How long should a standard combat last?

[StreamOfTheSky]

EDIT: And as for the basic assumption, I think it's a given. The topic's page-count alone shows that combat encounters are D&D's bread-and-butter.

The topic at this moment is only two pages long!

EDIT: How'd I know this post would end up being the first one on page 3?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well, to be fair, first edition does not have any combat options beyond "I hit it with my sword/dagger/bohemian earspoon"

To be fair, perhaps thats the way you played 1st edition. I could just as easily say that in 4E you have no options other than carving through mounds of hit points with sword, spell, power, ect. I don't count pushing pieces of plastic around a game board to equal meaningful options.

 

[buzz]

The topic at this moment is only two pages long!

I mean the topic of combat in the D&D rulebooks, not this thread.

 

[buzz]

To be fair, perhaps thats the way you played 1st edition. I could just as easily say that in 4E you have no options other than carving through mounds of hit points with sword, spell, power, ect. I don't count pushing pieces of plastic around a game board to equal meaningful options.

They are meaningful options. In a purely gameplay/tactical sense, 4e (and 3.5 before it, to a lesser degree), players typically have many valid choices to make on their turn, with many variable outcomes. As-written, 1e was not as feature-rich in this regard. Position and movement was much less emphasized, and players typically had fewer viable strategies available.

For you, however, it sounds like this is a feature, i.e., getting the system out of the way to allow for more free-form creativity, which is perfectly valid. The editions are nonetheless distinct in this regard.

 

[xechnao]

There are lots of great RPGs out there with a less tactical emphasis that will let you focus on the other aspects of roleplaying that you obviously prioritize.

The type of tactics I want in roleplaying game action scenes/encounters are tactics that more or less can simulate the possible tactical decisions/options of the PCs in action rather than metagamey ones. So, I think 4e and 3.5 miniature rules are not very well suited for this preference. The robustness of their tactcs limits itself mostly on a gamey level -tactics are rather similar to chess which is just a tactical game.

I am still undecided whether miniatures would help or mostly hinder a system as I want it.

 

[buzz]

I am still undecided whether miniatures would help or mostly hinder a system as I want it.

You might want to take a look at Burning Wheel. It uses a scripted, miniature-less combat system that is pretty realistic.

Apologies again to Merric.

 

[MerricB]

I've got to say: that's a very nice bell curve to the results.

Cheers!

 

[El Mahdi]

I voted 45 minutes because the option I wanted wasn't available, and it was the closest.

I think combats should only take as long as they NEED to take, no more no less. However, there is an upper limit in time at which you start to lose your audience. Just as in a classes or meetings, the magic number is about 50 minutes. After 50 minutes it's time for a break, which isn't always feasible for a combat scene, therefore I try to get them done within that 50 minute guideline. There is no lower limit, IMO.

I've been in games where combats took much longer, and I hated each one. I use 3.5E, and I attempt to keep combats under 50 minutes even with a system where most people feel it's not possible.

I do this by using an Excel sheet to track initiative. By using the sort function and prerolling initiative (everyone - players and DM alike - 20 each), I can have a random initiative each round of combat. This adds an element of uncertainty to combats and keeps all participants engaged (without having to wait for people to come back to the table) because they don't know when they are going to act.

I also use set defenses/AC for monsters and pre-rolled attacks, cutting down on the amount of rolling needed to be done during combat.

Also, I don't use this all of the time, but if I have players that take too long to decide what they are going to do, I will use a timer (egg timer, chess timer, or just a stopwatch).

I've found that the added benefit of keeping the action going, without having to stop for slow players, distracted players, or players that leave the table for other pursuits, keeps the action flowing and by extension, keeps the level of drama and the story, poignant and flowing.

 

[Clavis]

I prefer a close relationship between the amount of time a combat is supposed to represent in-game, and the amount of time it takes to resolve mechanically. One of the major immersion-breaking moments in 3rd edition is realizing that a combat which is supposed to be only a few minutes long from your character's point of view could take an hour or more to resolve at the table.

One of the interesting side effects of the much-maligned 1 minute combat round from AD&D was that it could result in combats taking about as much time to resolve mechanically as they took in-game. Five rounds of combat between a few opponents could often be resolved in about 5 minutes.

 

[Scribe Ineti]

For a standard encounter, I'd say about 30-45 minutes tops. Enough time to get into it and enjoy some of the tactics without getting bogged down.

Much shorter than that and I'd wonder why I didn't handwave the battle and move on. If it's a foregone conclusion that the PCs are to win the combat, why bother spending the time going through the motions?

"You face off a legion of kobolds. After several minutes of brisk fighting, you chew through the front lines and face off against the royal guard defending the kobold general." And then the encounter picks up from there.

I've never planned an encounter to be a guaranteed win for the PCs. I don't see what the point would be. Even a standard, short encounter should be worth running through, and for me and my group, 30-45 minutes seems to be the butter zone.