I had an interesting discussion with some friends tonight about D&D 4th ed. The four of us were discussing the merits and drawbacks of 4th ed. in relation to other editions of D&D. Some background before I get into it, we’ve all played together at some point since 2nd ed. AD&D, and two of them play in my current game now. The other lives out of state, but plays in a 4th ed. game where he lives.
The general consensus that came out of the discussion was that 4th ed. is too geared towards getting to the next encounter and not enough towards storytelling and character building. I have blogged about this before and my stance has always been that a group will bring in as much roleplaying to the table as they want. Some people still think that they need the rule book to specifically tell them how or guide them towards roleplaying in order for that to happen. I’m not sure I understand that point of view. It doesn’t hinder roleplaying if you don’t let it. But that’s not what this article is about, so enough about that.
As the title reads, this post is about metagaming, and specifically, about how I think it’s partly to blame for killing the roleplaying. I feel it at my table, and after tonight’s conversation, I feel it may be happening at other tables as well, and I want your input. Here’s what I’m thinking: the combat is taking way too long in 4th ed. and players are feeling pressured to go from combat to combat in the time they have allotted to play, in order to collect their xp, loot, and level up. There’s no stopping to smell the proverbial roses in D&D anymore.
Time is apparently of the essence in 4th Ed. D&D.
At my table for example, time is very critical. My guys know we have about 4 1/2 hours to get things done. There are 7 players, with a lot of goofing around before we get to it. Combat takes a long time. Unfortunately, I find them rushing over the roleplaying elements I try to sprinkle into my game because of the need and desire to get to the last encounter before the time runs out, and the time the encounters are taking play a huge part in this equation. The way I DM, I have my encounters prepared for the night on a big DM binder. I write my flavor text, have my papers with the combats prepared, and have scripts for the NPC’s they may or may not interact with. I’m ready to roleplay or not. It’s their call.
My gut feeling tells me that combat length is an issue being discussed and watched over at WOTC. It’s affected their Game Day events, it’s affected the perception of the game, and now I believe it’s affecting the way people approach the way they play. When one of the guys, a guy that loves roleplaying, tells me he just goes from encounter to encounter without really ropleplaying; well, then I know something is off. And I think this may be it. I think combat length may be the key to the problem. Have you stopped to think about why there’s no random encounter tables in the game anymore? A hard random encounter can take up half of a four hour session. That’s not good for anyone.
I hope I was able to clearly make my point. Whether you agree with me or not, I think it’s at least something to consider. If players weren’t metagaming and factoring in the time it takes to resolve a fight, they’d stop and smell the roses and take in the world a little more in the gaming session.
I’d love to read your thoughts.
www. Newbie DM .com 
Stargazer
June 18, 2009
That’s one of the problems I have with 4E, too. Combat takes just too much time. And combat feels a bit detached from the rest of the experience. It’s almost as if you play a roleplaying game. Then you pause and play a miniature game (for 2 hrs or so) then you return to roleplaying. I’ve played a lot of games in my day and I never experienced anything like that before 4E.
Wyatt
June 18, 2009
I do agree that combat takes a lot of time in 4e without some houserules. I disagree, however, that combat must strictly be removed from what constitutes “roleplaying.” If all you’re fighting all the time are (and I wouldn’t blame anyone since the overwhelming majority of D&D monsters are this) brain dead nameless unfeeling “assembly line monster #34 who growls menacingly” then yeah, maybe.
But you can roleplay in combat. Players can interact with one another, they can exchange remarks with the enemy, their ideals can clash. In dangerous situations people can truly discover themselves. I think this can be as much roleplaying as “stopping to smell the roses” or all the 1999 ambient electronica moods.
I don’t know about anyone else, but when combat begins, I don’t suddenly shift into Final Fantasy Tactics battle mode where nothing but attack name text boxes pop up and menu options are selected. So this idea that combat is chewing up the roleplaying is rather bizarre to me, because I find roleplaying in all aspects of the game.
Zzarchov
June 19, 2009
Might I build off an earlier comment you made about XP and different levels within the party?
If combat is too required to XP loot and leveling, and you give XP regardless of whom is involved.
Don’t give XP for fighting. Just dole out a set amount of XP each week.
