Ideally, How Many Battles?

[Henry]

And I should note, because people seem to be particularly quick to leaping on what I didn't say, that I don't in fact think mechanical balance and mathematical precision and elegance are bad things. I like unified mechanics. I very much support designers working out the mathematical consequences of their choices, because I see so many house rulers fail at that and remember 'back in the day' that being one of the biggest problems with the hodge podge system that 1e AD&D grew into as it expanded. (See early dragon issues for detailed discussion and examples). All I'm saying is I think we've got over focused on that as an end unto itself and neglected other things that are equally if not more important.

How is that a result of focusing on the math, though? Blame Gary Gygax and crew! Back when I used to hear Gary speak at cons, his early groups had just as many combats, spaced over similar time frames, as we do now, according to this survey. In fact, when the mods & admins of ENworld got to play with him, we had two combats in the space of even a three hour game! I have reason to believe it's really par for the course for the majority of players out there -- not because of where the game's been focused recently, but because of where it's been focused for its entire existance.

 

[Celebrim]

How is that a result of focusing on the math, though? Blame Gary Gygax and crew! Back when I used to hear Gary speak at cons, his early groups had just as many combats, spaced over similar time frames, as we do now, according to this survey. In fact, when the mods & admins of ENworld got to play with him, we had two combats in the space of even a three hour game! I have reason to believe it's really par for the course for the majority of players out there -- not because of where the game's been focused recently, but because of where it's been focused for its entire existance.

Way to completely miss the point there, Henry. Neither me nor the poster I was responding to were complaining about combat heavy games. And as I said in the earlier post in this thread, I've had 8-10 combats in a 4 or 5 hour session before, and once was involved in a single combat that lasted two real life days with virtually no sleep (ok, there were 50,000+ NPCs involved, but still, the PC's were fighting through it as well). It's not having alot of combat that is the issue, but the idea that there is some ideal pacing of combat in a theoretical ideal session that I reject.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I reject the entire ideal that there is an ideal number of combats per session, or per adventure, or even per campaign. I further reject the notion that that there is a perfect length of time in which a combat finishes. And since I reject that such an ideal even exists, I further reject that a game system ought to be designed with the goal of attaining some idealized pace of combat. All those things are extraneous and miss the point.

You can't define proper pacing, or proper speed of play, or any of those things strictly in terms of sessions. The proper pacing of play and the proper speed of play are rightly matters that have to do with story investment, influence on the narrative, and the richness of experienced provided by the scene. The pacing in play should be part of the stagecraft of the DM, not an artifact of design save where the design facilitates good stagecraft. It's not merely that its an impossible magical feat, but its not even necessarily a desirable feat even in its magicalness.

I can't give you experience points yet for this, so have an IOU.

Though this doesn't mean we can't think there's a very good guideline: I said "1-2 fights per adventure" because I can think of stories I like and that's about how they go. I use that guideline to keep me from overloading. But I can also use it as a comparison to ask if maybe I need fewer than 1 or more than 2 because by not treating fights as filler I now know what an important fight looks like and can feel out where it's missing.

 

[Henry]

Way to completely miss the point there, Henry. Neither me nor the poster I was responding to were complaining about combat heavy games. And as I said in the earlier post in this thread, I've had 8-10 combats in a 4 or 5 hour session before, and once was involved in a single combat that lasted two real life days with virtually no sleep (ok, there were 50,000+ NPCs involved, but still, the PC's were fighting through it as well). It's not having alot of combat that is the issue, but the idea that there is some ideal pacing of combat in a theoretical ideal session that I reject.

Did I say you were complaining?

You said, "...All I'm saying is I think we've got over focused on that as an end unto itself and neglected other things that are equally if not more important."...I'm saying we've BEEN focused on it for almost the entire history of the game, from Gygax onward. He and his crew led the way, and we've been following suit ever since, it's nothing different.

I agree there's not an ideal for every group, but it sure seems that there's an ideal consisting of a lot of combat for the majority of groups (given this thread, similar threads over the years, and the majority of D&D'ers I've run across over the years).

 

[Celebrim]

Did I say you were complaining?

You said, "...All I'm saying is I think we've got over focused on that as an end unto itself and neglected other things that are equally if not more important."...I'm saying we've BEEN focused on it for almost the entire history of the game, from Gygax onward...

Errr.... that's twice now.

Oh nevermind, I give up.

Someone just shoot me now.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Since there is no "In my learned opinion, and barring unforseen circumstances, and given my experiences in this recreational activity, I would be inclined to say, under no duress whatsoever, that I don't know." I have to abstain.

But more seriously, it depends. I would like 2-3 a session, which for me is about 1 every 2 hours or so given our usual sessions.

 

[Lanefan]

When asked "how many combats would you like" the only possible answer is "as many as it takes to suit the situation"; and whether playing out that many combats takes 1 session or 3 sessons or 10 sessions is immaterial.

In the OP's ideal world where each combat resolves in just a few minutes of playing time, I suspect we'd get through a lot more per session than we do now (and as a result the story would move much faster as well), but I can't put a number to it.

Lan-"and sometimes, it's how many sessions per combat"-efan

 

[C_M2008]

I think a better question might be: what percentage of time would be devoted to combat in an ideal session?

10-20% would be ideal in my mind, but then I'm the sort of guy that wishes fights were 10-20mins max like back in earlier editions.

 

[Bluenose]

One important or climactic 'encounter' per session satisfies me and my group. Note that an encounter doesn't have to be a fight, we've had ones where the important encounter was a trial, and one where it was an attempt to fail to win a contest while still looking as if we were trying as hard as possible. If that takes up half the session, so be it. Any other encounters appear as appropriate, and we try to streamline these as much as possible, although occasionally they become unexpectedly interesting and take more time than expected. Ideally encounters take up no more than half a session in total.

 

[Jhaelen]

I think a better question might be: what percentage of time would be devoted to combat in an ideal session?

I'd say it's not a 'better' question, it's a completely different question.

Imho, the (hypothetical) 'ideal' number of battles in a session must be independent from how long their resolution takes. I.e. the answer is independent from the rpg/combat system. It's solely a question of story requirements.

If combat resolution takes too long using a certain system, you'll either use a different system or cut down the number of battles. And if doing the latter you no longer have the 'ideal' number of battles.