Here's a theory: Have you ever had a game "burn out"? This occurs when the players get bored and want to do other things. I notice that usually after 3 encounters (combat, exploration, role-playing, skill challenge, etc.) the players have had enough, so my thinking goes like this:
- i have to do less prep
- they have more fun
- i can give each encounter more love
if I have about three.
Three encounters allows for having an encounter for every pillar of adventure, or a bunch of one, because the PCs don't get tired out of, say, combat. Not to mention each encounter can be the beginning, middle, and end of an adventure. Or, if you're looking for a more in depth adventure, just split it over a few sessions, no problem. let's say our adventure is about a thieves guild out to get the PCs.
Encounter 1: Two assassins attack. (combat, and maybe they interrogate them. RP!)
Encounter 2: Searching for the thieves. (exploration, and maybe more RP!)
Encounter 3: Fighting the thieves' boss. (boss battle)
I think it's really good that you're paying attention to your Players, and their engagement and energy levels.
However - why are they getting burned out with more than one combat? Is it because they just don't like combat ( in which case maybe you need to de-emphacize combat in your adventures ), or is it because there's not enough variety in the combat? I'm really not trying to criticize your game here - I'm just asking questions.
Perhaps they just don't have the attention span for longer sessions - maybe you need to add more variety in each kind of encounter - maybe its a combination of the two.
Personally, if I was trying to figure out which it was, I'd throw two vastly different combat scenes at them: for example a toe-to-toe slugfest with mercenary bandits in the sewers, as opposed to a running crossbow battle with an assassin on a number of ships moving through a canal ( leaping from boat to boat, long range shots, crawling in the rigging, trying to figure out where the assassin went? ). If they're still bored ... then yeah, maybe they're just not the kind of Players who like long sessions. If they really like both encounters, then it's a variety issue.
But kudos to you for monitoring your Players and trying to tailor your session to what they like! :)
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
i know my players like killing things, they're 10 - 14! Although one has a weird thing about scalping things, and eating knuckles, and whole captives... but they are murderous maniacs who live only for loot and blood. Also, I like using dungeon tiles, so some of the more dynamic battles might not be feasible. Also, they don't focus on anything too well.
Here's a theory: Have you ever had a game "burn out"? This occurs when the players get bored and want to do other things. I notice that usually after 3 encounters (combat, exploration, role-playing, skill challenge, etc.) the players have had enough, so my thinking goes like this:
- i have to do less prep
- they have more fun
- i can give each encounter more love
if I have about three.
Three encounters allows for having an encounter for every pillar of adventure, or a bunch of one, because the PCs don't get tired out of, say, combat. Not to mention each encounter can be the beginning, middle, and end of an adventure. Or, if you're looking for a more in depth adventure, just split it over a few sessions, no problem. let's say our adventure is about a thieves guild out to get the PCs.
Encounter 1: Two assassins attack. (combat, and maybe they interrogate them. RP!)
Encounter 2: Searching for the thieves. (exploration, and maybe more RP!)
Encounter 3: Fighting the thieves' boss. (boss battle)
What do you think
I did NOT eat those hikers.
I think it's really good that you're paying attention to your Players, and their engagement and energy levels.
However - why are they getting burned out with more than one combat? Is it because they just don't like combat ( in which case maybe you need to de-emphacize combat in your adventures ), or is it because there's not enough variety in the combat? I'm really not trying to criticize your game here - I'm just asking questions.
Perhaps they just don't have the attention span for longer sessions - maybe you need to add more variety in each kind of encounter - maybe its a combination of the two.
Personally, if I was trying to figure out which it was, I'd throw two vastly different combat scenes at them: for example a toe-to-toe slugfest with mercenary bandits in the sewers, as opposed to a running crossbow battle with an assassin on a number of ships moving through a canal ( leaping from boat to boat, long range shots, crawling in the rigging, trying to figure out where the assassin went? ). If they're still bored ... then yeah, maybe they're just not the kind of Players who like long sessions. If they really like both encounters, then it's a variety issue.
But kudos to you for monitoring your Players and trying to tailor your session to what they like! :)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
i know my players like killing things, they're 10 - 14! Although one has a weird thing about scalping things, and eating knuckles, and whole captives... but they are murderous maniacs who live only for loot and blood. Also, I like using dungeon tiles, so some of the more dynamic battles might not be feasible. Also, they don't focus on anything too well.
I did NOT eat those hikers.
I think simplicity is always a good principle. Less is more in almost every circumstance.