My guess is that thieving and bartering will take up slack for the loot as its quicker (if the players are having a slow time with picking up on this, just tell them flat out its quicker so they can make a decision of how to proceed..the easy slow combat way, or the tricky faster way)
Christopher Pye
June 19, 2009
I think I’m going to have to agree with every word you wrote there, newbiedm. The lengthy combat time is one of the more prevalent reasons behind my reluctance to get involved in any 4e game (not that I’m in any hurry to get involved in any D&D game). I really wished that they would have adopted something like Star Wars SAGA Edition’s Condition Track (a person’s condition is measured in 6 steps, ranging from Normal to Helpless).
Phril
June 19, 2009
This nicely parallels some thoughts I’ve been having on restoring some of the old dungeon crawl feel to 4e’s big set-piece encounter model. Two ideas I’ve come up with that are more or less relevant here:
First, slip in quiet skill challenges. Don’t let it break the roleplay by announcing it and the demanding rounds of skill rolls, but work it into the RP naturally when the PCs set about a task that requires extended effort. Hunting down information in town. Negotiating with the duke. Even searching dungeon rooms for traps and treasure. Reward xp when they succeed or after 3 failures (I do incremental xp for most SCs, 1/2 the single monster reward per success).
The other idea is to spread out combats. With the way powers function, anything that happens between two short rests can be considered one encounter. 4e combats give you more monsters to play with, so spread the threats out a bit over the course of a dungeon and do exploring in combat time. Take too long searching for traps or pillaging treasure and the next pack of monsters shows up. The PCs have to clear a decent area or be very clever to get enough time to themselves for a short rest. There’s a tricky balance there, though. Too little, and the individual monsters get dogpiled and torn apart without being a real threat. Too many and you wear down the party’s healing surges too much to manage the next fight.
The big trick to it all, the thing behind these ideas, is to make the pure RP segments of the game as entertaining and rewarding (in character and out) as the combat segments.
Jesse
June 19, 2009
It seems to me that there are too ways to encourage roleplaying over combat: make roleplaying more rewarding, and lessen the need for constant combat the former can be accomplished by handing out treasure or XP after roleplaying segments. As for the latter: have you considered giving double XP and treasure for encounters? That way it only takes half as many encounters to level, so even if they only make it through two encounters each session, ther could still gain a level in four or five nights. This lessens the need for constant combat, giving them mote time to roleplay.
JesterOC
June 19, 2009
I have started using the 4/5th the hit points level/2 more damage with my players.You might be amazed how combat speeds up. That said combat does go slow when players are beginning, but it speeds up as they get more accustom to it. Just 2 sessions ago I have asked the person that will go after the current player to prep for their turn. That helped a bunch also. With just those two rules in place combat is getting pretty fast without getting too swingy.
As for role playing, my players role play in combat also. Funny banter, heroic deeds, and being selfless adds a lot of inter party role playing right in the middle of combat.
Hscott1022
June 19, 2009
So far I have DM’d roughly half a dozen sessions of 4E, and I feel that we have spent more time running combats than I would like. There’s a lot to keep track of and everyone has a lot more choices on what to do. I had chalked up the combat grind to my groups collective inexperience with the new system, but with each session I have started to wonder; is there is a better way to run combat so that we can get through it faster? (That search is what led me to you sight by the way). Out of curiosity, how long should combat take on average? Or more importantly how long do you think it should take? I would be happy if we could resolve an average combat in 30 to 40 mins.
paradisio
June 19, 2009
I think this is a player problem not a game problem, it seems from what I read your players really just want to level up, roleplaying is a side dish for them.
Once again, I’m seeing a bit of a divergence here between my group, why would a random encounter take half a game session? You seem to indicate an encounter of such would take at least two hours, which doesn’t match up with my play experiences at all. Unless the DM is throwing higher level monsters and throwing very tough encounters I don’t think I’ve had a 4e encounter last longer than 45 minutes, and that was a slog encounter. My Friday group which is in line with your 4e length gets through 4 encounters typically, be it noncombat or combat.
You can have roleplaying in 4e combat, even if it regresses down to “I use attack X, roll/damage.” Put in situations where roleplaying is important or even mandatory. Evil villain suddenly grabs child prisoner and hold knife to their throat/etc.
Don’t feel restricted by combat either, heck my 8 hour Sunday session had one combat encounter and a ton of roleplaying. Take a break from combat occasionally.
