How important is combat to your gaming?

[MADMANMIKE]

A debate about a planned situation in my current campaign has made me realize that my style of game mastering and play has diverged quit a bit from that of many other people, so I thought I'd poll the boards here to see just how far.

Keep in mind I'm not talking about bad experiences (i.e., 'this game sucked because it had no combat so eventually I quite playing'), I mean what you think is ideal based on your experience.

Also, I'm talking on-going campaigns, not one-shot adventures or con games.

I'm selecting the last option as my campaigns have sometimes gone as many as three sessions without combat.

[Jorel]

there is no standard. I try balance it, but some sessions have combat for the entire session and some none at all. When there is combat it tends to be more than 25% of the game time because combat in Palladium does not move quickly, even when you know where to find all the rules. It can be made fluid, but unless you are fighting 1 or 2 NPCs and you only have 1 or 2 players, combat tends to drag on.

[Jorel]

and really all that depends on how long the game session is. I don't tend to regulate that either. Usually there is a start time and no official end time for games.

[MADMANMIKE]

My group usually meets around 7 on Saturdays and goes until around 1AM; that said, we're fairly casual so there's a lot of side banter going on through the session.

[Jorel]

bout the same. we start at 8 once a month on Sat. The one GM that got combat to run smoothest never gave us more than a few opponents and it usually left me feeling, "That was it? No reinforcements?"

[Glistam]

I like to think the my games are "UP TO 50% combat" but in practice I'm probably more between the 25% mark and the "several sessions without combat" mark. The combat's there, but the players decisions heavily impact whether they actually get into combat or not, and many time they make decisions that move them away from combat.

[Jorel]

in my estimation it is smarter to avoid conflict and would I give out more XP for that than those that directly engage every conflict with combat.

[MADMANMIKE]

Yeah, the experience point system is geared away from combat, so that's how I run it.. It just seems that from the arguments I'm getting on the boards that combat seems to be a primary driving force in other peoples games..

[Jorel]

I enjoy that part of the game when it runs smoothly as much as the non-combat thinking and plotting parts.

[say652]

Not really a combat heavy GM. A good action movie has about four fight scenes. Jussayin.

[Dunia]

I love when combat only comes when it is logical and not an every time issue. We have had some whole 6-hour session when the players were just discussing over a table and nothing happened outside that room they were in, other times we have had espionage missions and "just doing what we feel to do" scenarios where no combat was involved.

At the moment I can say that in my current group (Ars Magica RPG) we have not had a fight in 8 sessions in a row and no one is complaining

[MADMANMIKE]

I love when combat only comes when it is logical and not an every time issue. We have had some whole 6-hour session when the players were just discussing over a table and nothing happened outside that room they were in, other times we have had espionage missions and "just doing what we feel to do" scenarios where no combat was involved.

At the moment I can say that in my current group (Ars Magica RPG) we have not had a fight in 8 sessions in a row and no one is complaining

[darthyagi]

I love when combat only comes when it is logical and not an every time issue.

This. First, I don't see why some people feel obligated to stick a fight in every time the group gets together. That's why I stopped playing RPGs for a long time, especially D&D. If you avoid it, I think it also goes a long way to keep power creep in check.

Second, my experience is that combat can slow down the progress of the story significantly, and the whole point of RPing is to get together and tell a story. So why would we bog everything down in fighting that is ultimately meaningless?

[mrloucifer]

My weekly BtS game can go several sessions easy without combat, while my summer RIFTS game seems to get them at least once a night. The game and its vibe tends to have an impact on the amount of combat. I've never been in a RIFTS game that wasn't at least 50% combat.

[Marcus]

Is all of them a viable answer?
It really depends on the campaign, we had e.g. investigative campaigns with next to no combat in lots of sessions and we had high-action campaigns with lots of fights.

[MADMANMIKE]

I guess I should have said "what do you prefer in your games?"..

[say652]

Skill checks. Attribute checks. Playing in character. Yes violence happens but it doesn't need to be the focus of a game.

[The Dark Elf]

every week for about 4 hours and theres usually a fight every other week.

[say652]

I usually play the combat monster. Memnoc plays the leader. Righteous the thinker. And we fill in from their.
"PowerSurge draw their fire."

