What % of game night does your group spend in combat?

depends 100% on what kind of campaign it is we are playing.
4e - about 85% 5e - about 25%
Depends not only on the system, but on the module.  I've had 4e modules which were basically nothign but 5 hours of fighting with a thin veneer of why in the middle, and I've had 4e modules where we spent 4 hours on investigation and character interaction, and half an hour to an hour on fighting at the end - and one memorable mod where we managed to talk our way entirely out of doing any fighting at all, despite it being an expected conclusion of that mod.

If I had to call an ideal, i'd probably go about 60:40 in favour of fighting, but again, it depends on the system.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
Rolling dice versus discussing story or roleplaying is about 50/50. Once it starts to go to either extreme I notice some players start to get bored at the table.
I'm running a Forgotten Realms campaign in 4e at the moment. Looking over my notes we had 9 sessions where the PCs didn't fight at all, 13 where there was one or two fights with RP as well, and 2 large battles which consisted soley of combat prep, fight, and RP wrap up.

My players tend to take something of a cautious, more pragmatic approach to the game. They avoid fighting when possible, but enjoy it when it happens. They are content while investigating, and love politics, mystery and furthering their personal storylines. Many of them have been playing heroclix since it came out, and 4e DnD combat to them is essentially a highly customizable and enjoyable  game of clix.
1 square =1 yard = 1 meter. "Fits all playstyles" the obvious choice Orzel is the mayor of Ranger-town. Favored enemies for Rangers
58033128 wrote:
Seems like community isn't going to give up calling mapless "Theatre of the Mind".  In the interest of equal pretentiousness, I'd like to start a motion to refer to map combat as "Tableau Vivant".  


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

It depends. We have three DMs, and each campaign is different. DM A runs more combat encounters than DM B (me), who runs more combats than DM C. I figure mine is about 20% combat, averaging the heavy combat nights with the no-combat nights.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

Approx 25%, playing 4e.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/23.jpg)

Version:   Combat/Out-of-Combat

1e:  70/30 (we were young and prefered fighting to RP, now if I include time for just BS & goofing off...)
4e:  60/40  (started out closer to 70/30 and we are currently closer to 50/50 so I went with the avg)
5e:  55/45   (I think this is trending to be more RP heavy, but most of our playtesting has been combat oriented)  

I'd say 30% of the game is about combat. Not necessarily combat time as in "from initiative to last death", but how much of the game combat represents, how much is invested in the game by players and DM for that particular aspect: from character/campaign creation to actual development of story and events.

Now actual combat time spent in a game session is hard to say. I could say around 20% to 30% but it's a bit of a guess. It varies a lot. There are sessions where there is no combat at all, and there are those that involve some culmination in the story like a big war between realms or some such event, that can extent combat for longer periods.
In general I would say campaigns are about 50/50. The beginning of a new adventure tends to have next to no combat, but the end of a arch tends to have more.

If I do a one-shot it tends to be about 80/20 by design. From my experience people who join one-shots tend to only care about combat.

Edit: This is for 4e 

Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of Random Stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

Back to Product and General D&D Discussions -- because the mobile site is bad. (Fixed!)

I'd say in 4e it was 90% and that was a problem for me.   Prior editions it was 50/50 probably.  It varied like Slepy says depending on where in the arc you were.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

It was about 75% out of combat 25% in combat when we started with ADnD 2nd edition.
this moved to about 50/50 in 4th edition becouse the combats took longer.

theres numbers are avarages over multiple game sessions as we often have sessions that are all combat or no combat at all. 
With my group, it greatly depends on each session... not all of them even have combat, but those that do tend to have a lot of it.

For a session that does have combat, we tend to spend 80% of the session in combat and the other 20% role-playing while I set up for combat.

For us, the important distinction has always been how much combat happens in that 80% of the session - some systems that ends up being just 1 combat for us and we hate it, other systems its like 8 different combats and we love it.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

Obviously it various from session to session depending on the storyline anas the edition.

