Combat length and Adventure pacing

[ArcaneSpringboard]

Personally, I don't feel 1 hour is too long for a combat encounter. I expect that number. However, as a DM if it's certain that the players are going to win an encounter, I will either slay the solo early (assuming I have used all his tricks) or have him get away. But while the combat is going on, people are having fun. Once I feel that drag I end the combat one way or another.

The point of combat (at least to me) isn't to see if the characters can kick a bunch of monsters butts, it's to see if they can kick some monsters butts in a way that makes sense for the story... or to find out they are up against something far more powerful than they anticipated. As soon as that point has been made... move on.

I wonder if this is the elephant in the room.

How often has the result NOT been in question...even from the beginning of the combat? The PCs are going to win an equal level encounter. They're going to win a Level +3 encounter. It might just take them longer. It might take them some more resources.

In 20 months I've only had 2 PCs die in combat (that wasn't the ugly instant TPK from 200 drow). The first was the second session after 4e came out, when ongoing damage killed the Wizard. The second was actually collateral damage from said Wizard killing the Rogue in a blast when the Rogue was already dropped by wights.

It hasn't been too often they dirt nap either...and even then it's only for a round before healing puts them right back on their feet again.

So realistically, in 95+% of combats, the PCs _are_ going to win. The only question is how many healing surges and daily powers get used.

 

[S'mon]

So realistically, in 95+% of combats, the PCs _are_ going to win. The only question is how many healing surges and daily powers get used.

One of the advantages of the 'status quo' approach in my Vault of Larin Karr sandbox campaign is uncertainty - the players never know for sure whether a status quo encounter is at, above, or below their level, and this makes even winnable fights more tense I think.

The 3e DMG recommended that around 5% of encounters be unwinnable/overwhelming, so that the PCs needed to retreat/work around it, and I think that's good advice which seems to have been lost in 4e.

Edit: Of course this approach does result in increased PC fatalities (6 in 11 sessions so far for us, 5 permanent), if you don't want that then seriously over-levelled encounters should be rare, avoidable, and clearly signposted.

Edit 2: 10,000th post! Yaay!

 

[Nightson]

So, I ran my game today and spurred by this thread I decided to see exactly what was holding up combat. I have the advantage of running a campaign online so I grabbed a stopwatch and took not without their knowledge.

This combat was a six man party at level 7, typical gear
Shielding Swordmage
Greatweapon Fighter
Two-blade Ranger
Artful Dodger Rogue
Dragon Sorcerer
Hybrid Cleric/Fighter

The monsters arrayed against the were 2 Flamespikers (bumped up one level, 500 XP), 3 Hellhounds (900 XP), 2 Windstrikers (800 XP). That makes it a L+1.5 encounter.

There was Bolt Stone and Thunder Stone in play as special terrain.

The encounter was enjoyable, some lucky rolls managed to get the tank to dip into the negatives on the second round, danger was definitely palpable, the terrain added a nice twist since I've been neglecting terrain in my encounter design.

This combat took 66 minutes to complete.

Total time spent on each PC (combined total, not per) turn, combat lasted 6 rounds
Ranger: 8.5 minutes
Rogue: 8 minutes
Sorcerer: 6 minutes
Swordmage: 6 minutes
Fighter: 5 minutes
Cleric/Fighter: 19 minutes

DM Monster time: 13.5 minutes (includes two minutes spent searching for notes I misplaced)

Now, due to some absent players, the ranger and rogue were played by the same player and the and the Swordmage and Fighter were played by the same person.

And so, the problem I have been having with combat time comes into the light. It's not a problem with the system it's a player problem. Mainly a single player, although the ranger/rogue player could use a little trimming as well.

And this problem wasn't noticeable before I timed it. It was noticeable that the player took longer turns in general, but the exact extent and how much it added up wasn't readily apparent.

So, a new rule will be going into affect soon limiting player turns to one minute, which really is more then enough time to decide what to do and hit the macro for it. If that rule had been in affect in this combat it would have shaved twenty minutes off the combat time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm with S'mon.

For me, "levels" are more a measure of the encounters that reside in a certain zone.

I also tend to be fairly narrative, so I won't usually force players into a zone that is immensely above their level. But if, at level 1, they want to go take down the strongest dragon in the world, that dragon won't be miraculously fight-able by level 1 heroes.

 

[Hussar]

Nightson - this was generally my experience as well, in both 3e and now 4e and pretty much any other game as well. It's usually one guy (or maybe two) who's gumming up the gears.

My suggestion, show your results to the players. It could easily be that the player in question has no idea how much time he's taking. Don't do what I did and blow a gasket, pointing to the numbers and berating the poor player. Oops. Heh. Fortunately, he was thick skinned enough to not take me too seriously.

But, really, showing the players the time sheets is a great way of giving a bit of a nudge to tardy players.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

My suggestion, show your results to the players. It could easily be that the player in question has no idea how much time he's taking. Don't do what I did and blow a gasket, pointing to the numbers and berating the poor player. Oops. Heh. Fortunately, he was thick skinned enough to not take me too seriously.

I agree, although if it were me, I would be careful to err more on the side of:

"Hey [name of player, in a private message], I was trying to figure out why our combats take so long, and here's what I found: [raw data]. Let's figure out what we can do to help you figure out your turn faster!"

instead of:

"Hey everyone, I figured out why we're taking so long. It's the fighter-cleric's fault. Here's the proof."

But then again, he knows his players better than I.

 

[Hussar]

I agree, although if it were me, I would be careful to err more on the side of:

"Hey [name of player, in a private message], I was trying to figure out why our combats take so long, and here's what I found: [raw data]. Let's figure out what we can do to help you figure out your turn faster!"

instead of:

"Hey everyone, I figured out why we're taking so long. It's the fighter-cleric's fault. Here's the proof."

But then again, he knows his players better than I.

Heh, true. I went with the latter approach which, as I said above, was perhaps the less errrm, polite way of going. But, then again, maybe a bit of shaming someone into getting their ass in gear isn't a bad thing.