[Oscar]

Just wanted to get a feel from others on how much combat you include in each session or sessions. I have had about five sessions with only 2 having some combat elements. Now I have tended to focus on the intrigue and the role play more, I do understand the need for combat and am all for it when required. Just drop a line would be good to get some other ideas on how GM's manage their sessions in regards to the amount of combat they include. cheers,

[martinchaen]

The amount of combat involved depends on the table, in my opinion.

The composition of the group and their approach to missions determines the amount of combat more than any preset X factor for us at least. In one game, we played somewhat established gang members and as you can imagine the turf wars heavily dominated the first part of that campaign. Once the characters got beyond regular street scum level, however, they were approached by a bona fide fixer and offered an actual run; now, the troll street sam who carries anything from a combat axe to an assault cannon obviously necessitates some level of combat, and since the rest of the group is composed mostly of characters geared for street war, this is a natural evolution.

In my Season 2 missions group the amount of combat again comes down to approach; if the group goes in guns blazing, that's their choice.

My advice: prepare for both intrigue, role play, and combat, and you'll have all your bases covered.

[firebug]

For me it's up to the players, in game and out of game.  I always discuss with the players what kind of game they want, since that's reflected in how they build characters.  If I have a group where the hacker is decked out with combat augments, the street samurai wants every excuse to bring his Ares Alpha into every situation, and the mage knows most combat and manipulation spells, then it's clear they want some confrontation.  But even beyond that, their characters are the types to choose combat when there may be other options because they know they're prepared for it.

So my advice would be to look at your PCs and see how they've been built. Or if you don't feel you need to make it a surprise, do what I do and ask about the players' desires for the focus of the game.  The best part is that combat doesn't need to go in the face of the things you like--  Intruigue and role playing.  Anyone who's seen Band of Brothers or similar movies knows that war and violence can bring out the worst in people and give way to some seriously dramatic storytelling opportunities.  On the other hand, you could go full-on D&D "challenge the paladin" route by having the combat they become so used to suddenly become a bit less black-and-white when they, say, are asked to remove a bunch of feral ghouls but realize they aren't quite all feral as some of them scream for the PCs to stop, which will hopefully start a bit of player debate.  They have to eliminate them all or else they won't get paid and their reputation will drop.  But how okay are they with killing the non-feral ghouls?  Especially interesting if one escapes while they are arguing and now they have to chase it down--  Regardless of their decision to kill it or not, a wounded ghoul running through the city is going to spread HMHVV like a plague rat.  How the handle the entire situation would be a great roleplaying opportunity.

[Tuoweit]

I agree with the above; how much combat happens mostly depends on what the group wants, collectively speaking.

That said, the threat of combat should always be present, at least in "traditional" games.  Shadowrunning against powerful entities is inherently dangerous, and the occasional demonstration of overwhelming firepower while players are engaged in their no-combat missions can help to remind them of the stakes if they slip, which keeps the tension up. 

[Reaver]

agreed...


The amount of Combat in a game should be based on your players expectations. The whole point of any RPG is to have fun as a whole! If your players want a blood and guts game where 90% of the time is combat... that is what you give them


On the other hand, if they want suspense and intrigue, that is what you give them



In short, there is no right answer here... as the right answer is based on the players expectations. And as the GM it is our job to tailor the game experience we offer to meet our players expectations... as much as we can. (but, it also OK to throw them curveballs every now and then too)

[RHat]

Basically, here's the trick:  Ideally, you want each player to get the spotlight at least once a session.  If you have a character who is combat primary, and you only have combat in about 40% of sessions, that kind of sucks for that player - though you can move to other aspects of the character as well if you need to, such as if they have a secondary stealth focus.

[baronspam]

It really depends on individual style.  Some Shadowrun games are composed of shooting assault rifles from motorcycles that you are jumping over a semi-truck full of mining explosives while running from a dragon.  Other groups will spend 45 minutes doing legwork and contingency planning before the characters go to Stuffer Shack to pick up some heat and serve pizza.  In my opinion the truth lies somewhere in the middle. 

Bottom line, ask your players what they think.  Is there enough combat?  Too much combat?  For some groups combat is the point, for others it is what happens when things go wrong.  There is no right answer, just what a given group finds enjoyable. 

[Oscar]

Thank you all for the responses. I will get some feedback from the group and see how they believe it is tracking. I will also look towards the fact that characters do need to shine and the amount of time a player invests in their character should be rewarded as long as combat fits into the story. While I can't make players perform certain actions and drive the story, I can certainty provide little nudges here and there

Thanks again, and keep the responses coming for other's to read and for me to catch up on. Cheers.

[RHat]

[...]as long as combat fits into the story.

Point of order:  If the story doesn't allow for every player to get their spotlight time, the story must shift.

[Reiper]

It depends largely on the group. Most of my runs when I GM, have non-combat options.

Now, the rewards aren't always going to be the same in the long run.

They may get bonuses down the line for avoiding combat in some situations, but others it may be a bit more difficult down the road than if they had taken out a group.

But in the long run, its up to the players. I've been in groups that love combat, and I've been in others that have gone almost an entire campaign and killed just a handful of people. Even playing a sniper in some campaigns myself, I love going the non-combat route (unless it's against a dwarf, I hate dwarves).

But I am a big fan of unintended consequences when GMing, and I'll try to at least throw a wrench into the gears if the players are trying the same exact strategy over and over again just to keep it interesting.

[Tuoweit]

[...]as long as combat fits into the story.

Point of order:  If the story doesn't allow for every player to get their spotlight time, the story must shift.

That spotlight doesn't have to be combat, though, even if combat is a character's primary focus.  It depends on the player(s), as has been mentioned several times.

[RHat]

[...]as long as combat fits into the story.

Point of order:  If the story doesn't allow for every player to get their spotlight time, the story must shift.

That spotlight doesn't have to be combat, though, even if combat is a character's primary focus.  It depends on the player(s), as has been mentioned several times.

Which is something I mentioned in a prior post.  However, if you have a combat primary character, you do need to be sure that combat comes up with enough frequency.  If the character's primary focus is spotlighted less than their secondary or tertiary focus, something's a bit off.

[Tuoweit]

Which is something I mentioned in a prior post.  However, if you have a combat primary character, you do need to be sure that combat comes up with enough frequency.  If the character's primary focus is spotlighted less than their secondary or tertiary focus, something's a bit off.

I feel like I'm repeating myself here: Not necessarily, it depends on the players.  Some players with combat primaries are perfectly happy even if they rarely get into a fight, for a variety of reasons.  Maybe not you, and maybe not your players, but that's ok; I'm just trying to point out that it's not so formulaic as you make it out to be.

[RHat]

Which is something I mentioned in a prior post.  However, if you have a combat primary character, you do need to be sure that combat comes up with enough frequency.  If the character's primary focus is spotlighted less than their secondary or tertiary focus, something's a bit off.

I feel like I'm repeating myself here: Not necessarily, it depends on the players.  Some players with combat primaries are perfectly happy even if they rarely get into a fight, for a variety of reasons.  Maybe not you, and maybe not your players, but that's ok; I'm just trying to point out that it's not so formulaic as you make it out to be.

And I'm just pointing out that the story is not, in fact, the most important determinant - the players and their characters are.  Keep in mind that I'm using what a player built their character for as a shortcut for them communicating what they want in the game; if the secondary focus is actually what they most want but they went combat primary because they figured somebody had to, that's certainly an exception.