Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1056609I have yet to see it in action, but I like the idea of EABA's combat rounds, where each subsequent round is twice as long as the preceding one (1s, 2s, 4s, 8s, 15s, 30s, 1m, etc).

The best alternative I seen was Hackmaster 5e (the newest). Like GURPS they use seconds but every actions has a speed including weapon attacks. So once you performed to an action, your next turn occurs X seconds later with X being dependent on the action you just performed.

For example you swing a sword with a weapon speed of 4 on second 3. You get to go again on Second 7. Your opponent starts casting a spell on Second 4. If the spells takes one or two seconds it will go off on second 5 (or 6) before you can swing again. If it is a 3 second spell, then both the attack and spell happen. If it is a 4 second spell or longer, the weapon attack will occur first.

Quite elegant and very tactical although I had a little difficulty visually what a character can do in the four seconds between 3 and 7.

Quote from: estar;1056616The best alternative I seen was Hackmaster 5e (the newest). Like GURPS they use seconds but every actions has a speed including weapon attacks. So once you performed to an action, your next turn occurs X seconds later with X being dependent on the action you just performed.

For example you swing a sword with a weapon speed of 4 on second 3. You get to go again on Second 7. Your opponent starts casting a spell on Second 4. If the spells takes one or two seconds it will go off on second 5 (or 6) before you can swing again. If it is a 3 second spell, then both the attack and spell happen. If it is a 4 second spell or longer, the weapon attack will occur first.

Quite elegant and very tactical although I had a little difficulty visually what a character can do in the four seconds between 3 and 7.

Sounds identical to Arcanis' clock system from their 2008 game engine. I paid for my Origins trip one year just by bringing a bunch of custom clocks I'd cut on my laser with attached strain/recovery clocks (part of the system was that in addition to speed of the action itself spells and more complex combat maneuvers had some time afterwards where you couldn't use another attack, but could do other actions) and offering them to people at my table to try.

In an otherwise badly designed game system, it was a real gem of a mechanic that I even contemplated adapting into my own system. The only reason I didn't was it's difficulty in dealing with composite actions (ex. attacking while moving) and that I'd have needed to keep the recovery system (to prevent spamming certain actions) which was actually a pain to track unless you had a custom dial like I was using.

Quote from: estar;1056615Suspension of disbelief and the fact that it is a tabletop roleplaying game. At some point the fluff that surrounds the mechanics need to match how the players think of the action. This way the players buy into the notion that they are there as their characters doing these things. Also overly abstract rules make it difficult to come up with rulings for specific things that characters want to do.

For example there is a lot of things one could be doing within a minute combat round other than just trying to damage an opponent (or cast a spell). Stuff that that the rules are not handling explicitly but yet possible because that what a character in that setting could do with the capabilities of his character.

This was a major issue back in the day when I was running AD&D. It was hard to counter the logical argument that RAW was saying there was a minute of time passing. Eventually I ignored the whole minute things and adopt two actions per round one of which can be an attack, or spell. Then a few years alter I switched to Fantasy Hero (then GURPS) and it ceased to be an issue.

That all makes sense to me, but I see that as a problem with specifying a round length that is too long. There may be other issues with specifying a round length that is too short.

I find all these problems easily solved by avoiding specification of the length of a round at all. I'm trying to understand what the advantage is of that specification. We spend so much time trying to get it "right", but in actual play I haven't found that a specific time spec for each round has encouraged verisimilitude or suspension of disbelief. I do see the reverse happening rather frequently when one is specified, regardless of the particular length of time used.

Quote from: Zalman;1056643I find all these problems easily solved by avoiding specification of the length of a round at all. I'm trying to understand what the advantage is of that specification. We spend so much time trying to get it "right", but in actual play I haven't found that a specific time spec for each round has encouraged verisimilitude or suspension of disbelief. I do see the reverse happening rather frequently when one is specified, regardless of the particular length of time used.

Because players want to know how long they have in order to attempt things. It not subjective, what I can do in a second is different than six seconds than in one minute. And the mechanics don't over everything that is possible so you have to tie back to how it looks as if you are standing there witnessing this.

Finally many players want to fudge things. Let me ask you did the indeterminate round length, when used, ever work to the player's disadvantage? Or was always they had enough time to do whatever? Within reason and common sense.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;1056609I have yet to see it in action, but I like the idea of EABA's combat rounds, where each subsequent round is twice as long as the preceding one (1s, 2s, 4s, 8s, 15s, 30s, 1m, etc).

This sounds like something the designer/s though would aid world simulation but that's actually a pretty terrible idea. Simple extrapolation from the initial measure causes the time in battle to spiral way out of the realm of believability when its taking 4mins to bloody aim a tank turret, let alone reload a pistol or swing a baton. I bet they worded the mechanics in an excuse-type manner of "oh, but this can represent whatever space of time you want!".

Quote from: estar;1056615At some point the fluff that surrounds the mechanics need to match how the players think of the action.

This is gold. Everything else you said was fluff ( ) but this is a big ass nugget right here.

