I've experienced that there are games where combat can go on for a while.

I remember first encountering this as an older teenager, when in a AD&D1 game, we arranged a one-on-one duel between a PC fighter and an NPC fighter. Both were level 9 or so and had heavy armor, and I realized that we'd be rolling through more than a dozen rounds before one of them dropped. I estimated the odds and did a quick roll-off instead that approximated the result.

Since then, though, I've from time-to-time found that combats were taking too long, and looked for ways to speed them up. In particular, I'm thinking of ways to tweak the game to resolve things in more-or-less the same manner, but in fewer rounds.

In my last D&D 5E campaign, I'd sometimes introduce variant versions of monsters where they did more damage but had fewer hit points. The intent was to get to roughly the same result, but with fewer rounds (and thus fewer dice rolls). I've done similar with my recent Savage Worlds adventure, and I was thinking about making it more systematic.

Anyone else do this?

There are some points to think about when doing this:

1) "Popcorn" monsters who easily go down with one swing become more dangerous. i.e. A creature with 4hp is going down with one blow anyway, so reducing its hp has no effect, while raising its damage does.

2) Resolving in fewer rolls can mean greater variance, since there is less time for the rolls to average out. So it might be better to reduce variance in damage, like 2d6 instead of 1d12 so there is more of a bell curve, or alternately 1d6+3.

3) There are sometimes rules for a lot of damage in one shot, i.e. an enemy has to make a save vs stun if they take more than half their hp in one attack. Depending on the system, these should be adjusted to fit the new balance.

Still, I find that shorter, punchier combats are pretty popular with players. I think broadly, combats feeling too long is more of a problem than combats feeling too short.

Absolutely.

More monster hit points, higher AC make for longer combats. I also buff damage, nerf hit points to make for shorter combats while still presenting a threat.

In D&D resistances and immunities function exactly like adding hit points. If there are a lot of these, I feel reducing hit points and AC may be even more important.

If I reduce HP and increase damage, I've found it also helps to look at increasing to hit bonuses or number of attacks, or add an area of effect power with a saving throw. If the monster is only going to last 1-3 rounds, I want to make those rounds count. I want to inflict some damage or at least make the PCs roll some saves so they feel like they've achieved something.

I try to add a victory condition other than dropping the monster to zero HP. Get across the bridge and exit the cavern on the other side, and the monster retreats/loses interest. Unless it's a boss fight, I ask myself if slaying the monster needs to be the goal, or if the enemy is just an obstacle to the goal.

Timers - the bridge is on fire and will collapse in d4 rounds. The enemy has reinforcements coming in d6 rounds - if you don't achieve the objective by then, it gets really bad. I try to incentivize the players to take risks, e.g. open themselves to an attack of opportunity in order to reach a location in time. This adds danger, tension, and tactical complexity that exist outside of the monster stat block itself. Wiping out the monster quickly may then become a big victory rather than feeling anticlimactic.

Doesn't always work for me, but a short unsatsifying combat beats an unsatisfying slog any day.

I would actually suggest that combat needs more rounds, not fewer.

The core problem is that feature bloat and a general roster of time-inefficient mechanics are forcing rounds to take longer and longer. Saving throws and multiple actions involving dice per turn are the primary culprits, but too many actions per turn, analysis paralysis, and arithmetic can all contribute, among other things. These are all things which proper game design can address.

However, if you don't have enough rounds, then the entire array of delayed gratification mechanics don't work right. Consider a damaging attack vs a bleed-inducing attack which causes damage over time. Assuming the two are balanced to be roughly comparable, the direct damage attack must cause more damage on the first round, or else it becomes redundant. In actual games, it isn't unusual for these damage over time mechanics to take 3 ticks just to equal the effect of a comparable direct damage attacks.

D&D encounters only average 3-5 rounds. Basically, if you aren't in the mother of all boss fights or your damage over time effect isn't delivered on the first round, it probably is there for flavor more than effect and is basically wasting gameplay time making the rounds take longer as you roll saving throws for damage which has almost zero chance of being relevant.

Hence my conclusion that encounters should have 5-10 rounds in them minimum and that each round should take significantly less time. /Soapbox

I switched to games that keep combat simple. 

