• lime!@feddit.nu
    8·
    6 days ago

    this is why ttrpgs should not be so combat-focused.

    • themoken@startrek.website
      201·
      6 days ago

      Depends on the players. Some want to play pretend. Some want to play XCOM with dice.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      5 days ago

      I tend to find an 2:1 or 3:1 combat/non-combat gives people a good mix of the action/adventure elements and the high drama. Combat just tends to take longer than drama, so even when you try to minimize it, you can often find yourself in a time-suck.

      I also tend to feel that any “withering encounter” should resolve as soon as the players are more-or-less assured of victory (like, 2-3 turns, unless things go disastrously wrong for the players). Big center-piece boss battles can take longer, but need some kind of high drama element (exploding volcano, NPC dangling off a cliff, evil wizard powering up a death ray, etc) that (a) gives players a puzzle or drama point to resolve and (b) gives someone an opportunity to do something passionate or wacky (swinging in on a chandelier, flinging themselves on a hand grenade, asking their beau to marry them in the middle of a sword fight).

      Any encounter that’s just “roll the dice, pass the turn” is a waste of everyone’s time, IMHO.

    • Toneswirly@beehaw.org
      1·
      6 days ago

      Every player is different, every DM is different. Thats why communication at the top is important, if you want to get heavily in to character and roleplay a detective mystery in the tavern, let your DM know that.