I've never understood excuse-type design or, even worse, exception-based design. I mentioned it off-hand in another thread but this is one of those topics where it really bears discussion. It has stained this hobby ever since the original D&D. It's inexcusable to see it anything from the 90s and especially 00s onward. Setting should be generated from the system, not the other way around. Specifically on time scales, don't tell me a round is 3secs and then say opening a grate can be done in the same amount of time as diving into cover (i.e. moving). Have one broad measure of time, then you can easily explain why some characters can do so many actions (from the puny to the godlike!).

Quote from: estar;1056648Because players want to know how long they have in order to attempt things. It not subjective, what I can do in a second is different than six seconds than in one minute. And the mechanics don't over everything that is possible so you have to tie back to how it looks as if you are standing there witnessing this.

Finally many players want to fudge things. Let me ask you did the indeterminate round length, when used, ever work to the player's disadvantage? Or was always they had enough time to do whatever? Within reason and common sense.

Honestly, I've never had a player ask how long they have to do things in terms of number of seconds when the exact length of a round is unspecified. The only time the number of seconds has ever come up at my table is when it is specified in the rules.

Otherwise, if an action isn't already well-defined, players just ask if they have time to do "X". I tell them yes or no. No one has ever complained. As you say, reason and common sense prevails -- we know about how long we think of an "action" being, strictly in terms of how much can be achieved, and without reference to the number of seconds.

In my experience, adding a specific number of seconds invariably creates the issue of having to reconcile reasonable actions with time schema that don't quite fit. And my experience is also -- perhaps interestingly to those who insist on specifying seconds -- that the shorter the specified span, the more often that schema conflicts with common sense.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1056676I've never understood excuse-type design or, even worse, exception-based design. I mentioned it off-hand in another thread but this is one of those topics where it really bears discussion. It has stained this hobby ever since the original D&D. It's inexcusable to see it anything from the 90s and especially 00s onward.

You are not making a case here of why it is inexcusable. Exception based design is about having various mechanics being self-contained and complete within their own little section (typically a paragraph or two in length). The brevity is often reinforced by using a set of standard terms. Outside of those standard terms everything one needs to adjudicate that mechanics is in those paragraphs.

In of itself it is nothing, a way of organizing mechanics, like using chapters or SPI style rule numbering. It only when looking at how they operate as a whole one can say this is a good or bad design, whether it easy or hard to play as part of an RPG campaign.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1056676Setting should be generated from the system, not the other way around.

Yes I am going to disagree on this one. The point of what we do is not to play a game but to use the mechanics of a game as tool to allow to pretend to be a character doing interesting things in a setting. If the rules doesn't cover something a character can do within a setting then the human referee is there to make a ruling. And the human referee is vital to making a tabletop RPG campaign work because no set of rules can cover all the possibilities contain in a setting.

[/QUOTE] Specifically on time scales, don't tell me a round is 3secs and then say opening a grate can be done in the same amount of time as diving into cover (i.e. moving). Have one broad measure of time, then you can easily explain why some characters can do so many actions (from the puny to the godlike!).[/QUOTE]

The point of having mechanics that make sense to the players is so they don't have to think twice about what to do when acting as their character within the setting.  The more time one spends as a player figuring out how the rules apply the less time one is spending as their character doing interesting things in a setting.

And not about rules-lite versus rules heavy either. For many it is hard to wrap their head around the various abstractions of Fate just as hard as trying to figure out where the modifier for fighting in the rain on a muddy hillside is in Chivalry and Sorcery.

After skimming through PF2e, I'm starting to get the rants about Exception Based Design.

Oddly, I am not sure if GURPS qualifies, or at least isn't as bad about it as modern 3e-5e D&D.

Quote from: estar;1056690You are not making a case here of why it is inexcusable. Exception based design is about having various mechanics being self-contained and complete within their own little section (typically a paragraph or two in length). The brevity is often reinforced by using a set of standard terms. Outside of those standard terms everything one needs to adjudicate that mechanics is in those paragraphs.

In of itself it is nothing, a way of organizing mechanics, like using chapters or SPI style rule numbering. It only when looking at how they operate as a whole one can say this is a good or bad design, whether it easy or hard to play as part of an RPG campaign.

Exception based design lead to having both dual-class and multi-class. Make your mind up!

I would have included weapon proficiencies in there but then realised that WH40KRPG did the same thing with weapons training albeit it with levels removed (I am reasonable, hah hah). It also leads to monster stats like the NWOD corebook using SIZE as "species factor" in order make cheetahs faster than their stat blocks would allow by the rules (they could have just used an exclusive, animal-based Merit for that).

You can have rule blocks which talk about using the core mechanics you've already implemented in a specific way but they should not ever introduce new mechanics in and of themselves. In my experience, good design also leads to reusable components where you can use the same core mechanics for several different things, recontexualised to fit the usage

Quote from: estar;1056690The point of having mechanics that make sense to the players is so they don't have to think twice about what to do when acting as their character within the setting.  The more time one spends as a player figuring out how the rules apply the less time one is spending as their character doing interesting things in a setting.

