Quote from: estar;1056741OD&D, GURPS, Fantasy Hero, just about any RPG that isn't designed like Magic the Gathering.

My experience with these is that they're as exception-based as any other game system.

Or is the fact that only fighters get to roll for exceptional strength not an exception-based rule? Or the rule that grants you extra attacks if you're attacking creatures of less than 1 HD? Or that giants and the like do only half damage to dwarves? or the random eye attacks of a beholder that no other creature has?

Nope, OD&D is packed with exception-based mechanics (i.e. the rules function normally except when element X is involved, then Y rule is followed) even if they aren't called that.

Likewise, GURPS is practically defined by its exception-based mechanics. I'm looking at GURPS Lite 2003 and on Page 5 you have all manner of optional traits (Charisma, Handedness, Ambidexterity, Fat, Skinny, Odious Personal Habits, Voice) that modify how a particular character interacts with the rules relative to the norm.

Finally, to claim that Fantasy Hero, literally built on the HERO system and its massive exception-based designs where optional traits modify how rules are resolved, is not exception-based design is ridiculous.

In short, NONE of those is an example of a game built without using exception-based design. So I'm still waiting for an example of how to design an RPG without using exception-based mechanics.

ETA: It seems to me that perhaps there is some confusion about what different people mean by 'exception-based design.'

As stated above, my definition of exception-based mechanics is "The rules function normally (ex. roll d20+mods vs. TN) except when a specific rules states otherwise, then that specific rule is followed (ex. if you have advantage you roll the d20 twice and use the better result for the d20+mods vs. TN check)."

Is that NOT what you mean when you say "exception-based mechanics?"

I think we're mostly agreeing here. Let's break this down.

Quote from: estar;1056740Stating that a character can do two things in six seconds seem to be easily understood.

Sure, but I'd contend that it's the "two things" that makes it easily understood.

 

Quote from: estar;1056740I make it simple you can attack and do one other thing like movement. You can substitute another thing for your attack.

Sure, same thing here, no number of seconds required for this part.

Quote from: estar;1056740Both can be anything longer than something you can do in six seconds.

So this seems to be the crux (I assume you meant can't there). I agree with you that if you're looking for a real-world time translation a la GURPS then knowing the number of seconds is key. I have to ask you though, do you really limit what someone can do in a round to what they could do in six seconds of real life? For example, "fetching an item from a backpack" is a common action in games I've played. But I'll bet anyone here that they can barely get a backpack off and back on (you are taking it with you when you run away, right?) in six seconds, under the best of circumstances. Open medieval buckles and ties, grab the item, and close the pack? The fight will be long over.

So while I see the advantage for the sake of simulation, I guess I don't really like the effect for my own game.

Quote from: estar;1056740Coupled with coaching seem to work pretty well and quickly becomes second nature. Which is the point.

Sure, and that same coaching works to train players how much can be achieved in "one action" regardless of how many ticks of the clock it is. And I've found that coaching to be quicker and easier when a specific number of seconds is not introduced, in my own games.

Quote from: Chris24601;1056766Is that NOT what you mean when you say "exception-based mechanics?"

Seems to me it's clearly not what he meant. As he wrote, he means MTG-style exceptions, as in the core rules are very short and then each thing can have its own rules which can be just about anything and are explained on the card for that thing.

By contrast:

Quote from: Chris24601;1056766Likewise, GURPS is practically defined by its exception-based mechanics. I'm looking at GURPS Lite 2003 and on Page 5 you have all manner of optional traits (Charisma, Handedness, Ambidexterity, Fat, Skinny, Odious Personal Habits, Voice) that modify how a particular character interacts with the rules relative to the norm.

Charisma, OPH's and Voice (and part of Fat) mechanics are just a reaction modifier - reaction rolls are a core system that mentions modifiers exist for things.
Handedness and Ambidexterity is just a change of which hand is your off-hand, or not having one.
Fat & Skinny affect your encumbrance and such in ways that are modifiers to things defined elsewhere.

Quote from: Zalman;1056772I agree with you that if you're looking for a real-world time translation a la GURPS then knowing the number of seconds is key. I have to ask you though, do you really limit what someone can do in a round to what they could do in six seconds of real life? For example, "fetching an item from a backpack" is a common action in games I've played. But I'll bet anyone here that they can barely get a backpack off and back on (you are taking it with you when you run away, right?) in six seconds, under the best of circumstances. Open medieval buckles and ties, grab the item, and close the pack? The fight will be long over.

So while I see the advantage for the sake of simulation, I guess I don't really like the effect for my own game.