Assuming a DDN one-shot of about two hours duration, no more than twenty minutes will be pure ' combat' so circa 15%.
50/50 for my group

What I like about D&D Next is that it speeds up combat, so while we still do 50/50, we can advance the plot so much further rather then spending hours per encounter.
For comparison purposes,
1e: 25%
2e: 20%
3e: 40%
4e: 70%
Depends of you mean what percent of the time we spend playing the game is combat, or what percent of everything we do on a game night. The former is probably somewhere around 30%, the latter is more like 10%.
Like others have said, it depends on the session.

In general, with 4e my games were about 85% combat, 15% other.

In D&DNext, my games are about 35% combat, 65% other.

I like how the ratio has changed.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

What exactly caused the aversion to combat of some gamers? D&D is a combat-oriented RPG. It has always been so. It grew out of a wargame, with the idea being "What if I controlled one soldier, and could help them rise to power and go on grand adventures?". They weren't expected to stop fighting. Hell, in OD&D, there were 3 classes, 1 was SPECIFICLY a warrior and leader of fighting-men (THEY WERE CALLED FIGHTING-MEN), and 1 was specifcly supposed to be a Christian crusader type thing, who while less combat focused was geared towards smashing heretics for the glory of whatever. Even the Wizard, literally the only class that didn't have military training, had most of their spell list consumed by powers that do nothing but blow people to pieces, make them totally helpless, or otherwise murder them or allow you to more easily murder them.

These are the roots of the game. Yes, there was meant to be intrigue and quests and diplomacy and talking and all that good stuff. But you were a band of warrior adventurers, in a savage world full of bandits and barbarians and monsters and villains who wanted nothing more than to kill and loot, and most of your skillset included killing and looting them first. So it always baffles me when players, especialy the self-named old school veterans, trip over themselves and each other to say how little combat their games had, as if combat in a game of heroic fantasy is something abnormal or taboo. I understand that much of it has to do with some weird assumption that you stop playing a role in the story as soon as you start fighting, but I've never bought into that. In combat, my character is the same character. I am still playing the role of that character. I am roleplaying that character. Why would roleplaying my character in a combat situation be somehow lesser than when I'm roleplaying them negotiating or traveling or whatever?

I don't think combat should be the be-all, end all of the game. That's one of the very reasons to make it not a wargame in the first place. It's to inject more story and interaction into the game. But combat is unquestionabley bonded to the game of D&D, and it is an area of the game that should be improved and celebrated, not dumbed-down and shoved aside as if it some defect in the game that must be avoided and dealt with as quickly as possible. It's why whenever I see someone say "The combat is so much quicker!", I often read it as "Thank god THAT'S over!". I don't think individual combats should necessarily take a long time, but I find the way people want them to just be over with disturbing. I actually want less expected combat. I don't think it should be expected that I need to fight 10 orcs for a challenge, or that I need to kill 200 to level up once. I want less fights, but I want each of those fights to mean something. Rather than making the most bland and uninspiring combat system ever just so we can get it over with quickly, I want an involved combat system that actually makes me think and need to pick from multiple viable options, each of which has a meaningful effect on my overall success or failure.

To me, the most important part of fantasy combat IMO feels like a placeholder. Martial combat is what I think about when I think about the sort of setting D&D supposedly is in. I imagine people dueling with steel and will, or vast armies of soldiers clashing on the battlefield. But the extent of the martial combat system is often "Roll, check number, roll, reduce number". I can add my own maneuvers or whatever to the game, but that doesn't change the fact that what is presented to me by the game feels like something just placed there while they think of something better. The magic system, on the other hand, has varied effects to make tactics around, counters to other effects, things that do things other than number reduction, etc. It feels more fleshed out, like they forgot to remove the placeholder martial combat before sending it to the printers but managed to get the magical one in. This is bizzare to me. Magic combat is supposed to be seperate, it's supposed to be tricky and not the first resort. Yet it is the actual combat system of the game. Martial combat is just a default "ATTACK" command that everyone can use when they are out of spells or if they weren't given spells. I know many people claim they just want simple options, but I personally can not fathom how anyone can immerse themselves into combat so bland. Maybe that's part of why they think combat should just be something you need to rush through and get over with.