I even have one game for kids called Amazing Tales that can make combat a single roll. AT treats all dice rolls as a GM dependent narration, and then the GM sets the type of dice roll.  If you want a fight to be detailed, roll each hit.  If you want a hero to fight an NPC quickly, the GM may just have you roll once and winner takes all. 

Still, that's a bit much, so my recommendation is to find a simple system that doesn't use Hit Points as a reward for leveling up.  This turns players and critters into piñatas that just get worn down.

I prefer games like Palladium Fantasy, Dungeons and Delvers Dice Pool, or classic D6 Star Wars that keeps your hit points in check.  Two or three good hits can end a fight.  That's all you need.  Palladium and D6 in particular are good as you defend yourself with increasing skill instead of just lots of hit points.  A fight between newbies next to a fight between the best warriors there are will be the same duration. 

After all, rolling to beat an opposed roll with both fighters using +2 vs two fighters rolling against each other with +13 are the same 50/50 odds of winning.

If you're looking for shorter combats then maybe the system isn't interesting enough?

Kidding ... but only partly.  Short combats is totally reasonable as a personal preference, but there might be other factors affecting your experience as well.

Venger had a system (Crimson Escalation?) where the critical hit range expanded each round. I havent used it but that should make combat quicker.

More damage, more attacks, and critical hits would work.

(In my game, natural 20 = max damage, so not only combats end faster when you crit but also you avoid one damage roll).

But I haven't seem much problems running my BXish games.

For 5e, using average damage sped up things for me, could work for BX or AD&D too.

Quote from: Mishihari on June 19, 2024, 05:56:03 PMIf you're looking for shorter combats then maybe the system isn't interesting enough?

Kidding ... but only partly.  Short combats is totally reasonable as a personal preference, but there might be other factors affecting your experience as well.

If I gave the impression that I don't like combat and I want less of it, I did not intend that.

I like combat in general, but I like it better when something exciting happens every round. In my experience, repetitive rounds of chipping away at hit points are fairly common across many RPGs -- and players have liked it better when the fight is sharper with major new developments every round.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 19, 2024, 05:38:11 PMHowever, if you don't have enough rounds, then the entire array of delayed gratification mechanics don't work right. Consider a damaging attack vs a bleed-inducing attack which causes damage over time. Assuming the two are balanced to be roughly comparable, the direct damage attack must cause more damage on the first round, or else it becomes redundant. In actual games, it isn't unusual for these damage over time mechanics to take 3 ticks just to equal the effect of a comparable direct damage attacks.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 19, 2024, 05:38:11 PMHence my conclusion that encounters should have 5-10 rounds in them minimum and that each round should take significantly less time. /Soapbox

That's a fair point, but continuing damage over time mechanics are uncommon spell effects in D&D5 - and even rarer in many other gamea, like Savage Middle Earth that I'm running currently. I don't think a few spells should be the center for determining how the game is run.

The length of combat should be set for what is the most fun for players in general. Based on how that works, bleed-inducing spells should be adapted to be balanced.

If your group really like combats running more than 5-10 rounds, then you should do that. When I've been running or playing in combats 10 rounds and more, it's usually felt like a slog. If my players enjoy shorter encounters in general, I'm going to run them shorter - and if I have bleed-inducing spells, I'll adjust those to be more balanced for the length of typical combats.

Agree with others that if you want exciting combat that doesn't slog in later rounds, the answer is shorter rounds, not necessarily fewer.  Fewer is good if you want a minimum amount of whiff combined with deadly hits.  It's not merely damage over time effects, but also a chance for players to change tactics during a combat. 

Personally, I want any slowness in individual rounds to get a big payoff.  For example, in my own system, the critical hits are a bit more complicated but they hurt.  So a "slow motion" bit in the scene when a critical hit occurs, even if everyone stops what they are doing to watch, is a net gain. Likewise, I find the advantages of uncertainty in order and the excitement it adds to be worth the trade of rolling initiative every round (though the initiative system is otherwise focused like a laser on fast handling time).

Don't discount the effects of pacing, even in combat.  Not all combats that take N minutes feel the same.  Good pacing can make a 10 minute combat feel fast and a 20 minute combat feel "epic" while bad pacing can make a 5 minute combat feel slow and turn that 10 minute combat into such a slog that everyone loses attention and it takes 20 minutes. 

