pablo El Vagabundo
"Mercy!? You want MERCY? I'M CHAOTIC NEUTRAL!!!"
45 minutes is a good length. Once it gets longer than that it feels bogged down.
I've learned one thing in 4e: don't add NPCs to the party. Having to add an equal amount of XP worth of bad guys makes for a long drawn out battle in which I run most of the participants. Ugh.
That sounds way to long, saying that, I havent run this encounter yet, but nothing Ive run has taken this long in 4e, unless there was significant disruptions.
What was taking 2 minutes for everyones turn? Are they paying attention? By the time it is their turn they should already know what they are going to do if they are.
I agree, that is kinda insane. I've had a 2.5 hour combat, but it was a massive BBEG fight with a solo black dragon that went more than 9 rounds...more closer to 19.
You lost me here. I enjoy combat and noncombat activity during a game. That means that a system that turns a 10-20 minute brawl into a two-plus hour slugfest is not going to be appreciated. Your point above being the primary reason.
My point is that D&D is not the game for someone who, as a whole, does not want combats to last longer than 10 (or even 20) minutes. Combat is the primary focus of D&D (3.x and 4e in particular). If combat is uninteresting enough to you that you don't want a combat encounter to last more than 10 minutes, D&D will waste a lot of your time.
So, if, as Wombat wrote, "there are other aspects of roleplaying that are far more important" to you, then D&D would probably be the last RPG I would recommend.
On the flip side, it's entirely possible that there are people who want a two-hour slugfest, and would happily eschew D&D for some of the hyper-detailed tactical RPGs out there.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
I agree in concept with your point, but would observe that the more players are "interested and engaged" the faster combat tends to go.
I'd agree, in general. However, in the last big 3.x campaign I was in, an encounter would take, on average, 2-4 hours once we hit 12th-15th level or so. We were certainly interested and engaged, but the stakes of the battle (and the complexity of high-level 3.5) mandated that combats were only going to move so fast.
My basic point is that I couldn't put a hard cap on how long D&D fights are supposed to last in session-time. I've played four hour combats that were nail-biters, and I've played 20-minute combats that put me to sleep.
I could certainly see discussing a minimum time for combats. I.e., if the handling time of a game's combat mechanics are such that even a one-on-one fight between an inexperienced fighter and a baby kobold takes at least half an hour, then you've got a problem.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
My point is that D&D is not the game for someone who, as a whole, does not want combats to last longer than 10 (or even 20) minutes. Combat is the primary focus of D&D (3.x and 4e in particular). If combat is uninteresting enough to you that you don't want a combat encounter to last more than 10 minutes, D&D will waste a lot of your time.
I am perfectly fine with the idea of long combats, if they need to be that long, or are particularly important events. I would say that exploration and encounters are the primary focus of D&D. If the players and the circumstances turn all encounters into combats then yes it could be very combat heavy. I do agree that the 3E and 4E systems have turned combat into a primary role because of increased detail and complexity that was introduced.
There are some sessions that are combat heavy. In cases where all I want to do is fight then I would rather have 6 combats in the session rather than just 2 or 3...........or 1!! (Assuming all were normal non-BBEG)
If I do want lengthly detailed combat then GURPS can provide that fix better than an abstract system. For me, the point of D&D combat is quick resolution that allows plenty of time for other activity or even more combat if thats what we want.
I believe that there should be some risky encounters that they could bother players even for two hours. For exaple trying to escape from some castle full of guards where guards are aware and alert and some are even actively searching for you.
Cadwallon by Rackham has explicit rules for using minis in such scenarios if you are interested.
OTOH a simple confrontation should not take more than 10 mins.
I should time how long the combats in my home game are taking. To tell you the truth, I don't really know how long they're taking, but I know that it seems about right. I voted 45 minutes, just off the top of my head, not backed up by any empirical data.
I've played console games, like Final Fantasy Tactics, etc. where the quick non-boss combats can take 15-30 minutes, and I feel as though that's too short--it makes the combats repetitive, infused with a feeling of deja vu.
If the combats are 45 minutes long, it means that a 4 1/2 hour session with three combats has 2 hours and 15 minutes worth of combat, exactly half the session. If it has 4 combats, or two normal combats and one big combat, that's 3 hours of combat and 1 hour of other stuff. That feels about right to me, but that's all personal preference talking. I like combat, and while I like the other stuff (exploration, NPC interaction, shopping) too much of it in one stretch starts to feel long.
To put it another way, I think probably 50% of my current sessions follow the 4 1/2 hours session, 3 combat model above. Some sessions have more roleplaying and some more action, but I have players that when we spend more than about 45 minutes out of combat, unless it's exceptionally engaging, they ask straight out "are we going to fight something here?"
I have felt some 4e combats getting long, and I have some techniques that I've developed to avoid that. Maybe I should start a new thread on that though.
If the players and the circumstances turn all encounters into combats then yes it could be very combat heavy.
If we look at published adventures, though, easily 90% or more of the encounters are combat. If you look at the rulebooks, the majority of the content centers around the combat encounter and the PCs' capabilities therein. Sure, homebrew campaigns will vary this, but I can only really speak to my experience and what's presented in the product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExploderWizard
For me, the point of D&D combat is quick resolution that allows plenty of time for other activity or even more combat if thats what we want.
I guess we must play D&D pretty differently, then. 4e combats are, for our group, running faster than 3.5, but I wouldn't call them "quick". IMO, there are other RPGs that readily provide "quick" if that's what you want (i.e., you are not interested in robust tactical RPG combat).
Sorry for drifting the thread, Merric!
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
I should time how long the combats in my home game are taking. To tell you the truth, I don't really know how long they're taking, but I know that it seems about right. I voted 45 minutes, just off the top of my head, not backed up by any empirical data.
Our current KotS game is averaging 3-4 encounters a session, and our sessions are probably 4-5 hours of play time. This feels pretty fast to us, compared to 3.5. Granted, we're still at level 3.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
you are not interested in robust tactical RPG combat
I am interested in tactics but I want quickness too. This is why I am still not convinced about minis and mini rules (in fact I am trying to make a new game and still deciding whether to add mini rules or not).
I would like to be able to play out a complex action encounter of half an hour PC time by devoting maximum 2 hours game time. What I intend with complex encounter see above.
I am interested in tactics but I want quickness too.
You can have quick tactics; you just won't likely have robust tactics. E.g, compare BattleLore to, say, Advanced Squad Leader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xechnao
I would like to be able to play out a complex action encounter of half an hour PC time by devoting maximum 2 hours game time. What I intend with complex encounter see above.
That sounds like an entire scenario, not just one encounter.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
I voted 5-10 minutes and that seems to be the norm for most of our fights, unless some breaks out web. Of course, we play first edition, so there's hardly anything with more than 80 or so hit points.
I agree, that is kinda insane. I've had a 2.5 hour combat, but it was a massive BBEG fight with a solo black dragon that went more than 9 rounds...more closer to 19.
I think Black Dragons are poorly designed. The darkness ability makes them really hard to kill. We suffered a similarly drawn out combat against one. It was a relief to finally kill it. It wasted 2.5 hours of our life!
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