JesterOC
June 19, 2009
Last session I had a combat with 10 minions, 1 brute axe fighter, 3 boar spear fighters, 4 archers, 6 swarms of worms, a head priest and 2 bodyguards, and 10 innocent villagers that were just trying to flee (only 3 made it). All within a huge room with worms crawling up from the floor if the creatures did not move at least one square during their turn. The party only had 3 players in it, and the combat lasted perhaps 45 minutes. It did not turn into a long slog, and we all found out the goliath barbarian was afraid of worms. They spent a good amount of time, trying to sneak around, then was detected and bluffed their way in with the line “I’m with Marty” and a bluff roll of 24. A good time was had by all.
JesterOC
June 19, 2009
In my opinion seven players is the real issue. I like 3 players because I am the DM. The players seem to like from 4-5. 6 is a hassle, and 7 is right out! 🙂
Morten Greis
June 19, 2009
I have a whole different approach to some of the problems. First and foremost my combats usually only lasts about 45-60 minutes, but we also integrate some roleplaying in them. I award a +2 bonus to attack rolls and skill checks, when a player acts his role, while the character is acting. The bonus is guaranteed, and it is not based on the quality of the acting, but it does make sure, that extra elements are added to combat. But most importantly there are no XP’s for killing monsters. XP is solely gained from reaching clearly defined goals, which means that my players are focused on reaching their goal, and combat can be a way to reach the goal, but you don’t need to fight in order to level up. Roleplaying is as an assured way to gain those delicious XP’s, thus no skipping roleplaying in order to get to combat to gain XPs.
Ethalias
June 19, 2009
How much have you discussed this issue with your players? It sounds as if they are leaning towards combat, whether through system-based expectations or preference. You mentioned one player who loves roleplaying rushing towards the next combat so as to gain xp and loot.. That seems a little incongruous..
It also seems to me that having 7 players is definitely going to lengthen combat, by more than just the extra 40% that you’d expect from extra turns per round. Because the length of time between any individuals turn is increased, it might be more difficult to re-engage for your moment in the spotlight.. Obviously I don’t know the specifics of your game, I may be barking up the wrong tree entirely!
BTW as a fellow newbie DM this blog has become one of my must reads – keep up the sterling work! 🙂
Baz Stevens
June 19, 2009
Hiya,
My thoughts have been running along the same lines. i play by the book and my combats are just as the DMG suggests they will be, about 45 mins to an hour. I’ve looked at all the suggestions for speeding them up, and to be honest they on;y chip away at the issue. I want to be able to run a combat in 30 mins. On it’s own that’s easy enough, but i don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I still want player engagement with their powers.
Also, I have to say I’m never ever bored in 4e, not once. The combats are always fresh and exciting for my group, so this may be a non-issue. What I want is more story between encounters, and the extended rest mechanic doesn’t help me there.
I would love to be a fly on the wall at WotC when they discuss this (and I’m sure they do).
Mike Shea
June 19, 2009
I think the sweet spot for my group is two battles in the night. This gives us a fair bit of room for roleplaying and enjoyment. Right now, with my current house rules (3/4 hps, +1/2 level dam), we can get through three battles but its a little bit of a slog.
This is about on par with my 3.5 games of the past, though. They took a long time too.
Fat Alibert
June 19, 2009
I don’t hand out xp and rewards for fighting and it makes a big difference to how the players play the game. They get the largest rewards (XP and treasure) from completing mission objectives and resolving character sub-plots. This encourages them to try bypass fighting through roleplaying, skill-use, trickery or planning where they can – as all these options are more time effective then fighting.
wrathofzombie
June 19, 2009
For both my 3.5 games and my 4e, I usually (except for minions) cut the monsters HP, like Fat Alibert, to 3/4 or to 1/2, then I upped their damage, from 1d# to 2d#, plus upped their saves by +1 or +2, and their attack +2. This allowed them to be a more viable threat, while not taking as long to be killed.
Stuart
June 19, 2009
“Combat takes just too much time. And combat feels a bit detached from the rest of the experience. It’s almost as if you play a roleplaying game. Then you pause and play a miniature game (for 2 hrs or so) then you return to roleplaying. I’ve played a lot of games in my day and I never experienced anything like that before 4E.”
