Results 31 to 39 of 39
-
2024-04-04, 12:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
Re: How many combats per session do you find most enjoyable?
In Star Trek RPG we have had three combats in the last two sessions.
The GM is the only person with anything close to systems mastery. (We are all kind of new to the game, less than a year).
Combat resolution is a two step process with a bunch of strings attached. (Complications, specials, etc, avoidances).
If more of the players, like me, had bothered to actually get into the pdfs to get a grip in the sequences and basics, combat would not take so long.
Last night, fortunately, only three players showed up so play was a little faster (we each controlled two of the characters who'd been left hanging as the session ended).
A lot of Star Trek RPG is skill checks; which is good. Few battles is good, based on the low effort players and the combat system's layered approach.Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Worksa. Malifice (paraphrased):
Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
b. greenstone (paraphrased):
Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society
-
2024-04-04, 01:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: How many combats per session do you find most enjoyable?
Sorry for your luck. I’ve played with literal 7-year-olds who I’d expect to grok the mechanics for any RPGs I’ve played with them after around 4 sessions, if not before. Having played with both ends of the spectrum, and plenty in between, I find such definitely preferable over adults who are still clueless months or years in.
If you figure out the trick to convert one type of player to the other type, or even help make progress on that spectrum, let us know!Last edited by Quertus; 2024-04-04 at 01:52 PM.
-
2024-04-04, 01:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- In my library
Re: How many combats per session do you find most enjoyable?
I think part of the issue is that random encounters existed for a different type of module than today's adventure paths. If the point is to explore an area than these random encounters are the primary things stopping you from getting to the reward, and I believe tended to be both quite varied and avoidable ('the bandits are at longbow range and may not have spotted you, what do you do?').
Then you get to the dungeon and random encounters exist to discourage resting and novaing.
The modern D&D adventure path really needs to be closer to '3 combat encounters per long rest, we tell you when the PCs have the opportunity to rest'.
In other systems like Gumshoe, which I've played in Night's Black Agents and am preparing to run in Delta Green, maybe one? Or zero? Ideally zero? Combat mechanics aren't the strong point of Gumshoe. I think they're more fun as a thing that happens rarely when the company has no other choice rather than as a core piece of the group's problemsolving.
My working theory is that most adults who play TTRPGs aren't there to interact with them as a game as much as a social/storytelling experience, which combined with a tendency for at least one player to know The RulesTM means they offload system knowledge onto those who already have it.
This is, honestly, generally fine if it's at the level of 'I don't want to deal with point buy character creation, but I can remember which dice to roll for what', it's the people asking 'what die do I roll again' every single roll that get on my nerves.
-
2024-04-04, 03:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2022
Re: How many combats per session do you find most enjoyable?
Yikkes! If that's the way the encounters are done, then that would generate lots of hate for them. I get the whole need to make travel feel like it took time, was risky, etc, but IMO there are better ways to do that. I think I stated in the last thread on random encounters that we had that I have a strong dislike for rolling encounters. Especially on a table. And triply so if it's some sort of generic "encounters in X terrain" type tables.
Right. I think the problem is that on the one hand, the module writers want the players to feel that there is an accomplishment in just "getting there". But where the really annoying encounters come in, I suspect, is out of a desire to be "more realistic". If every encounter is level appropriate and a challenge, then that seems too contrived, right? So let's mix it up with a bunch of random small nuisance encounteres instead! Yeah... that's not annoying at all.
I do think that a lot of these problems (especially in D&D) stem from the encounter math in the game itself. There's a significant gap between what characters can do while using zero "per rest" abilities, versus using them. Encounters that don't require the use of these resources are viewed as nuisance encounters and waste everyone's time. But there are only a certain number of "non nuisance" encounters you can run per rest period before the party becomes tapped out. And that number tends to be "more than you're reasonably going to run into randomly while travelling" but "less than what you would reasonably expect to be sufficient to clear an entire area in a dungeon/fort/lair/etc".
Which, historically, leads us to "find places to rest" as the solution. But, if they can do that, then they can go full force on the next 2-5 encounters, and then rinse/repeat. But if they can't, then hard math creates a wall in front of them, success wise. Which... is where the whole "There are places to rest, but the DM will have random encounters occur if you overuse them, so as to push you closer to your resource limits". But if those random encounters are actually random, then you run the risk of TPW by total accident and more or less unavoidable by the players. But if you don't, then the DM is basically gaming the system for/against the players. So... depending on the philosopy of running the game, these factors can result in some pretty strange/ugly outcomes IMO.