Different tastes. I like to have things take an appropriate amount of time compared to each other. I don't want it to be a reasonable tactic to do something like rummage through your backpack during combat - I want the natural consequences (and sense-making, and immersion) of making it take about the right amount of time.

One of my pet peeves is games (or GMs, even in GURPS) who respond to players doing weird things during combat that should not work well, by having them work way too well or way too quickly. Then players who take combat seriously and do appropriate things that make sense have to watch while their silly allies change their pants, cartwheel into combat, drink magic potions while face to face with an enemy, leap onto giant beasts and climb them to Tarzan them to death with just as high a chance of it working out (or higher, because it's so "cool", and the GM is helplessly indulging the passive-aggressive expectations of a player who thinks they should be gratified every turn for their "cool" ideas, instead of being told theyr'e still trying sitting on the ground trying to get their shoes unbuckled by the time the fight is over).

Personally I've gone back to single attacks per round in my system, and I don't favor systems that break rounds down into 'you get a this kind of action and a that kind of action and a move kinda action each round.... Talkin and runnin is free but other than that you get ONE action.  Everyone can talk and run, but Only initiative winner gets to do somethin other than talkin or runnin.  Rounds are 2 seconds.  Time slows down as the adrenaline flows freely and 10 minutes of 'at-the-table combat-mechanics-resolution' might have only been 20 in game seconds of guns blazin and death dancin.

Unspecified round duration seems to work acceptably for simple combat. Where rounds with no known length of time fall apart for me is when movement is also taking place.

I have a pretty good idea of how far a person can move in a given period of time, e.g. 1 second, 6 seconds, 12 seconds, 1 minute, etc. I'd like that real world knowledge to match up with the combat round so we aren't communicating at cross purposes about whether it is reasonable for a character to move 300-400 meters or only just 1 meter in a single combat round.

Quote from: Bren;1056888Unspecified round duration seems to work acceptably for simple combat. Where rounds with no known length of time fall apart for me is when movement is also taking place.

I have a pretty good idea of how far a person can move in a given period of time, e.g. 1 second, 6 seconds, 12 seconds, 1 minute, etc. I'd like that real world knowledge to match up with the combat round so we aren't communicating at cross purposes about whether it is reasonable for a character to move 300-400 meters or only just 1 meter in a single combat round.

This is the main reason why I care about how long a round is. I have no problem with one roll being equal to a number of offensive and defensive actions, a hit being one good strike, or several marginal ones. My main concern for time is as you say, knowing how long other things take. I guess in the unspecified round a GM can handwave things, but when the fighters are covering the hallway while the thief is trying to pick the lock of the exit it is nice to know that each pick lock attempt takes 5, 10, 20 combat rounds etc. For less specific actions (stuff the PCs cooked up the game may not have listed) knowing the real time and comparison to rounds is even more important.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1056314Forgive the title, it probably isn't very clear as I just woke up. But I am interested in peoples' views on combat rounds and how much time they ideally represent

Unless you have a ticking bomb, or the rounds are so long that the sun might actually set on the combat leaving everyone in darkness, it actually doesn't matter how long a combat round "really" is, except inasmuch as you can have X movement in Y time. For example, if all you can do in a round movement-wise is "change facing" or "step one hex" then that implies a short time; but if you can run 1,000 yards for each 1 attack, that implies a long round, and things start to get weird as you run in, strike, run away, etc. So the ratio of actions to movement is what matters.

An example from military training and conflict. During the Falklands War, if a company were attacking and over-running a dug-in platoon over 200 yards, the British found,

1. with blanks, it took 20 minutes and about 60 rounds a man, and the guys could do it again that afternoon
2. with a live-fire exercise, it took 60 minutes and about 120 rounds a man, and the guys would be hard-pressed to do it again tomorrow
3. in reality against the Argentinians, it took 120-180 minutes and 200-400 rounds a man, and the guys could do it again next week... maybe.

Once there are live rounds flying around, things slow down, and when the rounds are going both ways, they slow down even more. And people are more tired-out from the experience.

So you decide which level you'd like to emulate for the action:movement ratio. Essentially, from #1 to #3 is going abstract, abstract-realistic, and then reality; as we get closer to reality there's less movement compared to actions, and each action is less effective (you miss more often and have to fire more rounds or take more swings). I am more in favour of the first than the last, because it's just too slow and depressing otherwise. If actual rounds or blades were coming at you it wouldn't feel slow and boring, but when it's just rolling dice and looking up charts it is.

Quote(as well as folk's thoughts on how much combat actions in games should reflect specific actions or whether abstracting combat is desirable).

