How important is combat?

[hanez]

I didn't see the point of that post at all either.

I have easily have spent more time playing non combat encounters then combat encounters.

Weve climbed, went to libraries, expolored ancient tombs, talked to dryads, built a castle, lived in that castle and hired guards for it, had meetings with mayors, raised armies and paid them and talked to them, healed unicorns, and flew griffins. Oh and we had a lot of combat too, usually 2-3 battles for a 3 hour session each lasting about 15 mins. Weve had many sessions with no combat, but none that were only combat.

And all of the non combat situations above were part of the game, meaning we needed rules for them as much as we needed rules for combat.

 

[Tallifer]

Combat is very important for me in most roleplaying games, but I cannot conceive how anyone could spend 90% of their time at the table fighting: it sounds like farming monsters for gold in a bad on-line game. I would nonetheless say 50% (since Fourth Edition combat is gloriously detailled).

Combat is thrilling. Combat is unifying. Combat is perversely gratifying and vicariously empowering. Combat is tense and mentally demanding. Combat allows us to show off. Combat builds camaraderie and generates memorable stories.

However I also like some exploration, expedition planning, world history, urban espionage, flight from impossible odds, and interaction with powerful or interesting or funny inhabitants of the world. But each of these elements are only good in small and occasional doses. One tavern scene or one audience with the king will do me for several months thanks.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I think you're spending too much time looking at the trees to realize that the forest has a lot more to it.

It's my turn not to understand the point! What am I over focusing on and what is the general point I need to know?

 

[Stalker0]

I think combat is very important.....to have in the rule books.


Of all the things a roleplaying system does, handling combat is one of the most important, because it has the greatest impact on a character. Since my beloved character can die....I generally want there to be a clean, impartial rule system that helps decide between myself and the dm if my guy dies or his monster bites the dust.

Now while I want noncombat stuff handled too, I'm more comfortable with vagueness and handwaving...and as such do not require as many rules.

 

[pemerton]

Of all the things a roleplaying system does, handling combat is one of the most important, because it has the greatest impact on a character. Since my beloved character can die

This, itself, is up for grabs as a design question - at least in principle!

 

[was]

I prefer around 30%-40%

 

[TrippyHippy]

There is no getting away from the fact that D&D is a game where combat is an important component. The default scene that you build a game about is basically a fight (in whatever situation) in the same way that Call of Cthulhu is an investigation (of a murder scene or whatever).

However, it's also a game where storytelling is important - and stories that just involve one big fight after another is boring. The other issue for 4E was that so much tactical emphisis was placed upon combat, that it became out of synch with the gameplay of any other situation. Literally, the pace of the game session changes when a party enters into combat. That draws far too much attention to it, at the expense of other aspects of the game.