In other words, there has to be something special about combat occasionally.  Spend your time on bringing that out, and then simplify everything else.  Especially simplify for players.

Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2024, 02:30:53 PMI've experienced that there are games where combat can go on for a while.
....
Anyone else do this?

When writing my the Majestic Fantasy RPG, a Swords & Wizardry I wrote this tool to get a handle on the numbers

https://www.batintheattic.com/dnd_combat/

I also report the average number of rounds it took to a resolution.

Using this I can play with various numbers to get a starting point for further playtesting.

For example the default values for both combatants (+8 to hit, AC 18, 54 HP  3/2 attack, 1d8 damage) take an average of 13.2 rounds to resolved.

If I double the damage dice it is resolved in 6.6 rounds on average about half.
If I halve the hit points to 27 it resolved in 6.5 rounds slightly better.
If I double the to hit bonus to +16, it resolved in 8.0 rounds better but not as good as the above too.
If I halve hit points, AND double the damage it drops down to 3.3 rounds.

To me that means the focus on speeding up combat for D&D style RPGs should be not on AC or the number needed to hit but rather reducing Hit Points and increasing the amount of damage done each round.

Last I have an option for a basic critical system. Using that  drops the average rounds from the default 13.3 to 12.2.

Also, when you play with it, note the difference between low levels numbers and higher levels. Basically you shouldn't test your modification at low levels. You need to try them out at the mid to high level ranges to see the true impact.

You can easily get into a slog when the system features bigger and bigger piles of hit points as levels increase and damage remains relatively flat. Adding more attacks per round just usually makes each round take longer but doesn't generally make things shorter,

GURPS combat is generally resolved in a short number of "rounds" because there are no really big piles of hit points to plow through. Even really skilled fighters can be brought down with a couple good hits or even a single hit.

The issue is that the basic D&D combat machine is built on simple abstraction. It was never built to model exciting blow by blow combat. The main focus of the game and play objectives revolved around exploration and finding treasure. So naturally when that same base combat engine was pressed into service as main game feature it is somewhat lacking for what is wanted-a fast paced blow by blow exciting combat system.

If shorter combats are desired then it generally means increased fragility across the board. You can't really have big piles of hit points relative to average damage and not have combat length increase. This will mean that combats are more deadly all around. If that is the case then frequent combat engagements will result in a much higher rate of PC death. Shorter combat generally means deadlier combat. If the players are good with that then the solution is simple.

Quote from: estar on June 20, 2024, 08:53:45 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2024, 02:30:53 PMI've experienced that there are games where combat can go on for a while.
....
Anyone else do this?

When writing my the Majestic Fantasy RPG, a Swords & Wizardry I wrote this tool to get a handle on the numbers

https://www.batintheattic.com/dnd_combat/

I also report the average number of rounds it took to a resolution.

Using this I can play with various numbers to get a starting point for further playtesting.

For example the default values for both combatants (+8 to hit, AC 18, 54 HP  3/2 attack, 1d8 damage) take an average of 13.2 rounds to resolved.

If I double the damage dice it is resolved in 6.6 rounds on average about half.
If I halve the hit points to 27 it resolved in 6.5 rounds slightly better.
If I double the to hit bonus to +16, it resolved in 8.0 rounds better but not as good as the above too.
If I halve hit points, AND double the damage it drops down to 3.3 rounds.

To me that means the focus on speeding up combat for D&D style RPGs should be not on AC or the number needed to hit but rather reducing Hit Points and increasing the amount of damage done each round.

Last I have an option for a basic critical system. Using that  drops the average rounds from the default 13.3 to 12.2.

Also, when you play with it, note the difference between low levels numbers and higher levels. Basically you shouldn't test your modification at low levels. You need to try them out at the mid to high level ranges to see the true impact.

Nice tool!  Thanks for that.

One interesting thing I noticed when playing around is that flat damage bonuses have a very large impact as well.  Add +4 to damage (which is the equivalent of almost 1d8 added to damage) and the average number of rounds drops to ~7.3, so almost in half.  So, one other lever is the flat damage bonus (that usually isn't in a B/X or S&W type game) to help speed up combat...

Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2024, 12:57:19 AMThat's a fair point, but continuing damage over time mechanics are uncommon spell effects in D&D5 - and even rarer in many other gamea, like Savage Middle Earth that I'm running currently. I don't think a few spells should be the center for determining how the game is run.

Well, which is the chicken or the egg?  Are damage over time spells rare in the game because of the game conceits, or is their rarity a product of their inefficiencies under the present mechanics?

There are a lot of simple mechanics that are the "center" for how the game is run... that's not an argument; it's a preference.  And opening up different mechanics might make combat feel different, or even better, so mechanics that encourage DOT spells could be a boon.  Faster feeling combat is not predicated on minimizing the number of rounds of combat.  It's predicated on more player interaction with less time where each player is uninvolved.  That can happen via fewer combat rounds, but it can also happen via more, but shorter, rounds.

This is one of the most common complaints about 5E: combat takes WAY TO LONG.

When you not only have hp to track, but all the stupid Feats, Skills, special attacks, etc. etc. etc. combat gets way bogged down. Combat becomes less theatrical and more just roll the dice and do math.

Another similar issue was with HM 4e. Now don't get me wrong, I love HM 4e. But after several years of DMing it, combat became a chore for me as the DM. Just like 5E, all the skills, feats, special attacks, crits, fumbles, etc. became a major chore for a DM to track.

So...I told the group next new campaign I do, I'm no longer using HM 4E. I wanted to go back to a system where the overall combat mechanic was simple, but if I wanted to add to it, the system wouldn't bog down.

I'm using Adv Labyrinth Lord for now. IT works for what I need. Crits are treated simply (nat 20: 2 x damage dice. that's it.), No feats, Skills are simply restricted to your class, and everything else not covered is resolved by a 3d6 roll vs your ability score.

Honestly, any OSR game might do the trick. The difference between Adv LL and OSE is minimal for example.

IMO, ditch 5e and go old school.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 20, 2024, 09:31:31 AMGURPS combat is generally resolved in a short number of "rounds" because there are no really big piles of hit points to plow through. Even really skilled fighters can be brought down with a couple good hits or even a single hit.

GURPS issue is that defense rolls prolongs combat. Yes there is an option to opposed rolls but the default is for the target to roll defense. Which causes GURPS combat to drag compared to other RPG.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 20, 2024, 09:31:31 AMThe issue is that the basic D&D combat machine is built on simple abstraction. It was never built to model exciting blow by blow combat. The main focus of the game and play objectives revolved around exploration and finding treasure. So naturally when that same base combat engine was pressed into service as main game feature it is somewhat lacking for what is wanted-a fast paced blow by blow exciting combat system.

D&D Combat is what it is because it developed out of miniature wargaming. Except in a few instances (Man to Man tables), combat was meant to be resolved as quickly as possible, especially between individual figures. 

It remained abstract because the main focus of early campaigns turned out to be on exploration and finding treasure. But Arneson, Gygax, and others considered blow by blow options like Gygax's Weapons vs. Armor Table in Greyhawk and Arneson's hit location tables in Blackmoor. But they didn't stick or little used because the exploration focus was always paramount.

We have enough documentation these days to see how things developed over time. What was kept and what fell by the wayside.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on June 20, 2024, 09:31:31 AMIf shorter combats are desired then it generally means increased fragility across the board. You can't really have big piles of hit points relative to average damage and not have combat length increase. This will mean that combats are more deadly all around. If that is the case then frequent combat engagements will result in a much higher rate of PC death. Shorter combat generally means deadlier combat. If the players are good with that then the solution is simple.

You have to look at it more holistically than that. I played around with a Fudge*-based system in the mid-2010s and made a combat simulator to juggle specific numbers to establish a baseline. In short, everything matters, and until you game it out across 10,000 outcomes, you can't be sure what role each step plays.

https://www.batintheattic.com/mwrpg/

In my case, the problem was that the 4DF rule had too sharp of a bell curve to make character progression interesting. I could have partially solved it by using d6-d6 but that was several years later.

*I used Fudge because it was the closest thing to GURPS that was open content at the time.