[MADMANMIKE]

I was on another forum a couple of years ago and was discussing a Rifts game, actually, in which there was lots of heavy combat, and 5 or so people made comments to the effect that I 'must be new to RPGs' if I was "still" running combat games. That sort of snobbery, when it happens, is really uncalled for.

As GM, I always ask the players what they want and run the game accordingly.

That's not surprising as RIFTS has often wrongly been dismissed as a munchkin combat game by those who glanced at the books once and never bothered reading any of the flavor text.

[CyCo]

As a general guide line, I typically think most game sessions should have at least one 'combat'. We're gamers and like to role dice. That, and it gives you a chance to feel like you have some control or input in the game (as a player). But when I say 'combat', I'm not just meaning draw your swords/guns and hack/blow things up. If it's a diplomacy geared session, then the dice will be used to determine the outcome of any diplomacy (with bonuses to die roles for good roleplaying or clever/flamboyant speeches), or it could be a set of die roles to determine if you get spotted or if you manage to bypass the building security for an espionage session. And then sometimes it's a good way to finish a session, when the players have won the combat and feel victorious. Or, after they won, leave a hint that reinforcements are coming, then leave them on a cliff hanger.

[MADMANMIKE]

As a general guide line, I typically think most game sessions should have at least one 'combat'. We're gamers and like to role dice. That, and it gives you a chance to feel like you have some control or input in the game (as a player). But when I say 'combat', I'm not just meaning draw your swords/guns and hack/blow things up. If it's a diplomacy geared session, then the dice will be used to determine the outcome of any diplomacy (with bonuses to die roles for good roleplaying or clever/flamboyant speeches), or it could be a set of die roles to determine if you get spotted or if you manage to bypass the building security for an espionage session. And then sometimes it's a good way to finish a session, when the players have won the combat and feel victorious. Or, after they won, leave a hint that reinforcements are coming, then leave them on a cliff hanger.

Uhm... Combat is fighting, that's what the poll is about. I never suggested that people should game without rolling dice for skill use.. My players enjoy playing their characters, and using skills and abilities is part of that.

[CyCo]

They can all be looked at as different forms of conflict. That's all I was saying.

[Cybermancer]

I've got two games I'm running at the moment.

One is a Heroes Unlimited game that is run sporadically on weekends. It s pretty much combat with brief interludes of rushing to the next combat. I am thinking of switching that group to D&D 3.5.

The other group is online and run most Monday evenings (mornings for some of my players). It's a BtS game with N&SS overtones. There have been 15 sessions and there hasn't been combat yet. Heck, there's only been like two or three (maybe four) encounters that could possibly have led to combat.

Basically it changes from group to group.

As a GM though, I prefer to avoid combat in Palladium. The combat system is inelegant and I find it bogs down the game. Online it's worse.

[zyanitevp]

In the 3 plus years of my current fantasy game the quantity of combat has changed. It used to be rare to not get some combat in, and now we are averaging combat every 3-4 sessions.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

I was on another forum a couple of years ago and was discussing a Rifts game, actually, in which there was lots of heavy combat, and 5 or so people made comments to the effect that I 'must be new to RPGs' if I was "still" running combat games. That sort of snobbery, when it happens, is really uncalled for.

As GM, I always ask the players what they want and run the game accordingly.

That's not surprising as RIFTS has often wrongly been dismissed as a munchkin combat game by those who glanced at the books once and never bothered reading any of the flavor text.

maybe it is wrong to be dismissed, but RIFTS is a munchkin's wet dream. The game is all about having Conan-cyborg dimensional wizard punching out a T-Rex in Power Armor, ala Rule of Cool, if any of the rules/classes/equipment are taken into account. Personally, I find that incredibly enchanting and fun to play and I see the game geared greatly towards action/adventure.

Personally I've always found it odd when some people put down RIFTS for just being a toy box and having no backstory/metaplots, but when that is the entire focus of the game and has been from the beginning, it leaves me scratching my head.

[MADMANMIKE]

I was on another forum a couple of years ago and was discussing a Rifts game, actually, in which there was lots of heavy combat, and 5 or so people made comments to the effect that I 'must be new to RPGs' if I was "still" running combat games. That sort of snobbery, when it happens, is really uncalled for.