I agree 100% with this – although I did experience something similar when we tried using the Shadowrun: DMZ Downtown Militarized Zone ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3476 ) for combat in Shadowrun. We had the same complaints then, and ended up going back to just using the regular Shadowrun rules for combat.
guiguiBob
June 19, 2009
Thanks, having read your article and comments. I have the same problem, my sessions last 2.5-3 hours so when combat start, it will take most of the session. So I had already decided to run mostly easier encounters with more minions(keeping the harder ones for boss fights), combined with giving the XP to accomplish objectives. we’ll see how it goes.
Anarkeith
June 19, 2009
I ran a delve last night for four players, mostly new to the game. We played for three hours and got through two combats. I dropped the optional third combat encounter in favor of a little roleplaying up front. As it has been since 1e, adventure design is key. New players are going to take more time with their power-use decisions. I’d encourage players to be planning their turns ahead, and make sure as a DM I had a good grasp on my monsters’ powers.
Console and computer RPGs emphasize the level grind, and many people assume that is what makes a roleplaying game. It’s up to DMs to design adventures that play to the strengths of the tabletop: real people interacting in real time to craft a cooperative story.
We’re just awarding points per session nowdays, to reward attendance rather than the grind.
Vanphil
June 19, 2009
@wyatt: I agree with your point of view. I’m the kind of DM that asks to “describe” actions instead of “rolling” them, and I also describe the output of combat action when something relevant happens, effectively stopping the combat for a couple of minutes. But I think it’s not the point here.
I completely agree with newbieDM, and I know how it feels since I’m DMing for a large gorup (6 people) too.
We left 4E now because of the feeling my players and I had at the table. My players used to declare “I leap to the ogre and try to catch his neck with my spiked chaing while kicking him in the belly”. Now they keep silent for some minutes during their turn, eventually stating: “I shift 1 and use Overpromising Strike”, while other players react yelling: “Please shift in that square, I’ll be able to get combat advantage and use my Useless Badass Action Point Power”.
Maybe this means I’m no longer as good as I was before at DMing, or maybe it means we’ve gone too far on the way of the tactical combat. In both cases, the result is that my players tend to skip any non-combat encounter, and they crawl from a combat to another with watches in their hand.
Stargazer
June 19, 2009
@Vanphil: That’s what I noticed too. In 3.5E we drscribed our actions in 4E we just tell the GM what power to use.
JesterOC
June 19, 2009
Vanphil, so when a player said “I leap to the ogre and try to catch his neck with my spiked chaing while kicking him in the belly” vs “I hit the ogre with my chain” what did you differently?
To me it seems that your players are putting more time into thinking about what to do rather than adding flavor. Which is understandable because they are learning a new system. Most likely, if they became just as familiar with 4E rules as your previous system that fluff in their descriptions would come back.
In my group my players usually describe their actions in terms of power name, and then I describe the result. Which is how we play all RPGs. I often have a player that describes extra benefits he wants his actions to do. Such as I use force bolt (I think) and push the thing into the chairs to knock him off balance. I had him burn a move action for that and roll his Arcane Skill vs a Medium DC. If he would have succeeded the thing would have had a -2 on his attacks the next round.
I don’t see how 4E effects descriptions in combat aside from the fact that it is still fairly new.
Jesse
June 19, 2009
A lot of DMs are echoing that their players aren’t as descriptive during combat in 4E. Why do you think that is? My group is about half seasoned players and half new to DnD, but we’re extremely descriptive during combat. Have you asked your players why they aren’t as descriptive? Are they just hurrying bacause the combat is taking too long?
Vanphil
June 19, 2009
@JesterOC It is certain that players think more about their moves in 4E. I almost performed a TPK when our rogue lost an advantage position because the sorcerer used a “Slide Someone Strike” 🙂
We became so tactical that it seemed we played chess.
Also, I don’t think it is a matter of becoming familiar with the rules. In the last 5 years, I played 3.x, Savage Worlds, Cyberpunk 2020, two different homebrew games AND 4E (for 8 months) with the same people. I had this problem only with 4E.
“so when a player said “I leap to the ogre and try to catch his neck with my spiked chaing while kicking him in the belly” vs “I hit the ogre with my chain” what did you differently?”
