Too Much Roleplaying - Not Enough Hacking - keeping the action flowing

[pogre]

Well, we played tonight and there was no combat. None.

Some people brag about sessions like that, but for my group it is definitely a bad thing.

It was not anyone's fault - just the way things fell logically in place. I enjoyed myself, but I could sense disappointment in the players.

Now, I feel like I let my players down because I know what they like - action being thrown at them by the bushel load. They just managed to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I was well prepared with lots of flow charts for the enemy's course of action, but conflict just did not happen.

I was tempted to railroad several times during the session, and frankly. three players were calling on me to do just exactly that.

Next time I will have an encounter planned that will happen no matter what! Do you have an encounter in the bullpen like this?

BTW - I am not asking you to condemn my players' attitudes. I'm really right with them in my love of combat too. If they were into political intrigue and roleplaying most of the time we would be playing a different game.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I have a rule of thumb to have at least one combat per session, if only to vary the flow of the game. Whether a "random" encounter or a planned plot point, it helps my games to just have a change of pacing. Just like a movie should speed up and slow down at certain points to maintain suspense, I think a combat helps a session.

So yes, I always have an encounter in the bullpen.

 

[Piratecat]

We average about a combat every other session, sometimes every three sessions. Depends on how the players handle things; I usually set it up so that there could be a combat every game, but it isn't unusual for the group to find other means of solving the problem.

I think this is balanced by the combat-heavy games that are all about serious butt-kicking. We've got a good balance for our group.

 

[MerricB]

I tend to have quite a bit of combat each session (I think there were 4 last session), and my players really enjoy that aspect of the game.

I try to have role-playing from time to time, but it is often secondary.

Cheers!

 

[Turanil]

Myself I want at least one combat per session. If possible one big combat and two lesser ones. I like when gaming session is a perfect balance of role-play, action (using skills in dangerous situations), and combat. I agree I would feel disappointed by a session without a single combat.

 

[Zappo]

I try to get about one combat per session (in the Planescape game; in the Warcraft game, more than that). Sometimes, this isn't possible. Last session, the PCs spent the entire evening gathering information for the next leg of their journey. I don't mind action-less games, because they generally mean that the party has found a major plot twist and has to think about it, and that's just as good and fun for me and many of my players. But last session there was a new player who - not knowing the plot yet - didn't have much use for the discussion and could have used a bit of hacking and slashing. Despite all my efforts, there was no way to even railroad that; the party was in a city where combat is forbidden and most of the locales abide by that. When the character went outside, I started describing a small riot but before I could draw him into it, the other PCs called him back again. -_-

 

[hero4hire]

I try to fit in at least one combat per session, even if it doesnt have to do with the plot.

The obigatory band of ruffians always comes in handy.

While its not a hard and fast rule (I've had plenty of games when we rp'd the night away) it has served me well.

 

[S'mon]

I think the one-combat-per-session to let off steam is a good rule of thumb, yup. I find that averaging 4 combats per session the way Monte advocates takes way too much time - at high level especially, four '4 PC vs multiple foe' encounters would mean there'd be no room for anything else. Constant hack'n'slash certainly gets boring, OTOH zero combat is often dissatisfying for players since D&D characters are primarily built for combat and 90%+ of their abilities are combat-oriented. Players want to use those abilities, naturally enough. So starting or ending a RP-heavy session with a decent fight usually works well.

 

[Flyspeck23]

Half of my players can't do without combat, and the others either don't mind a single combat or not at all. The average number of combat per session would be above 1 (never did more than 4 combats, IIRC).

I can trust my players to engage in combat every time there's an opportunity (and only one of them keeps trying to avoid combat by all means). If all else fails (never happened so far), I'd let some random opponent kick in the door - there's always someone out for the PC's blood...

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

One combat per session does not sound like a bad idea, really. However, I have several sessions where there is no fighting at all and my players enjoy that just as much so long as there is some furtherance of the plot or some character development or even a mystery. But if the players yearn for it and insist upon it because they like the action, then it is understandable. For my Mutants & Masterminds game I have created 6 random encounters that tie to a different character that are isolated affairs in case the action gets a little slow, I can pull one of them out, rather than lose my players' interests.