This is to SHARK especially, the manliest GM I've heard of.

Ordinary role-play could be considered sietch matters, human interaction. Wilderness play could be considered desert matters, travel, avoiding monsters, the like. But "combat" or martial encounters, violent mix-ups and frays, those are like Storms.

It is possible to weather a Storm. One needs a sand compaction tool and a tent or at least a rebreather, and time to bury oneself deep enough. But, no one can endure a Storm forever.

So, in your play, how long can your players endure a mêlée or duel? How long in real-time can a fight last before your players get bored? Do you take breaks during it, or do you rush toward a conclusion? Do you make your fights short, brutal, and snappy, or do you emulate them in great detail, in slow-motion like a Sam Peckinpah film?

The same could be said for things like mysteries. A mystery, where one is fighting a kind of Storm-of-ignorance, can only be prolonged for so long before it becomes anti-climactic, dull, and even onerous. Something has to come to a head at some point. So, consider this a corollary question: How long can your mysteries proceed before you hit a wall of disinterest?

Neoplatonist1

I get bored of combat way before my players, but they insist on D&D 5e. My Dragonbane crew (different group) thinks combat is way more fun and over quicker with a good resolution.

We stopped our current campaign last sunday, at least for a couple of months- perhaps it'll end there. It was a good stopping point, and the last session was 3.5 hours of almost nonstop fighting.
the most we had for a continuous fight was 2 sessions, so about 7-8 hours, where they cleared a village from a gang, some sorcerers that funded said gang and then an abomination one of them summoned. there was some intigue sprinkled in, a short siege, secret rooms, a chase thhrough the sewers and up the streets and a last stand- but they were all part of the fight.

But these are the exceptions. most combats end in under 10 minutes for us.

As for mysteries, they were in the capital for 6 months IRL (almost 30 sessions), trying to solve a murder which slowly revealed a larger plot (plus they were frames for treason). there were fights, a prison break, a pact with a demoness and a military coup- but that REALLY stained them, they were itching to go out to the wilderness afterwards.

My experience is the mode generation at the table dictates that number. (If you don't remember your statistics, the Mode is the most frequently repeated result.) As this is a somewhat complex premise to understand I will explain it in some depth.

Gen X tends to have really long attention spans and Gen Z tends to have really short attention spans. Millennials can go either way. That said, boredom tends to act like a function of peer pressure. If you put 1 Gen Z player at a table of Gen Xers, the Gen Z player will probably play like a Gen Xer and if you put a Gen Xer at a table of Gen Zs, they will probably barely resist getting bored more slowly than their compatriots.

The mode generation of the table is what sets the rate that the table gets bored. If you have 3 "Geriatric Millennials" out of a table of 5, your table will act like a Gen X table and your player attention span will be at least an hour, likely closer to two. If you have 3 Gen Zs and a Gen Xer at a table, it will get bored at the Gen Z rate and your table will get bored between half an hour and 45 minutes.

Personal opinion: it may sound like I am poo-pooing Gen Z for having a stunted attention span, but I actually think their attention span is more appropriate. If your combats are remotely close to getting players bored, you need to switch systems, and in this regard the rate Gen Z gets bored is a much more useful rate than the Gen X rate. It doesn't need to have combat end more quickly, but it does need higher interactivity. And unless you pick a system doing something funky with initiative, that probably means cycling the initiative faster.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 06, 2025, 12:03:55 PMThis is to SHARK especially, the manliest GM I've heard of.

Ordinary role-play could be considered sietch matters, human interaction. Wilderness play could be considered desert matters, travel, avoiding monsters, the like. But "combat" or martial encounters, violent mix-ups and frays, those are like Storms.

It is possible to weather a Storm. One needs a sand compaction tool and a tent or at least a rebreather, and time to bury oneself deep enough. But, no one can endure a Storm forever.

So, in your play, how long can your players endure a mêlée or duel? How long in real-time can a fight last before your players get bored? Do you take breaks during it, or do you rush toward a conclusion? Do you make your fights short, brutal, and snappy, or do you emulate them in great detail, in slow-motion like a Sam Peckinpah film?