I won't answer the question presented in the OP. For one, the answer is so dependant on what is happening in each individual game session that an exact percentage as many have apparently been able to provide is something I can't give. But as well I won't answer because I do not want to participate in this culture of turning combat taboo in D&D. I don't want to sound accusatory, but I can't see anything but an agenda here. As others have already started doing, this is all about displaying how little your game dwells on the sin of combat, and how much more mature you are now because you don't have as many combats as you used to when you were an ignorant child who only wanted to have FUN, or how much less combat your favourite edition has in comparison to heretical editions of the game in yet another attempt to tell use why it, those who like it, and any influences from it need to be excised from the game lest they taint the glorious true D&D experince. Which is apparently a game of heroic fantasy, rife with monsters and villains, where nobody fights, because that's juvenile.

Bottom line of this rambling post: Combat is fun, combat is part of the roots of D&D, and you can not only roleplay in combat but combat IS roleplaying. I fully expect an armada of True Roleplayers to tell me how wrong I am, and maybe mention MMOs and video games a few times.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
What exactly caused the aversion to combat of some gamers? D&D is a combat-oriented RPG. It has always been so....These are the roots of the game.


And I used to wet the bed.  I grew out of that too.
Why would roleplaying my character in a combat situation be somehow lesser than when I'm roleplaying them negotiating or traveling or whatever?


Nobody is suggesting it must be.  However, the foregrounding of the mechanics (dice and math) during combat sequences can make immersion in the roleplaying a more difficult endeavor for some.  Furthermore, the development of the game into something more than *just* a combat simulator has opened up a much wider range of narrative possibilities.  Mystery stories, horror campaigns, romance arcs, bildungsroman, etc...
I think there is some concern that the relentless focus on combat to the exclusion of other forms of play has left some people thinking that the game had regressed to little more than a combat simulator again. 

Consider the miserable example of the "Delve" paradigm from 4th edition.  As originally conceived, it was an attempt to draw in new and potentially more casual players who might be daunted by the 3 to 8 hour game sessions some D&D players had grown accustomed to.  A delve was to be a self-contained micro-adventure, playable in about an hour, structured almost like a 3-act screenplay.  A brilliant, BRILLIANT idea....
...which then utterly tanked when the official model for the paradigm was released.  "Dungeon Delve" was 30 micro 'adventures', each of which was made up of...3 combat encounters.  90 bloody combat encounters, with not only the faint scrum of a plot hook scraped over it before presenting 160 pages of sword-slinging.  And at 4e combat speeds, the unfortunate purchaser - me, for instance - realized that he or she was holding not a series of interesting mini-modules, but 250 hours of combat, combat, and nothing but combat.  I can't imagine that anyone ever used more than one or two of the scenarios before realizing that a more exciting time could be had by turning to a random page in the Monster Vault and yelling "roll for initiative."

I emphasize again: brilliant potential.  But utterly craptastic, wasted execution.

That's the type of thing which has, I think, made people understandably wary of the foregrounding of combat in design.
My group routinely plays dungeon crawl classis which are what you desribe just fight after fight, and we have a blast. That being said, the fast paced nature of DDN allows us to resolve our rounds faster which allows us to do more actions during our game time and ultimately makes the game more fun. What DDN has really done is made the mechanics of the fights smoother so now I can think of what I want to do and complete the action much faster than in previous editions (personally 3e, but I imagine 4e as well).

So I would say our group spends about 80% of the time fighting once you factor out all the nonroleplaying stuff like joking and laughing. The best part about DDN though is that if you want, you can blast through entire dungeons of just combat, or create a beautifully crafted story with the same system.

That being said, the combat system is what needs the most work because the story and all of that is really in the hands of the players while creating good combat rules and mechanics is the job of the developers. 
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
It varies from campaign to campaign. I as a DM definatly like a mix of cambat, social, and puzzle solving.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.


What exactly caused the aversion to combat of some gamers? D&D is a combat-oriented RPG. It has always been so. It grew out of a wargame, with the idea being "What if I controlled one soldier, and could help them rise to power and go on grand adventures?". They weren't expected to stop fighting. Hell, in OD&D, there were 3 classes, 1 was SPECIFICLY a warrior and leader of fighting-men (THEY WERE CALLED FIGHTING-MEN), and 1 was specifcly supposed to be a Christian crusader type thing, who while less combat focused was geared towards smashing heretics for the glory of whatever. Even the Wizard, literally the only class that didn't have military training, had most of their spell list consumed by powers that do nothing but blow people to pieces, make them totally helpless, or otherwise murder them or allow you to more easily murder them.