I don’t remember what I did, but if both the description and the roll are good enough I usually award a proper side effect or a damage bonus. In this case, I may have had the monster beheaded, I think. Anyway, our DMing styles seem quite different 😉
Jesse
June 19, 2009
@Vanphil – I think what JesterOC was getting at was, what did you do differently leading up to that player’s turn? How did you describe the enemies, the battlefield, their movements, etc? When I first started DMing, I was very sterilized in my descriptions (“Here’s the battlefield, this region is difficult terrain, there are kobold skirmishers here, here, and here, this guy moves to here and uses attack power X on character Y”). My players responded in kind. As I’ve started adding more flair to my descriptions, my PCs have echoed that, and now we have the fighter leaping up and slicing foes dramatically, or the bard SINGING SONGS as she attacks.
One thing you could do to kickstart the PCs into being more descriptive is to have them read the flavortext for each power they use, or allow them to substitute it for their own description. This will get them visualizing their attacks, and thinking about it as an actual action, rather than an option from a menu. They’ll probably read it pretty stiffly at first, then more dramatically, and eventually they’ll just supply their own, suitably dramatic description
JesterOC
June 19, 2009
Perhaps we do have different DM styles, but perhaps not. We definitely have different players. Half my players don’t think too tactically most of the time, and 4E has helped them do cool things on the battlefield. My wife loves the great cleaves, and Tiger leap of the barbarian, she also tossed sand in the face of soldiers in the last fight, blinding him for a round.
But perhaps it is me, in previous editions when a player said “I gut the guy from neck to crotch” (my wife again 🙂 ) That did not get reflected in the game unless it killed the target. If it lived, I would describe the hit as they envisioned it but with no damage bonus.
In 4E the powers have real in game effects even if it is not the killing blow. So perhaps since you did add these effects for cool descriptions, 4Es rules describing when these effects are allowed are restricting your PCs.
Just so you know page 42 of the DMG is a great resource to help you add that flavor back into the game that keeps it within the power curve of the game.
wickedmurph
June 19, 2009
newbie, I’m pretty sure that your problem is group size – for both combat length and general lack of role-playing.
4e combats aren’t super-fast, but each additional player past 4 slows things down a lot. Between general banter and the large number of players, I’m not surprised at all that you are having trouble getting through things.
The other issue is that players aren’t getting enough “spotlight time”. That means that there is pressure from the group to rush through each turn, to minimize “time-wasting” role-playing and an emphasis on gold, xp and magic items as a replacement for the character development that they don’t feel they have time for.
I’ve played in and GM’ed groups that size, and for the most part, they don’t work well. Things take too long to do, and players feel shorted because each one has less time.
When you think about it, the average session has maybe 30 minutes of BS time at the start, and the GM probably spends about 1/2 of a session talking. For you guys, that leaves 2 hours of time that the players are doing their thing. in a 4-player group, that’s about 30 minutes of “spotlight time” per player. In a 7-person group, it’s about 17 minutes. Half as much time, plus a lot more waiting between chances to do things. Any wonder that they are focusing on speed over quality?
Phril
June 19, 2009
I have found that the extensive detail in 4e powers has a bit of a chilling effect on elaborate independent actions. As a DM, it’s natural to look at the available powers for examples of how to rule something the player wants to do. As a player, the association between a particular power and it’s benefit can lead to thinking of the benefit as exclusive to that power. So a PC who has a daily power with a knockdown effect is less likely to think of trying a trip attack because they’d have to use a daily for that. If the player does suggest it, the DM’s first reaction might well be “That normally takes a daily action. I can’t let him do that at will! Every monster will be on it’s back every fight!” The only real solution to that is training yourself out of it. I think the DM can go a long way towards encouraging this by being descriptive with the bad guys attacks and setting up environments that encourage such play. Hanging ropes, chandeliers, pits, traps, fires, etc.
Of course, this is going to have the opposite effect you’re looking for in terms of combat lengths.. but if combats are more interesting, hopefully the PCs won’t be so eager to rush through them.
Also: JesterOC, thanks for this: “I had him burn a move action for that”. I’d been pondering how to introduce more standard tactics like trip and disarm alongside bull rush and charge, and I think this fits nicely. Bring back the 3e concept of the Full Attack (or borrow the 4e Monk’s ‘full discipline’) to balance these extra effects. Powers that grant these tactical effects alongside damage stay valuable because they hurt more and allow you further actions, while you have to focus your whole turn on tripping someone up with your sword. I like it.