It's one of the reasons I tend to really enjoy RuneQuest as a game system. The game technically has "per day" resources (magic points), but those are very very flexible, and rarely actually come into play much (aside from very beginning level characters maybe). What magic/buffs you have going when in an encounter has almost nothing to do with resources available, but how much prep time you had before the encounter. Characters can sustain an almost unreasonable number of encounters this way before worrying about running out of actual resources to continue fighting (it's more or less just "what we can do all the time" sort of stuff). The real resources are Runespells, which are pre-defined and limited in number. but those are very slow to recover resources. You are typically using those in small bits, perioidically, through the course of the entire adventure. It takes a day of prayer to get a single point of those spells back, so barring sitting somewhere for like a month or more, those aren't just going to be usable again.
So in RQ it tends to be less about "how many level appropriate encounters per day", and more "how many really really tough fights are in the entire adventure?". You can run as many other encounters as you want, pretty much as often as you want, and not have a lot of problems. So GMs don't feel any pressure at all to "make more random encounters to challenge the party", or "have them encounter random stuff while resting to reduce their resources". That's just not a thing. If I put a random encounter in, it's because I decided that this encounter fits into wherever they are, and that it's a fun and interesting encounter, and I want to play it out. There is pretty much zero resource math pushing me one way or the other.
-
2024-04-04, 04:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: How many combats per session do you find most enjoyable?
Depends on the session:
exploration / adventure with one big fight at the end = 1/session
Intrigue, figuring out the bad guy, finding the lost macguffin = 0-1/session
Dungeoncrawling = At least 3/session, and I have had as many as 7Last edited by emulord; 2024-04-04 at 04:20 PM.
-
2024-04-04, 04:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Gender
Re: How many combats per session do you find most enjoyable?
I think the issue is that 5E's developers don't have very good technical skills. Random encounter tables are there because they don't really know what else to do in the exploration pillar, just like adventure pathing often boils down to putting an NPC somewhere and having them tell the party where to go next, whether as part of a railroaded structure or as a literal fetch quest -- go here, get this, come back. Random encounters are a substitute for putting things in the world-space. There's a place for them, certainly, but they have to be used intelligently. Often the adventure designs have players walking back and forth across a space looking for the next plot hook because hooks are strung together in sequence rather than in a flexible web; the players can't find Clue Y until they've found Clue X. So they have to walk across the Vale to the location of Clue X, then walk back to the location of Clue Y even though Y is closer, and that means what should be 15 days of travel turns into 26 days of travel, and they're rolling three times a day and then there's a note in the adventure saying 'if your players get frustrated, you can reduce the number of random encounters a little bit'. If you have to have that note, your adventure relies too much on random encounters to fill time. In a properly-sequenced adventure, finding Clue Y should give them enough information to find Clue X, and the two combined can lead to Z or even further up the chain to A! But that's a whole bigger issue.
Games where combat is either a punishment or just another type of activity are becoming more common, and it's pretty great. I honestly think there's a lot to be said for 'you can get by these guards with a successful Fight roll, but if you're unlucky you'll come out battered, do you want to consider another approach'.Last edited by QuickLyRaiNbow; 2024-04-04 at 04:26 PM.
In-character problems require in-character solutions. Out-of-character problems require out-of-character solutions.
-
2024-04-06, 04:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: How many combats per session do you find most enjoyable?
My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.
-
2024-05-01, 02:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
- Gender
Re: How many combats per session do you find most enjoyable?
That's a reasonable stance to take. The only thing I would add is that the DM is a also a player and a lot of DMs will create encounters of the type they like to run.
I know when I DM I like challenging fights. I like abilities on enemies that I feel will be memorable - I certainly think this motivation would lead me to create the kind of encounter you don't like.
-
2024-05-01, 06:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Gender
Re: How many combats per session do you find most enjoyable?
Yes and -- I think when I run encounters that are that '1d3 kobolds in an empty field' style in a 5E D&D game, my players instinctively attempt to get through them with as few resources as possible. They'll avoid using leveled spells or 1/SR resources. It's just cantrips and weapon attacks unless I specifically tell them they won't have any more encounters. Partly that's because I've trained them to expect big lethal encounters later, but also partly I think I'm just reinforcing a natural tendency this group of people already had (and partly it's carryover from many years of 3E where there are no short rests). So if I want to give the players the chance to use their features and show off their abilities and how creatively they can use them, I have to design a battle in a space with three vertical layers, three types of environmental hazards and a wide variety of enemy types and threats, because that's the only thing that'll provoke them to actually use their abilities to the fullest.
In-character problems require in-character solutions. Out-of-character problems require out-of-character solutions.