These are the roots of the game. Yes, there was meant to be intrigue and quests and diplomacy and talking and all that good stuff. But you were a band of warrior adventurers, in a savage world full of bandits and barbarians and monsters and villains who wanted nothing more than to kill and loot, and most of your skillset included killing and looting them first. So it always baffles me when players, especialy the self-named old school veterans, trip over themselves and each other to say how little combat their games had, as if combat in a game of heroic fantasy is something abnormal or taboo. I understand that much of it has to do with some weird assumption that you stop playing a role in the story as soon as you start fighting, but I've never bought into that. In combat, my character is the same character. I am still playing the role of that character. I am roleplaying that character. Why would roleplaying my character in a combat situation be somehow lesser than when I'm roleplaying them negotiating or traveling or whatever?

I don't think combat should be the be-all, end all of the game. That's one of the very reasons to make it not a wargame in the first place. It's to inject more story and interaction into the game. But combat is unquestionabley bonded to the game of D&D, and it is an area of the game that should be improved and celebrated, not dumbed-down and shoved aside as if it some defect in the game that must be avoided and dealt with as quickly as possible. It's why whenever I see someone say "The combat is so much quicker!", I often read it as "Thank god THAT'S over!". I don't think individual combats should necessarily take a long time, but I find the way people want them to just be over with disturbing. I actually want less expected combat. I don't think it should be expected that I need to fight 10 orcs for a challenge, or that I need to kill 200 to level up once. I want less fights, but I want each of those fights to mean something. Rather than making the most bland and uninspiring combat system ever just so we can get it over with quickly, I want an involved combat system that actually makes me think and need to pick from multiple viable options, each of which has a meaningful effect on my overall success or failure.

To me, the most important part of fantasy combat IMO feels like a placeholder. Martial combat is what I think about when I think about the sort of setting D&D supposedly is in. I imagine people dueling with steel and will, or vast armies of soldiers clashing on the battlefield. But the extent of the martial combat system is often "Roll, check number, roll, reduce number". I can add my own maneuvers or whatever to the game, but that doesn't change the fact that what is presented to me by the game feels like something just placed there while they think of something better. The magic system, on the other hand, has varied effects to make tactics around, counters to other effects, things that do things other than number reduction, etc. It feels more fleshed out, like they forgot to remove the placeholder martial combat before sending it to the printers but managed to get the magical one in. This is bizzare to me. Magic combat is supposed to be seperate, it's supposed to be tricky and not the first resort. Yet it is the actual combat system of the game. Martial combat is just a default "ATTACK" command that everyone can use when they are out of spells or if they weren't given spells. I know many people claim they just want simple options, but I personally can not fathom how anyone can immerse themselves into combat so bland. Maybe that's part of why they think combat should just be something you need to rush through and get over with.

I won't answer the question presented in the OP. For one, the answer is so dependant on what is happening in each individual game session that an exact percentage as many have apparently been able to provide is something I can't give. But as well I won't answer because I do not want to participate in this culture of turning combat taboo in D&D. I don't want to sound accusatory, but I can't see anything but an agenda here. As others have already started doing, this is all about displaying how little your game dwells on the sin of combat, and how much more mature you are now because you don't have as many combats as you used to when you were an ignorant child who only wanted to have FUN, or how much less combat your favourite edition has in comparison to heretical editions of the game in yet another attempt to tell use why it, those who like it, and any influences from it need to be excised from the game lest they taint the glorious true D&D experince. Which is apparently a game of heroic fantasy, rife with monsters and villains, where nobody fights, because that's juvenile.

Bottom line of this rambling post: Combat is fun, combat is part of the roots of D&D, and you can not only roleplay in combat but combat IS roleplaying. I fully expect an armada of True Roleplayers to tell me how wrong I am, and maybe mention MMOs and video games a few times.

It's not so much an aversion it is that combat moves so much faster in Next. I could have 3 combat encounters and 1 roleplaying encounter, and 1 puzzle with some exploration and I'm already at only 35-50% combat time.

In our last playtest session, the party encountered 3 young Frost Giants, and the party decided to parlay. They bluffed, persuaded, played music for the giants and succeeded in getting by them without a fight. After the game, one of my players said, heck, it would have been faster if we had just fought the Frost Giants, but he and the group really enjoyed the roleplaying that we did.

Different strokes for different folks.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

If they went back and killed them would they have gotten more XPs?Tongue Out

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

If they went back and killed them would they have gotten more XPs?

You are the reason we need an alignment system. :P
For 4e, I'd say about 50% on a long combat night, 30-40% on others.
Mine depends on the group I'm playing/running with.

If its a one-off kind of thing, like at a Con or GameDay, 80-90% combat (that's generally what Con/GameDay play is about)

If its younger/newer players, probably about 50% combat

If its older/more experienced players, probably around 25% combat

If its a mixed group, depends on the individual tastes of those coming together, but generally about 30% combat

All this data is throughout the editions, 4e included. Combat, in any edition, I feel is as focused on as you decide to let it be, and as for combat length, since I don't do piddly encounter hiccups in my games, the individual lenghth, in any edition tends to be longer than some people may be used to, but you balance that out  with role-play during combat, and with enough in-between action to make everyone realize its not just a hack'n'slash game. Figure ultimately, its more about "Know your Players' Preferences" than anything else, and bring that knowledge with you when you design your campaigns. 
Want continued support for 4e, check this out, 4e Lives and Breaths

Check out MY eZine, Random Encounters Seuss (lordseussmd on YM)
Rustmonster, your post is OT, why would you post that wall o text here? And to anyone who answered him, why did you do that?
Typical weekly d&d night, about 3.5 - 4hrs.

1st hour -- wait for rest of players to show up, talk about work.

2nd hour -- rehash work talk with those that finally showed up, try to get everyone to focus on what happened last week, round-robin interaction with single player as others are too busy looking at their laptops to pay attention.

3rd hour -- finally some roleplay when a couple players can drag themselves from DDO, work email or youtube long enough to do something interesting.  

Mid 3rd hour -- rest of players restless, want to roll dice and kill something before night is over.  If other players have not antagonised someone/thing into a battle, fallen into a trap or lured a nasty out into the open, drop something random at them.  Combat begins.

4th hour  -- Combat, combat, youtube, combat, rules argument, smoke break, combat, snacks, combat, finally its dead. Is there any loot? Roleplay searching for more loot, figuring out what the loot is, and discuss what would have been better loot.

It's late.  Time to go home. 

Conclusion:  length of combat not the problem.
With my group it very much depended on what we were doing.  

If the group was doing some dungeon crawling (Such as Undermountain) - then there was a good chance that more than 50% of the game night would be taken up with combat.

If the group was in town doing some political stuff, robbing houses, trying to establish trade routes, etc.  then there were nights that we never rolled for initiative.

With pretty much all edition, as characters went up in level, each combat had potential to take longer, so it takes planning when building encounters to give characters ways to finish off the enemies faster: This can be anything from having some barrels of oil that the players can blow up with a firey arrow, some pits to shove enemies into, or allow them to make a STR/CHA roll or Intimidate skill check to force the foes into submission.  
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
In older editions (OD&D/BECMI/AD&D), combat probably monopolized about 30-35% of our sessions; which were usually all day Saturday sessions.

In 4th Edition, combat monopolized 80-95% of our sesions. This was a combination of the tactical nature of combat in 4th Edition and the fact that our sessions were down to a few hours (WWD&DGDs), or 1-2 hours (D&D Encounters). I would guess the ratio would have been 60:40 (Combat:Non-combat), if we could have had our "old-time" Saturday, all day sessions.

In D&D Next, we're back to less than 35% of our sessions being taken up by combat. My group is really enjoying the D&D Next Playtest, so far; even though we know there is a lot of work yet to be done.
wuzzard- your problem is not the combat, your problem is the DM. I dont let use of laptops, cellphones, or allow non-game involved cross talk go on once the game has begun outside of set breaks. one thing I have found, players appreciate clear boundries when it comes to table control, and respect the DM more for enforcing them, not less...


1e- 40% combat
2e- 40-50% combat
4e- 80-95% combat
PF- 70% combat
5e- cant find people interested, they prefer pathfinder (!!!) 
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
 Depends right now we're doing a ye olde dungeon hack probably so 75% maybe (exploring and some social interaction for the other 25%. 0-50% if I design my own stuff. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

What exactly caused the aversion to combat of some gamers? D&D is a combat-oriented RPG. It has always been so. It grew out of a wargame, with the idea being "What if I controlled one soldier, and could help them rise to power and go on grand adventures?". They weren't expected to stop fighting. Hell, in OD&D, there were 3 classes, 1 was SPECIFICLY a warrior and leader of fighting-men (THEY WERE CALLED FIGHTING-MEN), and 1 was specifcly supposed to be a Christian crusader type thing, who while less combat focused was geared towards smashing heretics for the glory of whatever. Even the Wizard, literally the only class that didn't have military training, had most of their spell list consumed by powers that do nothing but blow people to pieces, make them totally helpless, or otherwise murder them or allow you to more easily murder them.

These are the roots of the game. Yes, there was meant to be intrigue and quests and diplomacy and talking and all that good stuff. But you were a band of warrior adventurers, in a savage world full of bandits and barbarians and monsters and villains who wanted nothing more than to kill and loot, and most of your skillset included killing and looting them first. So it always baffles me when players, especialy the self-named old school veterans, trip over themselves and each other to say how little combat their games had, as if combat in a game of heroic fantasy is something abnormal or taboo. I understand that much of it has to do with some weird assumption that you stop playing a role in the story as soon as you start fighting, but I've never bought into that. In combat, my character is the same character. I am still playing the role of that character. I am roleplaying that character. Why would roleplaying my character in a combat situation be somehow lesser than when I'm roleplaying them negotiating or traveling or whatever?

I don't think combat should be the be-all, end all of the game. That's one of the very reasons to make it not a wargame in the first place. It's to inject more story and interaction into the game. But combat is unquestionabley bonded to the game of D&D, and it is an area of the game that should be improved and celebrated, not dumbed-down and shoved aside as if it some defect in the game that must be avoided and dealt with as quickly as possible. It's why whenever I see someone say "The combat is so much quicker!", I often read it as "Thank god THAT'S over!". I don't think individual combats should necessarily take a long time, but I find the way people want them to just be over with disturbing. I actually want less expected combat. I don't think it should be expected that I need to fight 10 orcs for a challenge, or that I need to kill 200 to level up once. I want less fights, but I want each of those fights to mean something. Rather than making the most bland and uninspiring combat system ever just so we can get it over with quickly, I want an involved combat system that actually makes me think and need to pick from multiple viable options, each of which has a meaningful effect on my overall success or failure.

To me, the most important part of fantasy combat IMO feels like a placeholder. Martial combat is what I think about when I think about the sort of setting D&D supposedly is in. I imagine people dueling with steel and will, or vast armies of soldiers clashing on the battlefield. But the extent of the martial combat system is often "Roll, check number, roll, reduce number". I can add my own maneuvers or whatever to the game, but that doesn't change the fact that what is presented to me by the game feels like something just placed there while they think of something better. The magic system, on the other hand, has varied effects to make tactics around, counters to other effects, things that do things other than number reduction, etc. It feels more fleshed out, like they forgot to remove the placeholder martial combat before sending it to the printers but managed to get the magical one in. This is bizzare to me. Magic combat is supposed to be seperate, it's supposed to be tricky and not the first resort. Yet it is the actual combat system of the game. Martial combat is just a default "ATTACK" command that everyone can use when they are out of spells or if they weren't given spells. I know many people claim they just want simple options, but I personally can not fathom how anyone can immerse themselves into combat so bland. Maybe that's part of why they think combat should just be something you need to rush through and get over with.

I won't answer the question presented in the OP. For one, the answer is so dependant on what is happening in each individual game session that an exact percentage as many have apparently been able to provide is something I can't give. But as well I won't answer because I do not want to participate in this culture of turning combat taboo in D&D. I don't want to sound accusatory, but I can't see anything but an agenda here. As others have already started doing, this is all about displaying how little your game dwells on the sin of combat, and how much more mature you are now because you don't have as many combats as you used to when you were an ignorant child who only wanted to have FUN, or how much less combat your favourite edition has in comparison to heretical editions of the game in yet another attempt to tell use why it, those who like it, and any influences from it need to be excised from the game lest they taint the glorious true D&D experince. Which is apparently a game of heroic fantasy, rife with monsters and villains, where nobody fights, because that's juvenile.

