How many combats per session do you find most enjoyable?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I think part of the issue is that random encounters existed for a different type of module than today's adventure paths. If the point is to explore an area than these random encounters are the primary things stopping you from getting to the reward, and I believe tended to be both quite varied and avoidable ('the bandits are at longbow range and may not have spotted you, what do you do?').

Then you get to the dungeon and random encounters exist to discourage resting and novaing.

The modern D&D adventure path really needs to be closer to '3 combat encounters per long rest, we tell you when the PCs have the opportunity to rest'.

I think the issue is that 5E's developers don't have very good technical skills. Random encounter tables are there because they don't really know what else to do in the exploration pillar, just like adventure pathing often boils down to putting an NPC somewhere and having them tell the party where to go next, whether as part of a railroaded structure or as a literal fetch quest -- go here, get this, come back. Random encounters are a substitute for putting things in the world-space. There's a place for them, certainly, but they have to be used intelligently. Often the adventure designs have players walking back and forth across a space looking for the next plot hook because hooks are strung together in sequence rather than in a flexible web; the players can't find Clue Y until they've found Clue X. So they have to walk across the Vale to the location of Clue X, then walk back to the location of Clue Y even though Y is closer, and that means what should be 15 days of travel turns into 26 days of travel, and they're rolling three times a day and then there's a note in the adventure saying 'if your players get frustrated, you can reduce the number of random encounters a little bit'. If you have to have that note, your adventure relies too much on random encounters to fill time. In a properly-sequenced adventure, finding Clue Y should give them enough information to find Clue X, and the two combined can lead to Z or even further up the chain to A! But that's a whole bigger issue.

Games where combat is either a punishment or just another type of activity are becoming more common, and it's pretty great. I honestly think there's a lot to be said for 'you can get by these guards with a successful Fight roll, but if you're unlucky you'll come out battered, do you want to consider another approach'.

It depends on the setting and the system and their interactions, you know? I like D&D-style combat generally, and it fits in a High Fantasy, uh, fantasy. I want a big system of magic and sword-swinging and jumping from here to there and shooting arrows and throwing axes. It's great when the guy casts wall of fire to block the door so the orcs can't get into the room while the other player is climbing up the thing to get to the guy who's shooting at them. But that's not what I'm looking for in a game where I'm playing a burned spy on the run from a secret vampire cult. When I get in my car and the car bomb goes off, I should die, not take 4d8 damage. (Gumshoe's problem, at least in NBA, is basically a math-design one. You should either use all of your resources or none of them. It means there aren't that many meaningful decisions to make in combat.)