Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 5313017" data-attributes="member: 467">I was thinking about this on my way home from my regular Pathfinder campaign last night: whether its 4E, Pathfindser or 3E, overly long (in real world session time terms) are Not Good. They eat up more temporal resources than they are worth, either delaying or pushing aside other aspects of play that are equally or more rewarding (Or &quot;fun&quot;), for what?This isn't to say that every long combat is bad or a waste. Sometimes you want a big long epic combat that eats 2 to 4 hours of game time. But sometimes you want combat that moves quickly and smoothly, resolving in 15-30 minutes so the PCs can get on with the adventure at hand.I think what newer/current editions of D&amp;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 &quot;unimportant&quot; or &quot;minion&quot; combats beings quick and &quot;important&quot; 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.&nbsp;The Balin's Tomb scene in Lord of the Rings comes to mind as a relatively &quot;unimportant&quot; scene that gets the full on treatment,while the &quot;boss fight&quot; scene with the Balrog gets the &quot;short shrift&quot; treatment -- not because of relative importance in the overall &quot;story&quot;, but because of what makes an interesting combat encounter versus what doesn't.I am considering going back to my 3.5 &quot;system&quot; of making most battles very abstract, wirth only a few being worth the full investment. But, the PCs are closing in on 10th level, which means if they don't have to expend resources for 'unimportant&quot; fights, they are entirely too jacked for the &quot;important&quot; ones.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 5313017, member: 467"] I was thinking about this on my way home from my regular Pathfinder campaign last night: whether its 4E, Pathfindser or 3E, overly long (in real world session time terms) are Not Good. They eat up more temporal resources than they are worth, either delaying or pushing aside other aspects of play that are equally or more rewarding (Or "fun"), for what? This isn't to say that every long combat is bad or a waste. Sometimes you want a big long epic combat that eats 2 to 4 hours of game time. But sometimes you want combat that moves quickly and smoothly, resolving in 15-30 minutes so the PCs can get on with the adventure at hand. 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. The Balin's Tomb scene in Lord of the Rings comes to mind as a relatively "unimportant" scene that gets the full on treatment,while the "boss fight" scene with the Balrog gets the "short shrift" treatment -- not because of relative importance in the overall "story", but because of what makes an interesting combat encounter versus what doesn't. I am considering going back to my 3.5 "system" of making most battles very abstract, wirth only a few being worth the full investment. But, the PCs are closing in on 10th level, which means if they don't have to expend resources for 'unimportant" fights, they are entirely too jacked for the "important" ones. [/QUOTE]

Verification