Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5160802" data-attributes="member: 4937">The question is not answerable as asked.&nbsp; The session before last was planned to have 4-5 combats.&nbsp; We ended up doing 3, which was IMO not quite enough.&nbsp; The session I just ran had 1 combat, which was about right.&nbsp; As a player, I've been 4-5 sessions in a row without getting into a combat, and that was about right.&nbsp; I've also been in 8-10 combats in a single session, and that was also about right.&nbsp; I've been in combats that resolved in under a minute and that was appropriate, and I've been in a combat that took nearly 48 hours of solid gaming to resolve and that was perfectly appropriate as well.I reject the entire ideal that there is an ideal number of combats per session, or per adventure, or even per campaign.&nbsp; I further reject the notion that that there is a perfect length of time in which a combat finishes.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It's not merely that its an impossible magical feat, but its not even necessarily a desirable feat even in its magicalness.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5160802, member: 4937"] The question is not answerable as asked. The session before last was planned to have 4-5 combats. We ended up doing 3, which was IMO not quite enough. The session I just ran had 1 combat, which was about right. As a player, I've been 4-5 sessions in a row without getting into a combat, and that was about right. I've also been in 8-10 combats in a single session, and that was also about right. I've been in combats that resolved in under a minute and that was appropriate, and I've been in a combat that took nearly 48 hours of solid gaming to resolve and that was perfectly appropriate as well. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification