|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 3:14PM
#21
|
|
|
Not really; D&D in general doesn't have good systems for non-combat stuff.
What kind of system do you really need to roleplay and tell a story?
Bingo.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 3:22PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 19, 2004
|
My games tend to be a solid mixture of combat and roleplay. That being said we do often have games where the entire session (6-8 hours) is spent without combat. Not too long ago we had 3 sessions in a row with no combat at all. One of my players (a new player to the game and campaign) was getting a little fidgety about it. So I sat down and talked to her and helped build her character's persona up so she could better enter the conversations which has handily solved the problem.
All that being said I really dislike skill challenges as written. I like skill challenges that come in phases, with changes every time someone succeeds or fails. That means my skill challenges need to be a lot more complicated and flowchart based than the normal ones. You dont roll 4-8 times before getting the first success/failure in the narrative, you roll maybe twice.
I hate to plug myself (especially when I haven't had time to finish editing and posting the first session) but if you want to listen I have the raw audio from one of my sessions up here:
everygrain.blogspot.com/
A solid mixture imo, is the best for everyone. The campaign I am in presently, is mostly combat hack and slash. I'd like a little more roleplaying. Like any. That said, if I were going to err to any one side, it would definitely be in favor of more combat. My personal ideal mix is probably about 60% combat, 40% RP. I imagine I'd quickly lose interest if I didn't get to blow things up with some regularity.
3 sessions without combat? I'd be fidgity too. You'd have to be a hell of a story teller for me to not end up drooling all over myself in boredom!
Most of the problem was the new player had a very schticky non-detailed character. They were one dimensional and not invested in any of the story. So they couldn't get into it. Also, it was that person's first three sessions playing DnD.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out hereSpoiler:
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here
If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here
Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 3:28PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
As much as i like to roleplay, most of my players start to crave a little if we go more than 3 hours without combat. 
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 8:31PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2009
|
It varies a lot by group and campaign, but I'd say the average for me is 1 or 2 fights per session.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool. | Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner | |
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 9:09PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2011
|
I would guess our sessions at 70/30 combat/ roleplay. It is always a balancing act when the players themselves have different expectations about what the % should be...
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 7:08AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2010
|
I have mixed feelings about 4e and combat encounters. On one hand I like how smooth it is and how many tactical choices there are, and I have never had te problem that combat lasts too long; I use a lot of minions and oponents does not always fight to the death..
The problems I have with the system is that it assumes there will be lots of combat encounters, and I think it is easy to fall into the trap of building your adventures around encounters, and not the other way around. I know I did to begin with, just after switching to 4e. The adventures were too encounter focused and it all felt more like a tactical combat game than a roleplaying game.
I know you can use the system as you like and rp like hell and focus on the story, I am trying to do that more and more, but I think it is all too easy to fall into the meta-gaming trap with all the heavy focus on combat encounters. When I introduce new players to the system, they seem to focus a little too much on their character sheets and powers in any situation, instead of thinking more about what their character would do, this happens with veteran players too.
I know it sounds like I am blaming the system here, but I actually like it a lot, it is the focus and assumptions in many of the releasd products that bothers me a bit, the mechanics actually have a lot going for them, if only a bit too focused on balance.
In my humble opinion, DND should first and foremost be a roleplaying game, focused on narrative and character interaction. Combat encounters should be fun, but not the focus of the game and the driving point of the adventure and the campaign.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 7:47AM
#27
|
|
|
The problems I have with the system is that it assumes there will be lots of combat encounters. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
I am going to beg to differ with this. I think that this line of thought is soometimes a symptom of 4es terrible official adventures rather than its design. In reality, 4e does more than any other edition to offer alternative ways to award experience points and reward players. Between major/minor quest XP and XP for skill challenges (although i loathe skill challenges), PCs can actually level up at a steady pace without ever even pulling a sword. Sadly, 4es adventures typically play as melodramatic railroads, boring grinds filled with superflous, contrived encounters-for-the-sake-of-encounters.
It is true that 4e PCs are capable of facing multiple encounters in a day, so in that sense, the system "assumes" that there COULD be lots of encounters. However, it seems obvious that 4e provides the tools to run the game as you wish. Ultimately it is up to the individual DMs how they want to run their game. The system makes it clear that groups can gain experience simply through roleplaying a collective story, therefore the 4e system assumes that there are more ways to play than only combat-heavy games. In fact, I would argue that the 4e system does a better job rewarding PCs for activity outside of combat than prior editions did.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 8:39AM
#28
|
|
|
In my humble opinion, DND should first and foremost be a roleplaying game, focused on narrative and character interaction. Combat encounters should be fun, but not the focus of the game and the driving point of the adventure and the campaign.
In my opinion, it should be what the people at the table (DM and players) want it to be.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 9:38AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2010
|
@ crzyhawk: I agree! It is a game, so if you are having fun, you are doing it right! But the game should press that fact even more! As I said, I am a fan of 4e and its smooth mechanics, but the system has a lot of focus on combat, look at the character sheet, so it is easy for new players to pick up that style of play from early on. As veteran players(15 years), we fell into that trap for a short period of time too, without realizing it at first. Combat can be very fun, but how the game feels now has changed, for the good and the bad. It has become a very combat focused game, and that is fine if that is the game you want to play! It can be a very versatile game, but that fact should have a stronger voice within the core books, it should have more focus in the products you buy. Now it feels like alittle side note.
@ frothsof: in essense I agree with you! I just feel the focus is a bit onetracked in general, with the focus on balance and combat focused feats and even utility powers and how it is all pressented.
I have used all the arguments you are using now, actually, to protect 4e in the past, so yes, I want to agree with all you are saying, but lately, as Next is coming out, I see it from the other side to. It is good to reflect, right?
I must say I love skill challanges though, and all you can do with them and how you can use it for anything! I use them to give the players power of the narrative and use any skills they can make sense of in the challange, and a challange can be anything from long periods ov travel, complicated and unusual combat or improvised situations. I never use it for roleplaying, but everything else works! The structure in skill challanges as written seems way to strict though, for no appearant reason. Why shouldn`t that be adjustable or affected by the number of party members? But I do digress
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 11:19AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
the system has a lot of focus on combat
That is because combat is the only segment of the game that needs rules.
|
|
|
