Tired of hearing people hate on longer battle times in strategic RPG's

[invokethehojo]

Something that pops up on these boards a lot seems to be the argument, "back in the day we could have 5 fights and plenty of roleplaying in a 4 hour session, now we have time for like a fight or two and we are done." This, to me, is getting very old. Recently we went back and played a session like "back in the day" and I found it boring. Most characters back then didn't use spells, so they didn't have a lot of options in combat, hence combat was short.

I like options in combat, and I like playing martial characters that fight in a strategic way, so I like the modern RPG's that do this. I do agree that fights take longer than I would love, but it simply isn't possible to have a high level of strategy in combat and not have that combat take a significant amount of time.

What I find surprising is that most games have evolved their rules over the years to make combat more strategic (and therefore longer) but have kept the old adventure format where there is one combat strung up after another. If combats take longer but are more fun, that is great, that means we don't need to fight a bunch of mini-resource-dwindling combats to lead up to the combat that will actually be cool, instead we can just have one or two cool combats per session and have the rest of the time be for more RP. But it seems like the published adventures as well as home made ones both still stick to the old format.

So what is it that people don't like here: longer combats, or just too many combats now that they take longer? Do we need to adapt, or does the game need to take a step back in time?

 

[Mark CMG]

If combats take longer but are more fun, that is great, that means we don't need to fight a bunch of mini-resource-dwindling combats to lead up to the combat that will actually be cool, instead we can just have one or two cool combats per session and have the rest of the time be for more RP.

The idea that a certain number of combats are included in any given adventure specifically to absorb a percentage of character resources is more of a modern game construct. This is not to say that there weren't many potential lesser encounters in adventures from Ye Olden Dayes (is that enough "E"s?), but there was a sense of simulationism in those old adventures whereby big villains surrounded themselves with little villains and traps. While those lesser encounters would absorb resources, there was the understanding that the clever adventurers would avoid them, perhaps all of them, if possible. They weren't there as part of a formula in the same sense as in modern game design.

 

[Mark CMG]

But setting aside my previous post as more of a side note, and addressing the issues raised in the OP more directly, I think part of the problem is the divide between what a game purports to call itself and what it takes as its main focus in earnest. I've been wargaming since the early seventies, prior to the advent of D&D/RPGs, and still wargame regularly. We've just started a new Hordes of the Things campaign locally, a fantasy miniatures wargame ruleset that is very fun indeed!

I think when a game is as much or more a wargame than an RPG it behooves the designers to embrace that rather than to act as if it is not the case. While RPGs have their roots in wargaming, they took a path that led in a non-wargamey direction, if not as much evidenced in D&D then definitely in many of the other RPGs that have come to market over the 37 year history of RPGs. Conversely, the video and computer games that call themselves (C)RPGs developed very wargamey aspects, primarily because that is what computers/programs do best and in part because computer/programs simply cannot satisfactorily emulate a tabletop RPG experience in comparison to what a human DM/GM/Referee/Facilitator can bring to the table (pun intended).

Thus, the point I would add into the discussion that has begun in this thread is that gamers have come to expect a certain lower level of combat focus in tabletop RPGs so when they (many of them anyway) become involved with something calling itself an RPG that focuses primarily on wargamey type aspects, it can tend to be noted and discussed. I think, however, that a good point is made in the OP regarding how fewer, but primarily important combats can be kept while lesser combats culled, thus creating more game session space for RPing between the important combats. However, if the nature of the important combats is going to be detailed more akin to wargaming, then it will still put off some RPGers who are not fans of wargaming.

 

[Dannager]

Lengthy combats that are exciting are not a problem for me. It really isn't important to me how I spend my gaming time as long as I'm enjoying myself, and I enjoy myself a lot in combat encounters.

 

[Stormonu]

So what is it that people don't like here: longer combats, or just too many combats now that they take longer? Do we need to adapt, or does the game need to take a step back in time?

