Adam France said:
Re what I'd prefer from a sample adventure rather than just a string of combats linked by a storyline thread; really I'd want what I'd expect from any other rpg, as broadly as I can put it is an adventure that presents the pcs with an interesting setting and task, that effectively gives the party a mix of challenges that are not all (or even necessarily mostly) combat oriented.
The thing is if everything is just about combat it will be... boring. It really will.
I find that combat works best in rpgs when it's not a long, regular and grinding process. I love combat as much as the next guy, but it should have context, tension, be descriptive, and preferrably over fairly quickly in real time. If a combat lasts longer than an hour real time I tend to think there's a problem, and if it has taken that long I probably wouldn't want another combat that game session. Any more than that and really are you playing a roleplaying game or a tabletop combat game?
To each their own, but I find that the relative frequency and intensity of combat depends more on the tone and nature of the game and the characters than anything else.
Space Marines are sent into the most dangerous warzones, against the most dangerous enemies. It's their reason for existing. It would seem inappropriate for Space Marines not to face combat more frequently than, say, Rogue Traders or Inquisitorial Acolytes (in both cases, there are numerous preferable alternative methods to achieve similar goals).
That said, I don't see combat and roleplaying as being at odds. Having successfully run various combat-heavy RPs in the past, I've found that (with the right group), the matters of strategy and tactics, and the depth of internal roleplay (that is, interactions between player characters, rather than interactions with NPCs) can be just as entertaining and enthralling as a murder mystery or similar non-combat situation, and that the choices made in combat are no less examples of roleplaying than the choices made during a negotiation.
The key, really, is to ensure that combat doesn't become a grind of the same old attack rolls every round. Objectives, terrain and enemy tactics all change combats in various ways, such that gunning down an angry horde of cultists is a far different prospect to assaulting a fortified position defended by disciplined, well-equipped enemies, which in turn is different from defending fortifications, reinforcing a PDF garrison, escorting an important person or boarding an enemy starship. Think of the difference between the two big combat scenes in Aliens: at first, the protagonists are uncertain as to what the enemy is, and are ambushed largely defenceless due to their circumstances... it's quite different to their last stand later in the movie, as they try and fend off a known enemy, all the while hampered by limited numbers and resources.
The Deathwatch method, IMO, works quite well for interesting combat-heavy RPs. Broad objectives, achievable by any means necessary give players free reign to plot and plan and analyse, and the use of turning points can break up otherwise monotonous and difficult-to-run large battles (its a matter of pacing and focus more than anything else - a turning point gives them a goal beyond "kill as many foes as you can", and can add a sense of urgency).
In essence, the key is to make combat interesting, rather than resigning yourself to the belief that combat is boring. If combat is boring, then you're not really doing it right - the action should be exciting and tense and dangerous.