Monk of Mirth
June 19, 2009
Roleplaying is where your players make it, although there’s ways to entice them. If my PCs describe what their character is doing in combat (ex. “I raise my sword, feint a kick to the gut and then slash my sword across its throat” vs “I use reaping strike”) they get +2 to damage. It seems simple, and it is really, but our combats have gotten much more fun and interesting. My group recently got the ritual to create magic items, so I made a skill challenge for the ritual of making magic items. They can get bonuses to the rolls if they describe/roleplay the ritual/skill challenge. We spent 2/3 of our game night making magic items rather than combat! They bartered for ingredients, thought of weapon names, looked for special ingredients, and just had a lot of fun. I’m really starting to believe that if you just blaze a trail for the people in your group with a few small breadcrumbs laid out, the PCs will surprise you with the depth and variety of roleplaying.
JesterOC
June 19, 2009
Phril, I think you hit it on the head with that. I find that I limit character actions based on my need for fairness. If a fighter has an ability to knock someone down via a power. Letting another player do the same thing without a power is not fair to the other player. I think some players may limit themselves also for the same reason.
To encourage players make stuff up, I worked out some actions that all players can do using the improve rules on page 42 or the DMG as a guide. I incorporated an added risk and a cost to them to keep it interesting, and to keep the character who might have a similar power special because it will be better than using the generic actions. (you can click on my name at the bottom to jump to my Blog for them if you are interested). It was that initial request by my player that sparked my desire to make sure everyone would start getting into the act.
I think it is working (slowly).
Norman Harman
June 19, 2009
Haven’t played 4e so no help there. But I hope my issues with some of the assumptions you apparently made in your post will provide illuminating.
You seem to indicate combat and roleplaying are mutually exclusive. They are not.
You are an active participant, sitting back and saying “If they want roleplaying they’ll bring it” is not adequate. If you want roleplaying you have to roleplay yourself and encourage it in others.
Random encounters do not equal random fights. If every encounter ends up in combat either you’re playing a miniatures combat game, your group *really( likes combat, or your group (including you) is doing encounters wrong.
I find it interesting you say both “group will bring in as much roleplaying to the table as they want.” and due to a particular system’s focus on combat, that combat’s complexity/length and rewards mechanics of system players are “feeling pressured to go from combat to combat in the time they have allotted to play, in order to collect their xp, loot, and level up”
Your system choice is preventing players from bringing any roleplaying to the table.
John Reyst
June 20, 2009
Hey – I created a Pathfinder SRD website that you and your readers may find useful. It currently has all of the Beta rules and I will convert to the Final rules once they are released. The site is at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/. I hope at least some of you guys get some use out of the site!
newbiedm
June 21, 2009
There are some great comments here, and I hope that the good guys over at WOTC read this, and other posts out in the blogosphere related to the topic and think about it.
I know in the Tome Show “1 year later” podcast the question about combat length came up.
We’ll see. There are some great tips here for the roleplaying aspect of it and I appreciate it guys.
Thanks for taking the time to comment on my blog.
Richard "Mythranar" Paez
June 22, 2009
I’m a player in Newbie’s world and feel half the party just wants to see their guy level up as quickly as possible to get their new powers, paragon or epic tier abilities, but there are a few of us that don’t mind slow and steady as long as it is entertaining. Newbie takes much time to carefully prepare our gaming sessions and at times I feel, as a player, our group lets him down.
Combat takes time and people not paying attention to what is happening slow down combat way too much. Also, players not knowing fully what their character can do and what powers they have slow down combat. I know, as playing a wizard, sometimes the players spread out the combat and I have to rethink of what spell (power) to use to maximize my damage/ control when the enemies are spread out because of we as players didn’t act as a group. Many factors go into slowing down game play. With that said, a person roleplays at any chance they get whether it be in combat, searching for loot/ traps, or just plain eating shit around town. The system is flawed, but every gaming system as the pros and cons you just have to learn to weave your way through the mess and play on. Oh, and houserules do help speed up game play if everyone is on board from the beginning with them.
Milambus
June 22, 2009
I would recommend a couple of changes to your game and see if they have an effect.
First, only prepare two encounters per session and let your players know that. If there is no third encounter to rush to, then there is no reason to rush to it.
