Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Stormonu]

[No message]

 

[maddman75]

The game was designed to have longer combats than you prefer. I found 3e combats too short - it always felt like the monsters had tons of abilities they never got to use. I'd suggest you play 3e instead of 4e.

 

[Obryn]

If I'm engaged in a relaxed game, why must I resort to using tricks to "speed up my combat"? I'm talking about the type of tricks mentioned in several threads about speeding up 4E's combat - halving monster hit points, having PCs roll attack and damage together in the same roll and all the other "tricks" people have presented just to get their combat down to a reasonable time span. Why can't the game just present a combat system in which you can resolve the situation in a reasonable amount of time in the first place. Why do you have to kludge the system to make it work for you? Why is it acceptable?

I haven't found I've needed to cut HPs in half - I gave a similar idea a shot, a while back, but didn't find it added anything to my game. I don't find that I need to kludge it at all, actually. I use a program called Masterplan to make my DMing even smoother, but I can go without if need be.

I think one of the issues you're running into is that 4e's combat is intentionally highly-interactive and highly-tactical. It's not a combat engine you can just let run on autopilot, and it absolutely runs best when the players and DM are both engaged with it.

I'd say if your main goal for combat is kicking back and not worrying about tactics and preparation, and getting fights over in 15 minutes, 4e (and 3e) past the first few levels probably isn't what you're looking for. I'd look towards one of the OSR games, or maybe at something altogether different like WFRP2.

I think any RPG that requires you to rush through combat by using various tricks or techniques is a telling failure in that part of the game. A combat can be dramatic and exciting without having to be rushed. I don't want to be hastened through running a combat just so I can get it to be over with in a half-hour to hour instead of two-hour, three-hour or longer combats in an RPG. If I can't play through a combat at about the same pace I run the rest of the game and reliably have 15 minute to half-hour combats (or about the same length it takes a group of characters to interact with an NPC or search a non-empty room in the game), I think that's bad game design - a faulty focus placed on one aspect of the game over another portion of the game.

That's just it, though - it's not a failure in game design. It's a failure of the game to match your expectations. Hour-long combats are built into the system, and longer combats are expected for major battles. And more than a few people are having great fun with 4e as-is. Quite a few more find it works great for them with some "kludges" which you'd rather not deal with. And quite a few yet more find that it doesn't work for them at all.

4e was never designed towards 15 minute combats. Yes, those can be fun, too, but that was never a goal. Other games are geared towards quick & easy combat; not every game has to be.

I'd probably say you're playing the wrong game if you're not enjoying it, if it's not meeting what you want out of your RPGs, and if you would rather not put effort towards making it work better for you. I'd try some other games that will work better for your expectations out of the box.

-O

 

[frankthedm]

individual player turns, tactical placement of minis and thick rulebooks lead to long combats.

 

[Mallus]

My group had the opposite reaction to 4e combat: they loved it, despite, for the most part, being talky-talky gamers who happily play combat-free, and even dice-free, sessions consisting solely of character and plot development. During my last stint as DM I ran a four+ hour combat, split over two sessions, pitting the PC's (on a train) against pirates in an airship. Who knew pushing, pulling, sliding, and condition-inflicting could be so much fun? I've never run an encounter both that long and that satisfying using previous editions of D&D.

Anyhow, seems like 4e just ain't your thing, mang...

 

[CleverNickName]

I think that's bad game design - a faulty focus placed on one aspect of the game over another portion of the game.

But the DM sets the focus of the game...not the rules.

"Play something else" is always an option. Another suggestion you will probably hear a lot is "have fewer battles." The second one is probably your best bet, IMO.

It sounds like you and your friends really enjoy 4E, but you don't care for the battles all that much. So instead of dropping the game whole-hog and going with something else, just cut back on the battles a bit. Frodo and Sam didn't have to do battle six times a day, after all.

Have only one battle per gaming session, maybe two. And make them *awesome,* with lots of dialogue, rich descriptions, special terrain, and unexpected surprises.

Quality over quantitiy. That's the key.

 

[xechnao]

There are many feelings that games tend to evoke. Relaxing may be one of them but not the only one. Certainly a game that to play it properly never allows you to relax and keeps you constantly worried about things artificial and not intuitive does not sound fun to me. Rpgs that are built and designed on metagaming calculations like battleboards or betting accounting tend to bore me. OTOH rpg storytelling can be boring sometimes too. What seems to be more fascinating is action that feels like action and that has to be evolving on the tracks of some story or plot purpose.
Both oldschool and newschool design have their merits and flaws. Unfortunately or fortunately, I believe that for tabletop rpgs there is still much room for improvement.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The idea that you cannot have tactically satisfying combats that take 15-30 minutes, tops, is IMHO and IME a false one. AFAICT, though, having tactically satisfying minature-centric combats that take 15-30 minutes is difficult.

And, as the WotC marketing data shows, gamers who buy minis spend a heck of a lot more than gamers who don't. I wouldn't hold my breath, hoping that 5e goes in the other direction.

Fortunately, if you don't like the 4e combat engine, there are many other fine games out there to play.


RC

 

[Imaro]

@ OP: I am playing 4e and I can kind of sympathize with you for a couple of reasons...

1. If you come from earlier editions of D&D into 4e then overall combat is certainly longer than nearly any other edition... with the possible exception of some high-level 3e fights... and even some of those could end quicker than some low to mid-level 4e fights. The combat length in 4e however is pretty much hardcoded so there is no sticking to low levels for quicker fights as with 3.x (E6/E8/etc.)

2. There are no classes in 4e where you can just step up and whack creatures like the fighter in previous editions. I lament this because IMO, there are plenty of people who would enjoy a game like D&D but don't want to play mini-chess everytime a fight breaks out... I actually lost one of my casual players (who only played Barbs and Fighters in 3.5) when I decided to run a 4e game.

3. Also, I find that the combat is causing the actual adventures my players are partaking in to move at a snails pace... literally. This is a preference thing, so I won't say it's "bad game design"... but I do think that it's game design that perhaps didn't take into consideration how the length of the combat encounter being hardcoded across all levels of play would affect the pacing of the overall game and the disconnect it would create with those who do not favor the focus on the individual encounter over the adventure as a whole.

 

[Obryn]

3. Also, I find that the combat is causing the actual adventures my players are partaking in to move at a snails pace... literally. This is a preference thing, so I won't say it's "bad game design"... but I do think that it's game design that perhaps didn't take into consideration how the length of the combat encounter being hardcoded across all levels of play would affect the pacing of the overall game and the disconnect it would create with those who do not favor the focus on the individual encounter over the adventure as a whole.

Actually, speaking as a big fan of 4e, I agree here. It's one of the major flaws of WotC's adventures in particular, IMO. I'm fine with longer combats, but to keep plot interest across sessions, there need to be fewer of them in between story developments. (And there needs to be more emphasis on diplomacy/avoidance as solutions, as well as fewer "this monster attacks immediately and to the death" encounters.)

-O