I'm beginning work on an editorial for a newly opened (actually site jsut went live today) roleplaying website. I am looking for honest, well worded answers from actual players and gamemasters across a multitude of sites.

The first editorial will look at roleplaying vs combat. How do you weigh them? Which is more important in your campaign? Why is X more important than Y in Z campaign type? Etc...

I could just write something up for next Monday and say that is that, but that would only be my opinion and as with any research the more sources the better. So please let me know what you think, what systems you play, and how you weight these things within your games.

I will try to credit any users whose post significantly add to the article.

As far as I'm concerned, combat is part of the RP, and if it isn't then I have to ask: "Why the hell are we fighting?". I try to keep combat as a part of the story, not a need the story is required to incorporate. My players will solve things with violence if they feel it is the best means to achieve their goals, otherwise combat may be avoided completely if they can avoid getting into trouble. Few games avoid combat entirely of course, the presumption in the design and premise of most RPGs being that combat should be a major aspect of play. As a GM I try to put in enough combat to keep whoever my current group is satisfied, though I do love the groups that see violence as an unfortunate (though frequently enjoyable) neccessity of their situation, rather than something to actively seek out. I consider one of my best accomplishments in this regard to be a DnD game that I ran with 8 players, that had three 8+ hour sessions in a row without a single actual combat being involved, as the players were far more concerned with exploring the city, finding a place for themselves in society, and developing their characters.

Roleplaying should be the central aspect of any RPG, hence the name roleplaying game. But conflict, not strictly just physical combat, but conflict and especially epic conflict in all its form makes gaming interesting. There is very little interest in roleplaying a day in the life of Joe Shmoe, since we're all Joe Shmoe, but their is something very fun about playing the hero (even if he or she is a dark hero) who saves the town/city/world/universe at great sacrifice and cost to themselves.

But combat without roleplaying is tabletop combat gaming or board gaming. Nothing wrong with that, obviously since many of us have in some way had a hand in tabletop combat gaming (aka Warhammer 40k) but its not an RPG.

There is a fine line between though what's the difference between tabletop/board combat gaming and RPG. I can (and have) roleplayed a game of Risk, and roleplayed a game of Warhammer 40k, which is much easier to do because of all the fluff around it But the difference between a tabletop combat game/board combat game and a RPG, for me, is you almost need roleplaying in some aspect and the amount of RP per game is up to the players and not the game.

For example, the amounts will vary from game to game. It ranges from almost no RP/heavy combat, as in AD&D 4th edition, to about equal, as with Unhallowed Metropolis and Changling, and Scion, to heavier RP/less combat in Dark Heresy and Cthuhlutech and almost not combat but very heavy RP in Houses of the Blooded.

The big thing with all those games is that it would be very easy to switch around the amount of RP/Combat in all of those games based on simply shifting our focus. In games like Warhammer 40k, its almost impossible to shift the focus to more roleplaying simply because the rules do not support that.

But to answer your question directly, the weight of combat and roleplaying is based on the game setting, and what the GM has envisioned, and what the players want to do. There are days we just want to all blast away, and so our Dark Heresy game becomes a day of nothing but killing heretics and mutants on some feral world. Other days we want to be more social, and our AD&D 4th games take place in the town.

I find my self very much on accord with the previous posters, but wants to add a notion:

I have played several convention scenarios without any combat in them, even without a system for combat, where as I have never played a campaign were we did not have stats for fighting, and there has been an amount of fighting equal to 1:5 session with combat, and asmuch as 1:3 . My current DH campaign is 20 sessions with 2 combats(1:10), and one was a training one, with paint marker guns.

The fight has got to make sense to the story, some how... I had fights go on, with only the purpose of telling the players "this is a dangerous and deranged place!" - these are short and easy fights, lasting 10 minutes play time or so. They might seem like random encounters, but these people will have a reason for being there, and for attacking.

There can be fighting every other session, or once in 100, as long as it makes sense to the story or the atmosphere mostly though . Always in a one-shot, But sometimes in a campaign, I will break out a fight, to have a change of contents. Have the players been talking for 6 sessions straight? did they gain a level, but only the talkers got to show of their skills? its probably time for a short, but interesting fight(defined here as a fight with some unique elements)

...Idless

I've never weighed them. If RP calls for combat then combat is what will happen. At the same time, even though RP should dictate when combat happens, I wouldn't ever rush a combat or downplay that situation so we can get back to the roleplaying. When a fight is over, there should be new roleplaying opportunities that come from it. (Which is why I also tend to avoid completely random encounters in games.)

I guess if I had to weigh them, they'd be equal in importance.

I would pretty much agree with everything mentioned before. It's hard, with Dark Heresy at least, to separate combat from RP, as Aureus mentions, and my players would get quite minty if there were no fights involved at some point over a couple of sessions. The danger is that big fights can sometimes take over a short RP session (let's say 3-4 hours long), and when there are multiple dice rolling and combat takes over an hour to resolve from initial set up to denouement, then you can feel starved of RP!

As a GM some of the most memorable moments have come within combat situations. They often add that element of chance to proceedings that can make a difference, with either fluffed dice rolls (my friend's character getting hurled off of a clock tower in Venice by a mechanized dancing figure) or monumental pieces of luck (blowing the combat servitor's head off with a crappy Las pistol with one shot) - and although I am not saying that these are necessarily the best moments in a gaming session, they tend to be the things that players remember for a long time.

It all goes to show that RP elements, especially in 'investigation' heavy games, like CoC, become paramount, and that if the playing group like the genre of a given role play game enough, then they usually won't mind the 'imbalance.' There is nothing like the creeping horror that can steal over a player when they are isolated and in danger, or have discovered something by putting disparate facts together. Those moments in RP are priceless - but as has been mentioned before, a healthy balance of all of these elements usually makes for the most satisfactory experience for most gaming groups.

Must admit that our games tend to lean towards combat more than RP simply because that seems to be what the players enjoy more. That being said, my session this week didn't involve a single shot, stab, bludgeon or any other form of violence. Which I think maybe a record for my group.