The same could be said for things like mysteries. A mystery, where one is fighting a kind of Storm-of-ignorance, can only be prolonged for so long before it becomes anti-climactic, dull, and even onerous. Something has to come to a head at some point. So, consider this a corollary question: How long can your mysteries proceed before you hit a wall of disinterest?

Neoplatonist1

Greetings!

Good to see you, Neoplatonist1! Thank you for your praise!

Well, I would say that in actual age, most of my players are GenX and late-Millennials. 30's, 40's, and 50's. As for "Weathering the Storm" in combat, my players love combat and drama. So, I can have them fighting a whole lot during a game session. Individual fights probably last from 5 to 20 minutes, depending on the number of combatants involved, and the particular setting and terrain. I use the Shadowdark system, so mechanics-wise, the combat is very similar to AD&D and is swift, simple, and brutal. While magic exists, of course, much of combat in the game emulates realistic hand-to-hand combat, so the actual fighting is typically quick and decisive. People and creatures die horrible, blood-spattered deaths. I liberally embrace special a Critical Wound Table, so finishing moves are savage and cinematically inspired!

Real-world hand-to-hand combat is usually quick and brutal as well. Bone-crunching, teeth chomping, blood flying. It's a savage mess. I like to have my game-combat inspired by real-world combat, so it is always fun and usually entertaining--though on occasion, absolutely dark and brutal.

I provide Fighter Characters with two special abilities:

The Beast Within
The Beast Within provides Fighter Characters with an inner savagery, and a spirit hardened by steel, fire, and blood. Fighter Characters gain the ability of rerolling any required Fear or Morale Checks, and have Advantage when doing so.  Fighter Characters also gain the benefit of ignoring any kind of circumstantial penalties or modifiers whenever they have suffered 50% or more damage total to their Hit Points. However, Fighter Characters do suffer appropriate penalties and modifiers when they have suffered more than 50% Hit Point loss, as deemed appropriate by the DM in regarding to the nature of the wounds or affliction.

Ruthless Warrior
Fighter Characters have been extensively trained and drilled in various styles and techniques of martial arts and hand-to-hand combat skills, and are very skilled in making use of improvised weapons, as well as their own body when engaged in brutal hand-to-hand combat. This provides the Fighter Character with a bonus equal to their Character Level whenever rolling on the Critical Wounds Table. Furthermore, Fighter Characters may make use of special moves, special techniques in hand-to-hand combat that are especially brutal and lethal, whether jamming their thumb into an opponent's eye, chomping their teeth on an opponent's throat, ramming a coffee mug into an opponent's face and teeth in a brutal strike, again and again. These various special moves and techniques gain the Fighter Character Advantage on such dice rolls, as deemed appropriate by the DM for the circumstances and situation.

Other Character Classes typically do not possess these abilities, so for Fighter Characters, they are especially brutal and lethal whenever they are engaged in close, hand-to-hand fighting.

Needless to say, Fighters are very dangerous people. Steel-eyed, ruthless in mind and spirit, they easily wade into the terror, pain, and chaos of combat, with blood flowing and people screaming and dying all about. Fighters are absolute killers, and are terrifying to see in action. They are not normal people, being willing to defend themselves--no, Fighters have a passion and zeal for the "Fight" and spilling blood. Fighters have that certain kind of "Kill Switch" that gets flipped when violence knocks at the door--the Fighter is always ready.

So, that is how I think my players embrace combat in the game. I can't say I have ever had players get "bored" with combat action. I tend to run my combat melees with good authority, description, action and drama. There is never a dull moment!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Usually I tend to think that if you can having a combat focused session in a resource based game such as most D&D lookealikes require two set up fights there to use up some resources and a "boss" fight. So I usually want to keep fights short enough to be able to have two quick fights and a big fight per session as well as some non-fighting in between. But as levels increase or experience in other games it is usually not doable. Then its better to forgo the setup fights and make the "boss" encounters a bit more boss to handle the increased player resource.