As GM, I always ask the players what they want and run the game accordingly.

That's not surprising as RIFTS has often wrongly been dismissed as a munchkin combat game by those who glanced at the books once and never bothered reading any of the flavor text.

maybe it is wrong to be dismissed, but RIFTS is a munchkin's wet dream. The game is all about having Conan-cyborg dimensional wizard punching out a T-Rex in Power Armor, ala Rule of Cool, if any of the rules/classes/equipment are taken into account. Personally, I find that incredibly enchanting and fun to play and I see the game geared greatly towards action/adventure.

Personally I've always found it odd when some people put down RIFTS for just being a toy box and having no backstory/metaplots, but when that is the entire focus of the game and has been from the beginning, it leaves me scratching my head.

We're in agreement then, with the addition that the aforementioned dismissal (and that it's a muchkin's wet dream) are both a result of selective ignorance. Open the book, see the big power armor, ignore multiple pages of text and judge the game. <---- = Missing out on awesome setting.

[say652]

Its impossible (trust I've tried) to munckin up rifts.
No matter how powerful you THINK you are, there is always, always, something that will ragdoll you make you look like a chump and defeat you. Always!!

[BuzzardB]

I went with half combat.

Though it really REALLY depends on the GM.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

Its impossible (trust I've tried) to munckin up rifts.
No matter how powerful you THINK you are, there is always, always, something that will ragdoll you make you look like a chump and defeat you. Always!!

then you haven't tried hard enough.

[say652]

My current munchkin attempt has like 15000mdc shoots lightning supernatural strength and is quite beatable in rifts.
The Greater Gods could get fragged in this place.
Apsu would get fragged out in the open here.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

pfft, I've played Joe Black in RIFTS, which was a lot of fun. I started out a Crazy and then a CS Dogboy, and then jumped to a Russian Knight, then a grandmaster of Psyscape (who then proceeded to kill 3 Vampire Intelligences) and then did a Wilderness Scout. Never got to do my final, "Hey look, I'm actually Death"-form, but then the game would have just gotten silly

[Spinachcat]

It depends on the RPG. My 4e and 4e Gamma World games have a major focus on combat as that's the big deal about the system - cool tactical skirmish combat, but that's the exact opposite in my CoC games where combat is very deadly. Among my PB games, I find that 25% seems right for Rifts, but maybe 50% for Nightbane and Mechanoids.

My Chaos Earth games were really haphazard, with the PCs trying to avoid combat, but the nasty world found them regularly. I use some random tables for exploration and in CE, my poor players were just unlucky and I think we were 75% combat and most of that was the world chasing them. Lots of fun though.

[flatline]

The amount of combat is driven by the actions of the characters.

In my experience, the more seasoned the group, the less they resort to solving problems by combat.

--flatline

[pblackcrow]

I have never like heavy combat oriented games, except for in places that the combat would be expected to be heavy...Random encounters that are linked to a plot or subplot.

I am not saying don't throw them up a necromancers castle where an elephant grave yard once was. But give it a bloody plot and some twists and turns! Don't start off with "You guys are lost in a jungle, when you find an odd looking castle." That gets so blasted ANNOYING!

I like my games to focus more heavily upon the role-playing aspect.

[Alrik Vas]

My game runs twice a month and we usually have combat every other session. Though lately it's been twice every session, but that is the nature of their location (France, fighting blood druids and a demon alliance). Prior to that we would go three sessions without a fight, and not because I didn't present opportunity, the players are just very judicious. It's why they're alive.

[Cinos]

It varies for different games, but in Palladium, most of my players will often avoid combat if they feel it's unnecessary.

[say652]

When I gm the parties action normally dictates combat. When I am playing.... yea PowerSurge is always hunting for beasties to clobber. Oddly enough he still dislikes smashing squishies. Though after a few scraps with those she-martians, with giant robot beasts and the fact the ladyBorgs blow up after you drop em. She-Martians aint squishies! !

[Warshield73]

In games like Heroes Unlimited and Robotech I usually have one major combat and maybe one small one. Combat just seems to be a natural part of these games.

With Rifts I give chances for combat but I always try to make it optional.