Long Combats are Bad

[LeStryfe79]

I've also found, to my tastes anyway, that combat flowed better in 3rd with fewer players (1-4), and better in 4th for a larger number (5 or greater). I think the number of players had a less impactful bearing on AD&D which is partly why I still enjoy that system the most. My own homebrew kinda plays like a d20 version of Rolemaster, and most of the combat plays out in 10 to 20 minutes which is ideal for me.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

I think what newer/current editions of D&D need is a two tiered combat system: one is fully tactical and specific (the current PF or 4E systems, whichever floats your boat) and the other is abstract and quick. Now, I am not talking about only "unimportant" or "minion" combats beings quick and "important" combats taking a long time. Rather, a pair of systems where the DM can decide which to use on the fly, at the time of play, depending on the mood of the group, the hour and any other arbitrary needs.

Yep. I've been addressing this on my blog and will be following up in the next couple of weeks. But I really like the idea of Torg's old Standard vs. Dramatic combat system although admittedly this isn't exactly what you're referring to.

 

[LeStryfe79]

Yep. I've been addressing this on my blog and will be following up in the next couple of weeks. But I really like the idea of Torg's old Standard vs. Dramatic combat system although admittedly this isn't exactly what you're referring to.

I disagree. Combat that doesn't matter is the last bastion of a poor DM. I've seen it a thousand times.

 

[Afrodyte]

I should revise my previous statement. Long combat is fine. Boring combat sucks.

 

[Reynard]

I disagree. Combat that doesn't matter is the last bastion of a poor DM. I've seen it a thousand times.

Define "matter". If you mean "has consequences" I totally agree. If you mean " is important to the story" I disagree wholeheartedly.

 

[ArcaneSpringboard]

I disagree. Combat that doesn't matter is the last bastion of a poor DM. I've seen it a thousand times.

Yes, but you should be able to have combats that matter yet only last 30 minutes.

 

[Tallifer]

What do I want to do with my time when I play?

(What do you want to do with your time when you play?)

1. I like doing battle with monsters. I like to use my character's powers, feats and tricks, and I like to see his companions use theirs. Every round is interesting, even if my character is stunned or dominated. How will the party succeed? What neat tricks will be displayed by the adventurers and by the monsters?

Make the combats varied (easy to do with a varitety of rooms, terrains and monsters) and I will happily fight for two hours per combat.

2. Sometimes I want to develop the world and my character's place in it. But I find this is usually better done one on one with the dungeon master during some downtime. No sense boring other players.

3. Sometimes I like it when the party interacts socially with some denizens of the world, but ONLY if the other players and the dungeon master are actually willing to speak in character. Otherwise, we might as well do a cut scene.

 

[Hussar]

Define "matter". If you mean "has consequences" I totally agree. If you mean " is important to the story" I disagree wholeheartedly.

Whereas, to me, if I wanted to play pointless combats, I've got MUCH better outlets than an RPG for that. There isn't an RPG out there that can get my heart pounding faster than something like Halo or Half Life.

Pointless combats are the number one reason I don't play CRPG's. If the only purpose of this combat is to grind off a couple of spells and some healing resources, why are we bothering in the first place? Talk about a pace killer.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ah. And the raven is always a fmailiar because there are no pointless birds, the rabbit is always the lure of a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing because there are no pointless rabbits, the beggar is always an informant or a spy because there are no pointless encounters with beggars, the bandits are always working for the BBEG because there are no pointless encounters with bandits.

That describes, to me, the dullest and most predictable of worlds.

YMMV, though, and different strokes for different folks is why different games exist!





RC

 

[Hussar]

Ah. And the raven is always a fmailiar because there are no pointless birds, the rabbit is always the lure of a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing because there are no pointless rabbits, the beggar is always an informant or a spy because there are no pointless encounters with beggars, the bandits are always working for the BBEG because there are no pointless encounters with bandits.

That describes, to me, the dullest and most predictable of worlds.

YMMV, though, and different strokes for different folks is why different games exist!





RC

Hey, if you want to waste time with talking to beggars that are completely unrelated to anything the PC's are doing, are going to do, or have done, more power to you.

I still have zero interest in playing though.

You'll note, however, that there is a very strong "I" in my post. I posted what I want in a game. I posted what I do not want in a game. This in no way applies to your game, since I was only talking about what I want out of a game that I play.

To me, it's all about pacing. Spending time in completely irrelevant combats whose purpose is the grind away resources is about as interesting as grinding levels in an MMO. Obviously some find that very fun and interesting, if the success of MMO's is to be a judge. But, me, I prefer my fiction a lot tighter than that.

But, hey, like you said, different strokes. Obviously there are some who prefer a much slower paced game where considerable time is spent on various elements that I do not particularly care for. That's groovy. Not to my taste, but, groovy nonetheless.