For boredom the amount of drama and stakes in the fight usually determines when boredom sets in, a few short and intimidating descriptions can build up early tension very well. Record for a single fight was an end of campaign fight that lasted probably ten hours but that is probably a bit long but it was Exalted 2ed and we weren't wise enough to house rule it enough, people still talk about that session now and then however so it can't have been that bad. These days I build the systems I run around swift brutality for the most part, preferring to go 3-5 rounds in D&D like systems. Explosive violence is very tension building and knowing your character isn't safe builds engagement.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 06, 2025, 07:03:16 PMMy experience is the mode generation at the table dictates that number. (If you don't remember your statistics, the Mode is the most frequently repeated result.) As this is a somewhat complex premise to understand I will explain it in some depth.
...

Interesting take, Fheredin, thanks.

And, thanks to everyone who replied.

Quote from: SHARK on February 07, 2025, 02:09:23 AMGreetings!

Good to see you, Neoplatonist1! Thank you for your praise!

Well, I would say that in actual age, most of my players are GenX and late-Millennials. 30's, 40's, and 50's. As for "Weathering the Storm" in combat, my players love combat and drama. So, I can have them fighting a whole lot during a game session. Individual fights probably last from 5 to 20 minutes, depending on the number of combatants involved, and the particular setting and terrain. I use the Shadowdark system, so mechanics-wise, the combat is very similar to AD&D and is swift, simple, and brutal. While magic exists, of course, much of combat in the game emulates realistic hand-to-hand combat, so the actual fighting is typically quick and decisive. People and creatures die horrible, blood-spattered deaths. I liberally embrace special a Critical Wound Table, so finishing moves are savage and cinematically inspired!
...

Thanks, SHARK.

How many dice rolls are made in those 5 to 20 minutes? How many tables are consulted, rules looked up, or miniatures moved on a map? I want to boil it down to the real-life, physical/oral/dice actions of a fight to see how I should condense my own games (I use Phoenix Command, typically--heavy on dice rolls, tables, and hex-based movement), without overwhelming the players. Players like rolling dice, but if they have to roll 85 times in a single fight, that might be boring and overwhelming to them.

Neoplatonist1

"Storms" (RAW) are boring.

Most ttrpgs are written by nerds who probably haven't been in a fight in their lives. Hence, combat rules across the hobby are trash.

So it's best when GMs keep combat short and tactical:

• Stop with the straight up fights. Ambush the PCs. Surprise is a fine ally
• Use grabs to take hostages "Drop your weapons or the whatchamacallit dies!"
• if a bad guy gets hit but isn't taken out have 'em play dead then pop back up and backstab a PC
• Use Hit & Run, please. Have the bad guys fight for ONE round then run off. It'll drive the players crazy
• Have a pit trap nearby that the bad guys lure the PCs into
• If it's an indoor fight, have a bad guy immediately set everything on fire

Reading books on small-unit warfare can't hurt. Watch UFC fights. They lure opponents into making mistakes and that's the whole of combat in a nutshell.

More than 3 rounds of combat is hell for some players so just get it over with.

How long can we do combats? Whole 4+ hour sessions if need be.

One the most entertaining was a case of storming an enemy stronghold (mission was to free hostages and reclaim it from raiders) where a big part of the challenge was not getting pinned down in one place long enough for reinforcements to converge; no short rests or any such nonsense, you had to take down the half-dozen guys in the hallway in a handful of rounds or reinforcements started arriving. Take them down before then and you can rush another group before the enemy can fully get into position.

By the time it was over everyone was on fumes and one of the fighters had to stabilized the old fashioned way because there was no healing (spell or potion) left, but the enemy was put to rout and the PCs had control of the stronghold. They then held it long enough for allied forces to arrive and take control.I

They were technically outnumbered seven to one, but a careful start (searching out one of the hold's hidden exits) got them an initial ambush and though the alarm got raised, they'd already moved on to setting their stalls alight and then storming the keep proper (where the hostages were) through the kitchens and took control of the roof to fire (arrow and spell) down on the enemy while making a choke point of the roof access long enough for "the better part of valor" to call a retreat rather than lose more of their forces (they were bandits at heart... and continuing wasn't going to profitable... better a bit of loot and their lives than risk it all for not too much more).

The Lord considered it a success as the hostages were safe and his border fortress reclaimed. The bandits making off with some of the silver was an "acceptable loss" compared to the ransoms demanded and the boost to his reputation of giving no quater to raiders. The two-dozen dead ones hung along the roads for months as a warning and the approximately two-dozen who fled were not seen in the region again.