Second, I would alter how you reward XP. There are many ways to do this. (Here are a few… this is not a comprehensive list =)
1. Reward them a set amount per session.
2. Have them level up at certain key points in the plot.
3. Reward them XP for RP encounters.
#3 might be your best option for this group because it will allow you to apply a bit of Pavlovian behavior modification. If the only behavior you are rewarding is combat, then that is the only behavior you are reinforcing/encouraging. If you want your players to RP more than reward them for doing so.
I would also suggest to reward RP XP the same way you reward combat XP. If you reward combat XP as a group, then do the same for RP XP. After a RP scene say something like “That was a good scene, everyone gets 100 XP.” Also make sure that the rewards for RP XP and combat XP are about equal over time… if one combat lasts an hour, then an hour of RP should be about the same XP as one combat.
Though, I may reward more RP XP in the beginning as people are getting used to the system. This will reinforce the behavior more quickly and start them down the path to more RP in the future.
Manny D (Geth lives on)
June 22, 2009
Milambus your input is great but since newbie doesn’t use xp as a reward then what is the point on RP xp.
John Reyst
June 22, 2009
In my campaign I just have the player’s level their PC’s every 3rd or 4th session. That way there is no stress over needing to have X many combat encounters or worrying that “ohs noes we have only roleplayed this session we are never going to level!” Bah. Everyone levels every 3-4 sessions. Now everyone plays it naturally without concern for such meta thinking.
Manny D (Geth lives on)
June 22, 2009
Nice!!
Oxybe
July 1, 2009
not all combat is to the death. i remember running Keep on the Shadowfell as a demo and those kobolds? when they saw the battle turn and their stronger allies go down, the weaker ones ran, be they minions, slingers or otherwise.
some fights were to the death though, especially when your options are 1) die swiftly by some human’s sword or 2) die by prolonged torture at the hands of the [and i quote] “hobgoblin gimp”.
same with animals: some will fight to the death, like a mother bear protecting her cubs, but others will back off if you prove to be too much of a threat and just passing through.
that hobgoblin i mentioned two paragraphs ago? his allies were paid to leave. the hobgobs in my world are militaristic & mercenaries by nature, so you’re often best served to try to negotiate with them first less they be very loyal too (and some are). the less scrupulous ones might even help you backstab their former boss.
that boss though? it’s a long fight. things will happen in the background that could cause trouble if ignored, enemy redshirts might rush into the room in waves of 3-5 every few rounds, the boss himself might not be a single entity but multiple ones you need to take care of, ect… these fights take a while, but tend to be more fondly remembered.
2 hours to fight an orc raiding party, not so much. 2 hours to fight Cheif Two-Spear as he tries to escape via the tunnel under his throne and his warriors are beating down both door and wall to help him from the assassins? different story.
12 enemies might seem like a lot, but that doesn’t mean 12 deaths. it might mean 5 deaths, 3 escapes and 4 surrenders. combat doesn’t have to be long, just interesting.
Jon Wiest
August 11, 2009
To respond to the article, I think this is up to the DM. To summarize what others have said, “monsters are people too”. They have motivations and fears, etc. Driving them off or bluffing them or sneaking past them should earn just as much experience and goal rewards for your players as killing them.
I will agree that the DD4 rules don’t emphasize roleplay, and IMHO they are missing a nice list of “secondary skills” that could help add non-combat flavour, but the system is capable of handling any amount of roleplay the DM feels like injecting.
Tom
December 1, 2009
I agree. I think the problem is that combat now occurs on a grid instead of in our heads. I admit: I skipped 3E, all of it. But it used to be the case that you had to engage your imagination constantly just to track the battle, because everything was just described. That engagement psychologically prepped people to roleplay more. Instead, combat requires everyone to focus on concrete things: battlemaps and plastic figures, and a billion data points. It seems unnecessary, and antithetical to imaginative engagement.
Stew
February 19, 2010
If you are looking for a way to just speed up combat, put a time limit on rounds. I use one of those cool old chess timers at the table and it helps a ton (and surprisingly enough doesn’t really stop the combat RP) also use the 3/4 HP and level modded ability scores for damage.
Also I like to hide info from the party so that they have to role play to dig it up. Want to know where the Hobgoblin mercenaries are taking the slaves you have to talk to people in the refugee camp and earn their trust.