Prompted by a very enjoyable 4e session I played in 2 weeks ago, 3 hours where there was one combat at the end of the session, and it took maybe an hour or so. I remember telling the DM I thought the session had had a great balance between time spent in and out of combat. Most 4e sessions IME are more like 75% combat by time spent, although it varies. What do you think is the optimal ratio for session time spent in and out of combat?
D&D 4E What's the best balance in a 4e session between time spent in and out of combat?
D'karr
Adventurer
I run a long game each month for my regular gaming group. This past weekend we played for almost 9 hours. Of that time we had 3 combats, one was a short 30 minute ambush. The second was a knockout, drag-out event against a green dragon that lasted about 1.5 hours, and was the most fun we've had in a combat in a very long time. The third was a defeat for them in which they knew they were headed into a TPK before initiative was even rolled. Instead of walking away they decided to fight anyway. They surrendered when 4 out of 7 were unconscious and dying that combat was about 15-30 minutes.
During the session they discovered that they are being hunted by a powerful enemy in the feywild, that the Harken Forest is being overrun with goblinoids, that the green dragon was threatening the fey of the forest. They made an alliance with a bandit "king" and traveled from Harkenwold to Fallcrest as guards for a priest that is relocating to Fallcrest.
The majority of the session was spent in roleplay interaction - talking with locals, getting info on the road ahead, travel, discovering the feywild enemy (combat), getting charmed by a fey creature (leads to combat with green dragon), "negotiating" with the fey of the forest (TPK potential), negotiating with the bandit "king", getting to Fallcrest, helping the priest settle in, and looking for leads in Fallcrest.
This was a most enjoyable session, and we had about 1/3 of the session in combat. However, combat was exciting and had purpose. Next month they adventure in Fallcrest, and we'll see what happens then.
My "perfect" mix of combat to non-combat is about 1/2 to 1/3 combat. I never like to have a higher ratio that that. Our combats are very non-conventional with the players doing all kinds of "wacky" things instead of concentrating on looking at "powers."
During the session they discovered that they are being hunted by a powerful enemy in the feywild, that the Harken Forest is being overrun with goblinoids, that the green dragon was threatening the fey of the forest. They made an alliance with a bandit "king" and traveled from Harkenwold to Fallcrest as guards for a priest that is relocating to Fallcrest.
The majority of the session was spent in roleplay interaction - talking with locals, getting info on the road ahead, travel, discovering the feywild enemy (combat), getting charmed by a fey creature (leads to combat with green dragon), "negotiating" with the fey of the forest (TPK potential), negotiating with the bandit "king", getting to Fallcrest, helping the priest settle in, and looking for leads in Fallcrest.
This was a most enjoyable session, and we had about 1/3 of the session in combat. However, combat was exciting and had purpose. Next month they adventure in Fallcrest, and we'll see what happens then.
My "perfect" mix of combat to non-combat is about 1/2 to 1/3 combat. I never like to have a higher ratio that that. Our combats are very non-conventional with the players doing all kinds of "wacky" things instead of concentrating on looking at "powers."
Variety is the spice of life. I've had sessions that were entirely interaction, and sessions that were entirely combat. Either is fine.
As a player, I want the DM to offer both interaction and combat, and make both engaging and fun. Then I'm fine with any percentage between them.
As a player, I want the DM to offer both interaction and combat, and make both engaging and fun. Then I'm fine with any percentage between them.
I voted 1/2 combat as my preference, though I've much enjoyed games that were considerably less than 1/2 - at least one fight in the session is still preferable, though. And I've enjoyed running Delves of 3-4 epic combats that took up the whole session, maybe 90% combat. In general though I think most sessions I've played in have averaged around 3/4 or so combat, and I think that's typical of published 4e adventures, whereas I'd prefer more like 1/2 combat for the baseline. I see that 1/2 combat seems to be the leading preference, too.
I think it's best to have a few sessions with no combat. Otherwise, I find it incredibly difficult to get into the story. Trying to have a combat every session feels like banging my head against a memory wall because people forget stuff without sufficient immersion into the story. But if I spend a session or two on setup, then the next 3-4 sessions can have lots of combat because I've set the stage, people know the story, and I don't have to remind them every minute, what's going on (well... sometimes I still have to, but I feel I've done the best I can). The role playing sessions help immensely with visualization. And the resolution feels much more purposeful.
Over the course of 10 sessions, I'd say time spent is probably 60% combat, 40% non-combat. But some sessions may be 100% combat, some maybe 0% combat, and there is of course everything else in between.
Play style and available time per session are also a big factor. In another group, we had 9 hour sessions. This allows for a much more casual pace for role playing and combat, and for fitting multiple combats in a session. With one of my groups, we play LFR, and I just sort of glaze over the story in about 10% of the time, and just jump into the combat, otherwise, there is no way I can wrap up 3 paragon fights in 4-5 hours.
Over the course of 10 sessions, I'd say time spent is probably 60% combat, 40% non-combat. But some sessions may be 100% combat, some maybe 0% combat, and there is of course everything else in between.
Play style and available time per session are also a big factor. In another group, we had 9 hour sessions. This allows for a much more casual pace for role playing and combat, and for fitting multiple combats in a session. With one of my groups, we play LFR, and I just sort of glaze over the story in about 10% of the time, and just jump into the combat, otherwise, there is no way I can wrap up 3 paragon fights in 4-5 hours.
Obryn
Hero
I would say anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 is ideal. I guess I could have picked Half, but I went with Special Snowflake.
More critical, IMO, is the number of combat encounters between plot/story developments. If it's more than 3, your players have already forgotten what they're supposed to care about
-O
More critical, IMO, is the number of combat encounters between plot/story developments. If it's more than 3, your players have already forgotten what they're supposed to care about
-O
Grimmjow
First Post
It really depends on the group your with. If your group likes a lot of combat then most of your game time should be spent hacking-and-slashing. If your group enjoys the roll playing part of it, then try to spend less time in combat. Of course odds are you'll have people who enjoy both, and one or the other. Just try to make sure everyone at the table is having fun
Sound of Azure
Contemplative Soul
I voted 1/3, but it's more like 40% combat. It also varies per session, so the 40% ballpark is just an average over 4 sessions or so.
