Game time in combat?

[Hjorimir]

I run a game driven be player agency. So, the amount of combat in a given session is largely contextual. Generally speaking... In cities, as one might expect, we can have many sessions without rolling initiative once. Traveling abroad? A bit here and there (depends on what areas they travel through). Dungeons? Better warm up those d20s.

 

[AmerginLiath]

I’m surprised by these answers. In various campaigns over thirty years (run by and for people who’ve never met each other), it’s been a constant that games — regardless of edition — don’t even have combat in most sessions, rather focusing either on social interaction or dungeon exploration, depending on the DM. When battles do occur, they tend to be in siloed sessions to allow for all the tactical options at play (the GoT style of the one or two Big Battle Episode seasons strangely reminds me of most of the campaigns that I’ve been in). Grinding against orcs and goblins is for video games where there isn’t a DM to be an RPing foil.

 

[Satyrn]

I’m surprised by these answers. In various campaigns over thirty years (run by and for people who’ve never met each other), it’s been a constant that games — regardless of edition — don’t even have combat in most sessions, rather focusing either on social interaction or dungeon exploration, depending on the DM. When battles do occur, they tend to be in siloed sessions to allow for all the tactical options at play (the GoT style of the one or two Big Battle Episode seasons strangely reminds me of most of the campaigns that I’ve been in). Grinding against orcs and goblins is for video games where there isn’t a DM to be an RPing foil.

Interesting. I've played with about a dozen different groups over the last 20 years, and I think only 2 of them leaned towards the exploration/social parts as heavily as you describe. I didn't play more than a session with either of them mostly for that reason - we were not a fit for each other!

I don't think I've ever seen any combat-heavy groups where "Grinding against orcs and goblins" is at all an accurate description . . . although there was this one guy who I think would have loved that; but he also had a habit of taking 5 minutes or more (I'm not exaggerating!) plotting out the best path to take for his move action in 3rd edition, and every combat with him involved was one masive grind.

 

[aco175]

We play where each module starts out with a lot of investigation and NPC interaction. The PCs may be in a town and do some downtime things like investigate new armor or socialize with nobles. There may be a few skill rolls but little combat. If things are slow I have thugs and bandits ready though. I like to have at least 1 fight each time we play though. Depending on the lead up to the adventure the next few nights of play can be fight heavy.

The current adventure spent the first night of play mostly in town with 10% fight. Next time it was 25% with travel and some time spent meeting a recluse mage in the woods. Last 2 nights of play have been 80% fight since they are in the evil castle, but had a few puzzles and interrogations to break up things.

If we skip a week of play for some reason I like to make sure there is a fight the next week. There seems to be something inherent in the game, or us playing it that feels good killing monsters and taking their treasure.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

How much session time we spend on combat at my table depends on a lot of factors, the primary of which are the story circumstances of the campaign and how the players choose to react to creatures they encounter.

My current campaign involves a lot of combat because there are unthinking and unreasonable foes (undead, demons, and organized evil creatures that are trying to reclaim an artifact the party is attempt to escort to safe storage), but we still spend less than 50% of our session time on battle (including setting up and breaking down maps/minis when used).

 

[5ekyu]

It was suggested in another thread that combat took up 50-90% of game play. This has certainly not been my experience. I DM one group and play in another. I would suggest for both those two tables, combat was roughly 20-30% We may even go through one or two sessions without a combat, but then have another session that might be a bit of a slaughterfest. My preference is slightly less combat but not totally devoid of it. YMMV of course.

Am I in the minority here?

Genuinely interested. How much time of your sessions do you envisage is taken up with combat?

Ps I'm not savvy enough to do a poll. just wanted peoples thoughts really.

First, keep in mind that comments like "up to 90%" may well just be hyperbole, posturing or baiting or just selective representations.

In my games, it varies greatly by scenes and story chouces of the pcs. Over the arc of an asventure taking say 8 sessions, there are likely 2-3 sessions without combat, 2-3 sessions with mixed to moderate combat (fights occur but only part of session) and 2-3 sessions that are heavy combat... With all the 2-3 mostly decided by players and their choices, as i tend to provide for alternate approaches to success esp for the mid-bits.

I doubt we could hit even 75% of sessions having any combat, even partial unless my players went really truly on rampage... And that might get us to 40%-50% screen time for fighting.

But each table/group sets its own methods.

For pick-up games with strangers at FLGS fast paced action fights serve the intro well - needs are very different from ongoing campaign.

I once joined a HERO SYSTEM super-heroes game and showed up for the cops briefing. The players explained their "supers RPG" started each session at the crime, already being briefed on the situation and bad guys we had to fight... Every session... And how it saved time... Seems they used to start you in your secret id when the news broke but they realized that just lost them game time playing you rushing over to the crime scene for the...

That was a one episode then pass "campaign" for me. But they loved that "role playing campaign."

The bottom line is... Whatever works and brings enjoyment to your table is great... But keep in mind that the more your setting departs from the RPG system expectations the more you need to watch for cracks.

One of my own 5e "design flaw" critiques is the decision to vary classes so drastically by short and long rest balance given that short and long rest frequency will vary a lot from table to table. That decision thru a very complex part of in-play-balance to the GM in a system intended to be very open to newbies.

In some ways, the other thread highlighted a gm vs pace issue.

 

[pogre]

In the D&D 5e campaign I play in it is maybe 15-20% at most.

In the D&D 5e campaign I run it is at least 50%.

Other systems I run tend to have a lot less combat. In some systems, combat means things have gone wrong. Looking at you CoC!

 

[Satyrn]

In the D&D 5e campaign I play in it is maybe 15-20% at most.

In the D&D 5e campaign I run it is at least 50%.

Other systems I run tend to have a lot less combat. In some systems, combat means things have gone wrong. Looking at you CoC!

If you're looking at Cthulhu, things have gone horribly wrong.

 

[abirdcall]

30-50%

On average we have 3-4 combats in a 4 hour session and a long rest every 2 sessions. I feel like our combats could be faster but we like to take our time.

 

[5ekyu]

If you're looking at Cthulhu, things have gone horribly wrong.

When you stare too long at Cthulhu, remember he...GACKSPUTERCRACKSQUISH... burp.