Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 6835895" data-attributes="member: 12037">I actually have the all data for my current campaign.Session 01 - 1 combat encounterSession 02 - 3 combat encounters + long rest + 5 combat encountersSession 03 - 4 combat encountersSession 04 - 3 combat encountersSession 05 - 4 combat encounters + long rest + 1 combat encounterSession 06 - 3 combat encountersSession 07 - 4 combat encountersSession 08 - 1 combat encounter + long rest + 2 combat encountersSession 09 - hex crawl, no more than 2 combat encounters back to backSession 10 - 5 combat encountersSession 11 - 1 combat encounter + long rest + 1 combat encounterSession 12 - 2 combat encountersSession 13 - 1 combat encounter (escort mission!)Session 14 - 2 combat encountersSession 15 - 2 combat encountersSession 16 - no combat encountersSession 17 - 5 combat encountersSession 18 - 1 combat encounterSession 18 - 4 combat encountersTo juxtapose this against experiences of the most deadly and exciting sessions, combat-wise instead of just making this an information dump, I'll say that the most satisfying combats were session 3 (a hair away from a TPK), 6 (dead PC), 8 (near TPK), and 9 (difficult random encounter), and 17 (all party resources used up).It looks like half my combats have been memorable because of incredible difficulty in a single encounter for the day (or very few) and half because many encounters have worn down the PCs so that by the end there's a sense of danger. Both are satisfying, and I wouldn't just want to go one way or the other. Overall, though, I focus on less combats per session because there's so much to go through, and it's easier to do lots of non-combat encounters when you have few encounters. Design-wise, I don't think one is necessarily better than the other, just different.</blockquote>

Verification