Bottom line of this rambling post: Combat is fun, combat is part of the roots of D&D, and you can not only roleplay in combat but combat IS roleplaying. I fully expect an armada of True Roleplayers to tell me how wrong I am, and maybe mention MMOs and video games a few times.



 Been playing for 20 years. There is only so much dungeon hack one can do. Based on feedback from my players they like my NPCs I come up with as I try to make them a little flawed and sometimes with a contradictory trait.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

...
I won't answer the question presented in the OP. For one, the answer is so dependant on what is happening in each individual game session that an exact percentage as many have apparently been able to provide is something I can't give. But as well I won't answer because I do not want to participate in this culture of turning combat taboo in D&D. I don't want to sound accusatory, but I can't see anything but an agenda here. As others have already started doing, this is all about displaying how little your game dwells on the sin of combat, and how much more mature you are now because you don't have as many combats as you used to when you were an ignorant child who only wanted to have FUN, ....



Rustmonster, I have no such agenda. And judging from the variation in replies there is no strong movement one way or the other. Over the course of my gaming life I have more time playing RPG's, but in the past 10 or 15 years I have spent far more time destroying tiny well painted soldiers on strange far away worlds. Wargaming is about 95% combat and I love it at least as much as RPG's, maybe more =-)



It's not so much an aversion it is that combat moves so much faster in Next. I could have 3 combat encounters and 1 roleplaying encounter, and 1 puzzle with some exploration and I'm already at only 35-50% combat time.



Yeah Rust, it's not the end of combat.   I like plenty of combats.   That is the problem though with 4e.  if I had two the session was over.   I want 10 and I want all ten to take 50% of the session max.   I want fun but straightforward combats that don't take forever.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Intresting seems most people who diden't like 4th edition saying it had a combat focus list much higer percentages for how much time in 4th edition is combat then the people who did seem to like 4th edion.

The people who seem to be positive about 4th edition list about 50% as combat.
while people who diden't like 4th seem to list 80% or more for combat in 4th edition.
Intresting seems most people who diden't like 4th edition saying it had a combat focus list much higer percentages for how much time in 4th edition is combat then the people who did seem to like 4th edion.

The people who seem to be positive about 4th edition list about 50% as combat.
while people who diden't like 4th seem to list 80% or more for combat in 4th edition.



I think the 4e dislikers are more dungeon focused.   And you know what I mean by dungeon.   If you try to run through a dungeon with 4e you will be there for months on that one level.

If the only combats you do are the climatic final battle with the BBEG sort of fights and you don't have any others, then you want 4e's detailed combat system for that fight.   At least thats my interpretation of their preferences.

It's funny because it's obvious 4e is a narrativist game.  Have a complex combat system seems to fly in the face of that style until you realize that they just aren't fighting all that much anyway. 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

We actually tracked it a few times.  Our average game nights broke down to;
33% combat,
33% non-combat,
& 33% completely non-D&D/whatever-game-we-were-playing related stuff.

Most of the combat time in our games (at least in anything but 4e) occurs in short 10 minute or so  bursts sprinkled throughout the non-combat stuff.   
4E was taking about 70-80% of our fights as I would try and do 3-5 combats a session. Less than that and the PCs were finding things to easy. The major problem those 3-5 fights required 4-5 hours of a 6 hour session and I used a lot of minons as well. More or less RAW encounters using the MM and a little bit of DDI and the char op boards. 5 page character sheets were fun when the onlne CB would actually print the damned things. I would not like to play 4E without DDI and only a single copy of the PHB though.

 4th eds sweet spot seemed to be level 1-3 as opposed to 3.5s 5/6 and AD&D level 5-9ish maybe. Last 2 years or so I had 3 awesome sessions of D&D, 1 was 2nd ed , one was 4th ed and one was Pathfinder so go figure.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Sign In to post comments