For me, it is both are an issue. Having recently just run a BECMI game, the current version seems too bogged in devoting too much time and effort to combat. If I were palying DDM, Descent or Heroquest, I probably wouldn't mind it so much. But when I reach for an RPG, I'm not just reaching for a combat simulator, I'm looking to immerse myself in the role of a person in a fantasy world, and that goes beyond just fighting wierd and powerful monsters.

 

[Dice4Hire]

This is really a playstyle thing. Some groups are not tactical, and combats advance the plot (and tend to be very sparse to boot) while on the other end of the spectrum, people like intricate, tactical combats.

Both are good way to play and have strengths and such.

But yes, this is a common facet of edition warring.

Argue less and understand more, is my view.

 

[Thunderfoot]

And for me, one man's boring is another man's role playing...

You state that combat is boring because not everyone has spells, that is one reason I don't like the new versions, EVERYONE has spells or spell-like abilities. It doesn't make it wrong per se, but for a lot of us grognards, it does mean that fighters and magic-users look exactly the same, sans armor.

Neither is bad wrong fun, just different. Often times it is looked upon by you "young'uns" that without special moves or a whiz-bang spell-like ability that you aren't contributing or doing much. I also understand that movies (wire-fu and modern action sequences (people don't fly backwards when they get shot)) and video games (yes I said it, non stop action - zero RP) have a lot to do with this. While those of us that are older used to "see" a lot of combat in our minds (minis were rarely if ever used).

Again, neither is wrong, just different. There is a big disconnect between modern gamers and those that were around in the beginning, especially since 3.X was released. The idea of playing without minis or special skills is so foreign an idea to a "modern" role player that to go back to bare bones seems primitive, and I respect that, but that bare bones, stripped down play style led to some of the greatest memories of my childhood, therefore, it holds a very special place for me and my fellow grognards.

There are entire movements devoted to the bare bones play styles ("Rulings not Rulebook"s is one of my favorites) and of course with computers at your beck and call many of the aspects of modern play can be streamlined. But there was a time when combat was NOT the primary reason to play, and was really the only part with rules because everything else was negotiable.

Most of all, the old style was about surviving, not winning. I see a real trend towards what is known as "end game" thinking in a lot of role players today. Planning character paths, choosing feats and skills to shape the character several levels from now, etc. And even those that don't run into the "Epic" levels still have a plan to get from point A to point B.

This is also where I think the concept of sandbox versus scripting versus railroading comes in. Before, it was the DMs job to get everyone going toward a goal, because players knew what the next level was going to bring, now players want the DM to give them certain encounters so that they can achieve certain milestones to get them to where they want to be. I don't know why I haven't ever thought of that before now, but there it is. So maybe that's what all this old vs new really is, a time when less planning was done by the players and the DM was free to move the world without pissing them off versus the modern concept of the DM trying to "serve up" opportunities for players to possibly achieve character goals. *shrugs*

Who really knows?

 

[Morrus]

Sure you can keep all the options while reducing combat time.

The complaint is not the length of combat - it's the grindyness of it. Down to at-wills, still whittling away at those hit points. If it were exciting for two hours, the length wouldn't be an issue.

If one tries halving monster hit points and increasing monster damage, you still have all your options, but combat is half as long and a but more deadly. Not that that's to your taste necessarily, but it illustrates that it's not a binary choice of interesting or short combats; it shows you can have long tedious combats too, as well as short interesting ones.

Sone of us prefer them shorter, especially those of us who only get to game 3-4 hours per week. We'd like to get some decent plot development and roleplaying in, as well as a fight or two, but uf the fights are taking two hours each that becomes much harder.

 

[Mark CMG]

If it were exciting for two hours, the length wouldn't be an issue.

"Mumble, mumble, mumble . . ." - [/Michael Scott post season four]

 

[frankthedm]

The real problem was post 2000 the D&D ruleset became hardcorded to be tactical, with numerous abilities keyed to this so removing the tactical would deeply affect many characters.