DragonSword
First Post
I guess it depends on the players and what they prefer.
Too Much Roleplaying - Not Enough Hacking - keeping the action flowing
- Thread starter pogre
- Start date
MonsterMash
First Post
We usually have 1+ combats per 3-4 hour session, but as we don't play as long as some groups there may not be time for more than one big combat encounter.
Rolls vs. Combat
One thing that I've found over the years of DMing is that the players really like to roll dice as solutions to stuff. Combat is the best outlet for that kind of thing because a bad roll one round quickly leads to interesting results and the chance to redeem the bad luck of the dice the next round.
If things look like the players have actively circumvented planned or plausible random combats, then instead of railroading I change things around a bit to up the stakes slightly and try to give each player a situation which relies on multiple dice rolls with story consequences. Give the rogue a chest to unlock and make sure it's trapped, there are traps within the chest, there's jewellry that needs to be appraised, etc. Give the fighter's mount some kind of disease or natural animal episode (balky horses, mount goes into heat, hoof infection, etc.) that needs them to resolve it. Encounter some kind of puzzle with consequences beyond just needing to figure things out. Tell the lore types that their initial survey of the strangely written scrolls leads them to believe that the information they need should be contained within, or information about a notable side-quest, or a possible resolution or advancement of the players' individual stories.
Not all players mind the lack of combat, either, so if that's the case then there's no need to worry about how many combat encounters you have. If they do, then a good way to insert a combat into a place where killing or maiming would be highly inappropriate is to have a guard or a non-enemy npc develop attitude and call one or more of the pc's out to a fight, mano a mano, so that the characters need to worry about combat without any of the fancy plusses or spells, and/or concentrate on dealing nonlethal damage only.
Several ways around it. First rule is to know your group and what they want. Second rule of thumb is to tinker with game balance ONLY if there's a pattern of unbalance. Occasionally disappointing certain players is good. If the game bogs down this session to deal with fact finding, recovery, and plot advancement, it just means that the players will be much more likely to motivate themselves into action for the next game. It could also be a symptom that the party has been too hasty, there has been too much combat in relationship to the story arc, and this one session is an adjustment to compensate for overmuch hack and slash.
Games are organic things that defy best intentions of players and DMs alike. And nearly every movie or plot has a deadpoint where nothing overt happens as the story adjusts to its past and begins to launch into the next stage.
One thing that I've found over the years of DMing is that the players really like to roll dice as solutions to stuff. Combat is the best outlet for that kind of thing because a bad roll one round quickly leads to interesting results and the chance to redeem the bad luck of the dice the next round.
If things look like the players have actively circumvented planned or plausible random combats, then instead of railroading I change things around a bit to up the stakes slightly and try to give each player a situation which relies on multiple dice rolls with story consequences. Give the rogue a chest to unlock and make sure it's trapped, there are traps within the chest, there's jewellry that needs to be appraised, etc. Give the fighter's mount some kind of disease or natural animal episode (balky horses, mount goes into heat, hoof infection, etc.) that needs them to resolve it. Encounter some kind of puzzle with consequences beyond just needing to figure things out. Tell the lore types that their initial survey of the strangely written scrolls leads them to believe that the information they need should be contained within, or information about a notable side-quest, or a possible resolution or advancement of the players' individual stories.
Not all players mind the lack of combat, either, so if that's the case then there's no need to worry about how many combat encounters you have. If they do, then a good way to insert a combat into a place where killing or maiming would be highly inappropriate is to have a guard or a non-enemy npc develop attitude and call one or more of the pc's out to a fight, mano a mano, so that the characters need to worry about combat without any of the fancy plusses or spells, and/or concentrate on dealing nonlethal damage only.
Several ways around it. First rule is to know your group and what they want. Second rule of thumb is to tinker with game balance ONLY if there's a pattern of unbalance. Occasionally disappointing certain players is good. If the game bogs down this session to deal with fact finding, recovery, and plot advancement, it just means that the players will be much more likely to motivate themselves into action for the next game. It could also be a symptom that the party has been too hasty, there has been too much combat in relationship to the story arc, and this one session is an adjustment to compensate for overmuch hack and slash.
Games are organic things that defy best intentions of players and DMs alike. And nearly every movie or plot has a deadpoint where nothing overt happens as the story adjusts to its past and begins to launch into the next stage.
WHY, why does action relate to combat? While I do see it important in a game to have balance there are other ways than combat and they can be found in any B movie; the chase, the ticking time bomb, the rope bridge, the ledge walk, etc...
Action is how you present it but yea about one combat a session.
Action is how you present it but yea about one combat a session.
DragonSword
First Post
Hand of Evil said:WHY, why does action relate to combat? While I do see it important in a game to have balance there are other ways than combat and they can be found in any B movie; the chase, the ticking time bomb, the rope bridge, the ledge walk, etc...
Action is how you present it but yea about one combat a session.
You preach it brother!
pogre said:
Pogre,
Keep an assassin hired by their enemies, the revenge-seeking son/daughter of an old foe, a disgruntled former associate/employee on Prozac or some other non-plotline NPC in your hip pocket for just such a situation. I have only used this a couple of times in the last decade of DMing, but it is a great solution for those occassions when the fidget quotiant is rising, certain players are getting that glazed, feral "must kill something now" looks and all are reflexively clutching their dice bags.
Such an NPC can be dropped in at a moment's notice - with very little prep - and should be bad enough to mount a serious threat to the PCs. As the PCs advance in level, pull out the NPC sheet from time-to-time and bump the stats to keep them a challenge. Depending on how the players react, it can also open up another plotline or sidequest.
~ OO
Desdichado
Hero
pogre; I feel your pain. I went through three sessions of my campaign with the only combat being two fights at the first part of the first session. After that, I decided that this was completely unacceptable, as I also knew that my group liked to fight, and that was a bit of a dry spell by their standards (and mine, frankly.) Since I had a lot of conspiracies and intrigues, and generally mean and nasty guys populating my setting, I just stepped up their aggressiveness a bit.
Sure, a few of the combats have been almost gratuitous; "some thugs leap out to attack and try to steal your money!" kinds of things, but not many.
Old One: I like your new avatar!
Sure, a few of the combats have been almost gratuitous; "some thugs leap out to attack and try to steal your money!" kinds of things, but not many.
Old One: I like your new avatar!
Rel
Liquid Awesome
Old One said:
I accidentally set up a situation like this for myself on the first night of my new Eberron campaign. The first adventure had the PC's unwittingly make a repraisal raid on a criminal organization. So now that they've pissed them off I can have a goon squad or assassin show up whenever I need one to keep the tempo up. I'd be more proud of this if I had done it on purpose.
Generally I don't absolutely force a combat if one isn't seeming to flow naturally from the plotline. I pride myself on the world being internally consistant so having some bad guys show up out of nowhere just for the sake of having a battle isn't something I normally do. BUT, if I've already implanted a REASON for said bad guys to pop up and attack the party then I'm not breaking my own rules.
Also, the XP system we use doesn't require fighting for the party to get a decent night's worth of experience so nobody is forcing the issue on that account.
Rel said:Well, it does make him look older than he really is. But it's slimming!
Rel (and JD),
You haven't seen me lately...with the lack of sleep brought about from baby #2, I AM looking a bit like my avatar these days (only with bigger bags under the eyes
)!BTW, Rel shoot me an e-mail at phillipd "at" moaa "dot" org if you get a chance today...include your phone number and I will give you a ring about GENCON.
~ OO