And not about rules-lite versus rules heavy either. For many it is hard to wrap their head around the various abstractions of Fate just as hard as trying to figure out where the modifier for fighting in the rain on a muddy hillside is in Chivalry and Sorcery.

I don't think it's anything to do with complex or streamlined systems, either. Based on my readings of several TTRPG systems at this point, I can only conclude that designers put the cart before the horse, even if by accident. I don't care how excited you are by your setting, a particular archetype or whatever scenario you want to produce, get your parent system and underlying sub-systems in check first. That makes it very easy for GMs to see how everything flows in together (which is important for rules mastery, which should be a goal of any decent GM). It naturally leads to players feeling very well connected to the system because they get immediate choice, feedback and their builds are automatically balanced against every other build (which is perfection in my eyes, I'll admit -- still a worthy goal).

Quote from: estar;1056690The point of having mechanics that make sense to the players is so they don't have to think twice about what to do when acting as their character within the setting.  The more time one spends as a player figuring out how the rules apply the less time one is spending as their character doing interesting things in a setting.

I think this is spot-on, and is exactly why I prefer unspecified round lengths. Have you found in your games that specifying a number of seconds helps players stay in the mindset of their characters when coming up with actions? In every such game I've participated in, without exception, it is that specification that in fact is responsible for giving the players pause, and making them stop to think twice.

I also agree with Promethean that this goal is best achieved when the system drives the setting rather than the other way around, but that's perhaps tangential to my own point.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1056695Exception based design lead to having both dual-class and multi-class. Make your mind up!

Only if the people involved aren't paying attention to their ruleset. Exception-based design is a tool. That doesn't mean you can't use a tool in the wrong way even if you're trying to use it properly (ex. smacking your thumb with a hammer instead of the nail). Having exception based design no more leads to having two different classing systems than having a microwave means you have to put an egg covered in aluminum foil into it. Its not the microwave's fault the user was a dumbass.

Serious question though, what is the alternative to exception based design?

Roll a d20 and compare to a target number is a basic rule. "Add your Strength to the d20 roll and compare it to the target's AC" is a specific application of that rule. Subtract 2 from the d20 if the target has cover is an exception-based rule. Roll twice and use the best result when you have advantage is an exception to the basic rule. This attack lets you target Reflex instead of AC is an exception to the specific application. All of that is exception-based design in a nutshell.

So what's the alternative means of designing rules for these situations that isn't exception-based design? I'm genuinely curious because I can think of no examples of any RPG system more complex than flipping a coin or literally having no rules at all that don't use exception-based rules as their design basis even if they don't specifically call it exception-based design in their books.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1056676This sounds like something the designer/s though would aid world simulation but that's actually a pretty terrible idea. Simple extrapolation from the initial measure causes the time in battle to spiral way out of the realm of believability when its taking 4mins to bloody aim a tank turret, let alone reload a pistol or swing a baton. I bet they worded the mechanics in an excuse-type manner of "oh, but this can represent whatever space of time you want!

I bet you'd be wrong. The longer the rounds are, the more you can do. As mentioned, I haven't seen it in action, so I might decide it plays like shit. But what it certainly is not, is a gimmick slapped together with little thought.

For ACKS I followed B/X's lead and went with 10 second combat rounds. In ACKS, each attack throw represents a swing. According to some stop-motion studies I had produced years ago for a (never-funded/pilot) YT show called Herometrics, a highly skilled fighter can make about one potentially lethal attack per second with a weapon. Since ACKS gives you one cleave per level, it worked out well.

If I were to adapt do a sci-fi or modern RPG I would use shorter combat rounds - probably 3 seconds. A skilled marksman can fire 3 rounds per second so if we wanted to maintain a maximum number of cleaves of 10ish, that would suggest 3 second rounds. That said, I don't have a gun combat system I'm happy with so who knows.

Quote from: Zalman;1056696I think this is spot-on, and is exactly why I prefer unspecified round lengths. Have you found in your games that specifying a number of seconds helps players stay in the mindset of their characters when coming up with actions?

Stating that a character can do two things in six seconds seem to be easily understood. I had more issues with GURPS one second, one thing and one thing only combat rounds than that. But even with GURPS good coaching and the fact GURPS correspond to real life action on a one for one basis seems to put most at ease.

Quote from: Zalman;1056696In every such game I've participated in, without exception, it is that specification that in fact is responsible for giving the players pause, and making them stop to think twice.

Maybe the problem is the mechanics. I make it simple you can attack and do one other thing like movement. You can substitute another thing for your attack. Both can be anything longer than something you can do in six seconds. Coupled with coaching seem to work pretty well and quickly becomes second nature. Which is the point.

Quote from: Chris24601;1056719Serious question though, what is the alternative to exception based design?

OD&D, GURPS, Fantasy Hero, just about any RPG that isn't designed like Magic the Gathering.