On a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being mostly dice-rolling fights and 1 leaning heavily into conversations and roleplay, where's your most common preference?

I recognize that different groups and tables excel at different levels. So, I'm asking what you would prefer if that wasn't a factor - you deciding everything.

I would greatly prefer avoiding picking 3 unless you've given a lot of thought to it before stating that you don't mind one way or another. This isn't about how others prefer to play. This is about how you would prefer it if you were in charge of it all.

Quote from EricHVela >>

 

I would greatly prefer avoiding picking 3 unless you've given a lot of thought to it before stating that you don't mind one way or another.

Does it have to be "I don't mind one way or another"? Can't it be "we like both equally, so we want large helpings of both"? 

Quote from pangurjan >>

Quote from EricHVela >>

 

I would greatly prefer avoiding picking 3 unless you've given a lot of thought to it before stating that you don't mind one way or another.

Does it have to be "I don't mind one way or another"? Can't it be "we like both equally, so we want large helpings of both"? 

 If you've given it a lot of thought, choose it. I found that a lot of people take a noncommittal position often as a reflex. I want to pull away from the reflexive responses. That's why I'm actively trying to discourage it, but I'm also allowing it for those who truly want absolute equal measure rather than simply omitting a middle option that would force people to one way or another.

Nobody needs to explain what choice was made, but people are always welcomed to give their respectful opinions and personal reasons if they desire.

I wanted to pick #3, but I went with #2 because OP wants us to come down on one side of the fence :)

I like combat when it's used to progress the story, otherwise it's just rolling dice and crunching numbers, and I could do that on my own at home.

There should also be ways (except in extreme cases and boss battles) of role-playing around combat encounters, using the PCs' skills.

When I DM Curse of Strahd, I remove the pointless combats, like the random rolling throughout Barovia or every 10 mins in Castle Ravenloft (Level 10 party of 4 fighting a swarm of rats? Waste of time.), and save it for more meaningful encounters that can be built up.

For each session I play or DM, I like to have a good RP situation and a good combat possibility.

I went with 4 because when I run games there are occasionally sessions without much dice rolling but I try to work in one adventure every session and those adventures are usually dungeons, which dungeons take a while to go through. I'm honestly probably more of a 3 on the scale but if I had to decide which way my games lean more then probably more towards rolling dice and combat.

I don't follow your logic on your 'scale.' If I have a scene that's largely roleplay and story, but still involves deception or persuasion checks, does it move from 1 to 5? Dice are used for all parts of the game, so I'm not sure what you're counting under 5 and what you're not. I like an even balance between roleplay and combat, but that's different from 'lots of time with no dice vs dice-intensive sessions.' That's hardly noncommittal, and you're biasing your results.

3

Middle of the road gets you both balance and the potential risk of getting squashed like grape.

Seriously, I don't "roll what's on the Tavern menu for breakfast" but when there is a lack of certainty or risk involved or an adversarial situation (either vs environment or entities) where failure is a credible or more likely outcome in an action, we roll.  Sometimes we get results no one at the table anticipated or wanted, which happens in games, and adjust the course of the game accordingly.

With how I run my game, I am at a 4 right now. However, I prefer 3, so I pick that. I find narrating scenes a little difficult, so I usually just show them the full map of an area and then I interact with my players through my NPCs. When I do narrate, it is usually because the adventure has a narration section that I can read off of, and when I am narrating on my own without help, it sounds pretty bare bones and dry, like "you see three guards chasing a thief" or "you see an elf noble bullying his half-orc maid" or something along those lines.

Yeah I don't see 3 as noncommittal at all. Pacing is a thing. You need scenes with low excitement, building excitement, and high excitement and you need to cycle between those regularly.

I have had the "...and we didn't roll a single die the whole time!" session a few times, and those were fine. I have also had sessions that were just one long combat, and those were fine too. But the best ones had a mix of both. Rising action, building tension, and a rousing, satisfying climax. There's a reason movies, books, even music tend to be structured that way. It's what plants people crave.

I play D&D because you can do both. If I was a 1 or a 5, I'd be playing different games because there are games that handle those styles better. But nothing can span the spectrum the way D&D does and I want that whole thing in my game.