Posts like these seem fairly common. If you group is a hack and slash group then combat is not only not a problem but something they actively enjoy.

If you are playing a non-violent genre then you can not worry too much about combat. I find the deadliest combat systems work best for the least violent genres. StarTrek never degenerated into a gun fight at the OK Corral but a phaser set to kill did exactly that.

Games with hit points or equivalent are the worst, in my opinion, it is hard to role play having 85 hit points as opposed to 90 hit points. Even when people get down to 30 hit points they are still running around like Usain Bolt.

I also do not like combat as resource erosion. If the fight is not a life or death situation then there is no dramatic tension.

The flip side is that combat can add a great deal of drama to an adventure but only if the combat means something. I think the time it takes to play out the combat can be an issue in some games. If the scene becomes too drawn out, taking hours to resolve then it can dominate the game session. I played with one GM who always insisted in making every roll for every NPC and it felt like check every rule and modifier. In a game like Rolemaster that could mean you got to have a go once every 20 to 40 minutes and players would leave the room to make tea once their attack was over. That is not what I call player engagement.

I play the same system mostly and my combats are fast and keep the momentum. I avoid unnecessary combats and each one advances the story or provides a branching point.

I played in a PBP post game last year and in three months of play there was just one combat. I played a medic in the game but I was armed and I fired 3 shots and I think I hit with one or maybe two.

In the PBP game I ran there were three fights. One of them the player set up to take out and assassin and take his place as part of an infiltration. The fight was a bar room brawl that turned nasty. The second took place in the sewers under Waterdeep and the lone player was attacked in ‘self defence’ by homeless people sheltering down there but being preyed upon by undead monsters. The fell upon the player thinking he was one of the undead. The character managed to end the fight without killing any of the innocent people. The final fight established the player as a ‘hero’ in the publics eyes as he saved some sewer workers who were cornered by undead monsters. He fell upon them from behind and saved the day.

I don’t think you need to avoid combat but at the same time you don’t need to use it gratuitously. A pointless combat is exactly that, pointless.

For both Call of Cthulhu and Shadowrun, I consider combat to be a failure state from the point of view of the characters.

Sounds like the typical D&D or derivative problem – HP bloat, whiff factor, kewl powaz, and the old adage of every problem looking like a nail.

If the table is in favor of this because they like things the way they are, then you’re most probably SOL and you’re going to have to adapt or change groups.

If not, then the group will have to brainstorm about about adventure design, the game engine or – worst case – switching games.

That’s the point why I love the fighting system of the Cypher System/Numenera so much. Only the players roll and the GM is telling. This speeds up the time for fighting a lot.

I couldn’t agree LESS. As I roll initiative, my adrenaline soars! I immediately starting planning my tactics. I watch the other players’ turns and I enjoy cheering them on. I love the synergy between the characters as we work to defeat the threat. We all cheer when crits are rolled and we “dig deeper” when things go sideways. Combat, for me, is the best part of rpgs.