Frequency of Combat

[Majestic]

In the rules, there's an interesting statement:

In the game, one in every two sessions of play will probably see at least one combat encounter.

I don't know about you, but our games have had much more than this, and that's been using the published works. So as I prepare for tonight's session, I remembered this phrase.

I certainly understand the intent; TOR isn't supposed to be a D&D-esque dungeon crawl, where players grind their way through one fight after the other. But skirmishes with enemy forces add both drama and excitement, and it's part of the dangerous life of an adventurer. Not to mention fun encounters that sometimes pop up randomly when a Hazard is triggered.

How about you? Do your games end up having at least one combat nearly every session? Or do you find them taking place more rarely than that?

[zedturtle]

Let's see, Tales as we played it:

Don't Leave the Path: 3 combats (the thugs, the spiders and the thing in the well)
Kinstrife and Dark Tidings: 1.5 combats (they put a bag over Faron and avoided actual combat to get Oderic away, but it was close)
A Darkness in the Marshes: 5 combats (2 at Mountain Hall, 1 at Dwimmerhorn, 2 as they fled Dwimmerhorn).
Crossings of Celduin: 2.5 (one player requested scene on the way to Dale, one half-combat as Lockmund escaped, the actual battle, not counting any of the mock combats/activities)
The Watch on the Heath: 3 (snow-trolls and then a successful luring away of some of the uruks and then the final battle)

So 15 combats in about 13 sessions. More than one per session, for sure.

[tomfish]

I try to have one session without combat every 3 or 4 so that it does not become a habit for the players, and i usually like my combats short...

[Azrael Macool]

I think that statement was meant to be taken as in at MINIMUM 1 every 2 sessions or so. Because while you don't want to have combats all the time, it definitely is fun to have one every now and again, and adds drama and tension. So if you have more combats than 1 per every other session, it's totally okay. Of course, have too many combats, and you're liable to be Weary and/or Wounded all the time, so you know. Give and take. I've only ran 2 sessions with my online group, and we've had 1 in the second session so far (we're running The Marsh-bell). It was fun, plus it reminded the players of how easily combat, especially combat against a Troll, can turn (for the first 2 or 3 rounds, the troll couldn't touch them... then he got an extraordinary success against the Hobbit, knocking him down from full Endurance to only 4. I decided not to spend the Hate to activate Horrible Strength, because that just seemed overly mean, though I probably should have in order to demonstrate hate point expenditures and knockback and whatnot.)

[Falenthal]

More or less like tomfish: we have a combat mostly every session, be it a big one or a skirmish. But once in a while I try to have a session without combats. What I usually avoid at all costs is to use a combat as a Hazard. I try not to add fights to the adventures. Maybe I'd do it if the group was venturing into the Mountains of Mirkwood or Dol Guldur after the Nazgûl's occupation, but usually I prefer Hazards related to travel and terrain dangers, not a pointless combat.

[Rich H]

I think it's best to look at number of combats per adventure rather than per session as a session length can vary between different groups by quite some distance - from 2 to 10 hours, easily.

Per adventure, I tend to have between 2 or 3 battles.

EDIT: Actually, it's more like 1 or 2 and adventure length can vary so again measuring such things is far from perfect.

[Corvo]

In my campaign, I have two Fellowships played by the same players:

The King's Men, Bardings based on Dale, veterans of 70 xp circa,
and the Hunters, Beornings and Woodmen based on the Anduin, around 20 xp.

The King's Men are (in?)famous warriors, with high social skills to booth. The result is that they have fewer combats: 1 every two sessions on average, or 1-2 per adventure, rarely 3. Parley is their first option, and often it works.

The Hunters got abysmal social skills, and are pretty much unknown. Despite their lower combat prowess, they fight a lot: 2/3 of the sessions have a combat, or 2-3 per adventure.

[Stormcrow]

I find frequent combat to be undesirable. To best reflect Tolkien, I like to see players avoid combat whenever possible. Combat is a sign that your other ideas have failed.

[Rich H]

... And out of interest guys, what do TfW and RotN average per adventure? Don't have the books to hand so can't check myself.

[Falenthal]

... And out of interest guys, what do TfW and RotN average per adventure? Don't have the books to hand so can't check myself.

From what I've played so far (and thus remember better), Kinstrife does have only one combat, the Battle of Stonyford. Everything else depends on the actions of the heroes, but probably is just one more combat.
Darkness in the Marshes doesn't have many more forced combats: 1 in the Gladden Fields, 1 when resting in Mountain Hall at the end of the adventure. Everything else can be avoided or is just a consequence of hostile player actions.
Of Leaves and Stewed Hobbit has a combat against a Night-wight (which I avoided completely, not seeing its sense in the story), and the battle at the ruined tower. Then, the rescue in the goblin tunnels should be solved without any killing (maybe only that of the first two guards). So it can contain 1 or 2 combats.

I'd say that most adventures contain 1 or 2 combats, with 1 or 2 extra situations where combat is an option, but it can be easily avoided (or, at least, other options are obvious).