How important is combat?

[hanez]

I just saw a quote in a thread where someone said combat occupied 90% of their campaign. This comment jarred me a bit, because in my best campaigns I think we are pushing 20-30% combat. It makes me wonder how it is possible to unify these two play styles.

I think 4e sort of exacerbated the problem my mostly only providing rules for combat and adventures that provided little in non combat challenge (except for the odd skill challenge).

How important is combat in your game, and would you like to see more of a focus for non combat?

 

[Layander]

I loved having combat fill 1 hour of a 4 hour game session maybe 1.5 hours, so 25% to 35% I was unhappy in games that are 90%+.

 

[Alzrius]

Combat - as in, trying to kill something while trying to make sure that it doesn't kill you - is an important part of D&D, though it may not make up the bulk of a session's play-time.

Conflict - as in, any sort of scenario where you're facing opposition, be it combat with a foe, trying to win a debate, surmount an obstacle, etc. - takes up a much greater amount of game-play, in my experience.

 

[mmadsen]

I just saw a quote in a thread where someone said combat occupied 90% of their campaign. This comment jarred me a bit, because in my best campaigns I think we are pushing 20-30% combat. It makes me wonder how it is possible to unify these two play styles.

I can remember oscillating between those two styles as a kid without quite putting my finger on what was happening. Sometimes we'd play out a rather free-form scenario -- "What do you do now?" -- and other times the DM would almost mechanically run a pre-printed dungeon off the map and number-keyed encounter list -- "Do you go left or right?"

I think 4e sort of exacerbated the problem my mostly only providing rules for combat and adventures that provided little in non combat challenge (except for the odd skill challenge).

I'd rephrase that slightly. It's not that 4E only provided rules for combat; it's that it provided extremely complete rules for combat. There's little room for anything outside the box (or grid square) -- although a good DM can always make it work.

In the older-style game, the rules weren't always good, but they weren't expected to do much, either.

How important is combat in your game, and would you like to see more of a focus for non combat?

Let's face it, D&D is about killing things and taking their stuff. The "problem" with 4E isn't that it's too focused on combat; it's that the combat system did not work well with anything from outside its own rules. because it wasn't designed as a (loose) simulation but as its own sub-game.

The challenge of designing a good RPG (or wargame) comes in merging the two design goals, so that you have a fun game that nonetheless feels like "what would really happen".

 

[Hassassin]

In the previous campaign I was the DM of there were many sessions (of 2-4 hours) with no combat encounters at all. The percentage of time spent in combat was over 50% for some gaming sessions, but I can't guess about averages.

That said, I think combat is one of the most important parts of the game. The game would lose more for me if you ripped out combat than if you ripped out real gods or all sneaking skills or a race I like.

I think a good division in terms of rules might be to have around half the mechanics in PHB be combat mechanics. (Just a gut feeling approximation.) The DMG should be more heavily slanted towards running the non-combat parts of the game, since many of those situations have no mechanics the PCs would need to know about.

 

[hanez]

I'd rephrase that slightly. It's not that 4E only provided rules for combat; it's that it provided extremely complete rules for combat. There's little room for anything outside the box (or grid square) -- although a good DM can always make it work.

I agree with the extremely complete rules point, it almost felt like my players became LESS creative in combat. They were less likely to say "ok well I try this thing that is toally not in the rules" and just let the DM see if it works. I think because the rules were so complete, and so clear, it was hard for them to think outside the box. But I am correct in stating at least that 4e greatly diminished the out of combat rules and powers players had, right? (It's been sooooo long since I popped open my 4e PHB, but I remember been annoyed at non combat skills, and spells disappearing. Right, right?)

 

[DonTadow]

I just saw a quote in a thread where someone said combat occupied 90% of their campaign. This comment jarred me a bit, because in my best campaigns I think we are pushing 20-30% combat. It makes me wonder how it is possible to unify these two play styles.

I think 4e sort of exacerbated the problem my mostly only providing rules for combat and adventures that provided little in non combat challenge (except for the odd skill challenge).

How important is combat in your game, and would you like to see more of a focus for non combat?

I like the Buffy the Vampire approach. Combat when it is important, but at least once a session. *unless the major "it" is going down soon.

Now, i've had some sessions with absolutely no combat (our last session) and some where the entire session was a gauntlet.

 

[mmadsen]

I agree with the extremely complete rules point, it almost felt like my players became LESS creative in combat. They were less likely to say "ok well I try this thing that is toally not in the rules" and just let the DM see if it works. I think because the rules were so complete, and so clear, it was hard for them to think outside the box.

Yeah, when you have a half-dozen options to weigh, "none of the above" doesn't generally come to mind.

But I am correct in stating at least that 4e greatly diminished the out of combat rules and powers players had, right? (It's been sooooo long since I popped open my 4e PHB, but I remember been annoyed at non combat skills, and spells disappearing. Right, right?)

Sure, but older editions of the game didn't even have rules for most things that happened in the game. Most of the problem solving wasn't optimizing well quantified game stats; it was coming up with ways to trick the enemy, counter-ambush them, etc. In fact, the rules often got in the way.

 

[hanez]

Sure, but older editions of the game didn't even have rules for most things that happened in the game. Most of the problem solving wasn't optimizing well quantified game stats; it was coming up with ways to trick the enemy, counter-ambush them, etc. In fact, the rules often got in the way.

Well 3E had a plethora of skills that could be used to arbitrate just about anything, and 2nd had proficiencies that sort of handled the same thing. But I do see your point.

In fact, the rules often got in the way.

Man I miss that type of gaming. Somehow the magic disappeared for many of my groups and its really hard to get back

 

[Stormonu]

My games have gone the extreme of no combats in a session to the entire session (or two) being a single combat.

I don't want to be locked into one answer that combat must occupy X% of my game time. There are times I want a good, robust combat and other times I want the time eaten up with interaction and story. I don't want the latter parts of the game hussled along so we can get to what the designers feel is "the good stuff".