The longer the combat round, the more abstract things will be; if it's ten minutes then it makes no sense to worry about your character's facing, for example. The shorter the combat round, the more the players will expect to be able to detail things, whether they thrust or swing, for example. This leads to a GURPS situation with one-second combat rounds, which means a one-round boxing match would be one hundred and eighty combat rounds, and if making a decision on what to do in each round and looking up the rules each time, would lead to several game sessions just for a first-round TKO.

I actually like and enjoy all the gritty detail, but when you're in a group, nobody wants to sit and watch someone else play for half an hour while they themselves do nothing, everyone wants a go, so I err on the side of keeping things moving, and thus on the side of abstract. If it's 1:1 then it's different.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1056936An example from military training and conflict. During the Falklands War, if a company were attacking and over-running a dug-in platoon over 200 yards, the British found,

1. with blanks, it took 20 minutes and about 60 rounds a man, and the guys could do it again that afternoon
2. with a live-fire exercise, it took 60 minutes and about 120 rounds a man, and the guys would be hard-pressed to do it again tomorrow
3. in reality against the Argentinians, it took 120-180 minutes and 200-400 rounds a man, and the guys could do it again next week... maybe.

Once there are live rounds flying around, things slow down, and when the rounds are going both ways, they slow down even more. And people are more tired-out from the experience.

Interesting example. Though it seems that "overrunning" the position actually didn't involve much forward running.

Quote from: Bren;1057083Interesting example. Though it seems that "overrunning" the position actually didn't involve much forward running.

It's pretty fucking impressive they could do it at all considering they had no armour (in either sense of the word), no artillery, and no useful air support.

Quote from: S'mon;1057085It's pretty fucking impressive they could do it at all considering they had no armour (in either sense of the word), no artillery, and no useful air support.

Well there were 3-1 or 4-1 odds in the attacker's favor with no artillery, air support, or armor for the defenders either and presumably the attackers used flanking maneuvers and a lot of cover fire instead of a banzai charge. Success in these circumstances seems more probable than impressive.

Quote from: Bren;1057088Well there were 3-1 or 4-1 odds in the attacker's favor and (presumably) flanking maneuvers and a lot of cover fire were involved.

Odds may have been in favour at point of contact, but at strategic level it was more like 3,000 UK vs 8,000 Argentine from what I recall.

Quote from: S'mon;1057091Odds may have been in favour at point of contact, but at strategic level it was more like 3,000 UK vs 8,000 Argentine from what I recall.

Not may have been. Were in favor. That was clearly spelled out in the examples (2 training, 1 actual). As far as the over all odds, I'm not sufficiently conversant with the Falklands War to comment on the numbers or the strategic level. Where did you get your 3000 vs 8000 number from?

I realized that what I said earlier isn't really accurate.  I wrote down 2-3 second rounds in my notes and resolve by reach order, but the truth is I don't ever (ever) switch to combat mode.  Everything stays in the mode of "I describe the situation, you describe what you do, I use the system to resolve what you describe and present you with a new situation as a result."  I may or may not break things down into small round chunks but only when there are lots of people describing what they are doing at the same time.  There's no initiative rolls or shifting into a combat mode for the game.

Quote from: Bren;1057088Well there were 3-1 or 4-1 odds in the attacker's favor with no artillery, air support, or armor for the defenders either and presumably the attackers used flanking maneuvers and a lot of cover fire instead of a banzai charge. Success in these circumstances seems more probable than impressive.

Odds of the British retaking the islands was generally considered poor by most analysts at the time. Argentina had the advantage in aircraft, troops on the ground and distance (900 miles vs 8000). Air attacks could be launched from the mainland, which was for the most part safe from British attack.


The battle's to retake Stanley are frequently used as examples of the importance of training over technology. The Argentine forces were closer to home (shorter supply lines) and well equipped, but they were not top of the line units and had generally poor morale. Argentina was having issues with Chile so they kept their most experienced troops at home in case tensions with Chile increased.
 

Argentine defenders faced a smaller, but highly trained and experienced British force which proved their worth. Most military historian's consider the actions of the British land forces impressive.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1057099Odds of the British retaking the islands was generally considered poor by most analysts at the time.

But the example given was only 1 company vs. 1 platoon. It was not the entire war. It was not retaking the islands.

QuoteArgentine defenders faced a smaller, but highly trained and experienced British force which proved their worth. Most military historian's consider the actions of the British land forces impressive.

Again I am not commenting on the entire Falklands War only the example that was given of 1 company attacking 1 dug-in platoon. In that example, I doubt whether most military historians would consider an attacker succeeding at a 3-1 or better advantage over the defender to be "impressive."