Quote from: blackstone on June 20, 2024, 11:12:31 AMThis is one of the most common complaints about 5E: combat takes WAY TO LONG.

To honest I never got this complaint despite refereeing multiple 5e campaigns including one right now. But then again, advancement in my campaigns rarely goes beyond the low teens (11th to 13th level). Plus I only allow humans to take feats and just the one at the start.

This doesn't mean I am a big 5e fan. I really dislike the 20 level progression as a writer. Plus more than a few elements feel bloated or badly designed like the Warlock class. But my friends ask nicely so I still run 5e campaigns on occasion.

Quote from: blackstone on June 20, 2024, 11:12:31 AMAnother 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.

Yeah, GURPS is in the same situation with me. I still have all the cheat sheets and references handy. But all the work I did with my Majestic Fantasy RPG as resulted in a system that for me works quite well. Plus with the OSR and the older material I have a huge library of stuff to fall back on when I am short on time.

Again because my friend asked nicely and I got inspired two years ago. I ported many of Majestic Fantasy Classes and tweaks to 5e. But I haven't felt the need to publish it although I have no problem sharing it.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1sbLHOZVoep4UPSHt_FCJ17LJdxdqfs2k?usp=sharing

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 20, 2024, 07:45:27 AMAgree 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.

Seriously. I gave the example of the AD&D1 fighter-on-fighter duel in my original post, which was the earliest time I can recall struggling with this. The rounds were fast to resolve, but even so, it seemed slow overall since it would take over a dozen rounds.

Regarding changing tactics, I think fewer rounds can help make that more visible and feel important. If each round is a major shift in the fight, then it also fits for players to shift tactics each round. I don't think players are generally shifting tactics 5 or more times in a combat.

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.

This doesn't make sense to me as a general rule. Combat is always deadly, and goes until one side or the other is defeated. Resolving in fewer rounds doesn't inherently increase the potential for PC death. If both sides are scaled, then the enemy has the same chance of killing a PC either way.

There might be some system-specific cases where that's the case - like I noted in my original comment on damage variance. But across systems, resolving in fewer rounds might make PC death either easier or harder. For example, if there is bleeding to death by round, then fewer rounds might make it easier to wrap up and get a PC stabilized.

Why not both?  Because in theory, both are helpful.  In empirical practice, making rounds shorter will shorten combat, while having fewer rounds will not--other than possibly by killing or disabling characters faster, and thus getting shorter combats that way. 

Or more accurately, the details all operate at the margins.  If you give every character 1 hit point, no defense, and the ability to do 20 damage 99% of the attacks, you'll have very few rounds, and very short combats.  There's a point where investment in fewer rounds is constraining your system, and then there's a point past that where all the stuff you put in to work around those constraints might even make things slower (depending on particulars).  Whereas, anything that makes for a shorter round is pretty much unmitigated help on speed.  Sure, there are limits, because a shorter round eats into complexity.  So there's a point of diminishing returns, but it's not diminishing returns on speed but the trade off between reducing complexity in general and having options.

Given gross enough example the other way (200 hit points, high defense, 1 damage on 10% of attacks), of course there are some low hanging fruit.  Yeah, 5E would be a better game if hit points stopped scaling at some point and/or damage scaled more.  But that's because 5E messed up this part of the design.  It doesn't follow that you can keep picking once the obvious fruit is gathered.  If you are hitting your thumb with a hammer and want someone to make it stop hurting, the first advice is "stop hitting your thumb with the hammer".  Necessary but not sufficient.

As for the AD&D example, I think you have to consider the data.  AD&D was not prone, in general, to having slow combats because of hit point bloat.  Sure, it happens from time to time, but it was not the normal course of things.  If anything, AD&D slow speed of combat was more about so many monsters having multiple attacks (so as to up damage).

While it's not particularly popular, the (fairly) new Marvel Multiverse RPG is built with the ability to adjust expected combat length by adjusting certain multipliers. The default settings expect (IIRC) 4-5 turn combats, but it can be adjusted to run from 1-2 turn (basically, first hit wins) to drawn-out running fights of 10+ turns. Other systems can be houseruled to provide similar experiences, but this game built it in. I will say though, that I have not played it yet and can't say if it works as advertised,

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 20, 2024, 04:21:26 PMWhy not both?  Because in theory, both are helpful.  In empirical practice, making rounds shorter will shorten combat, while having fewer rounds will not--other than possibly by killing or disabling characters faster, and thus getting shorter combats that way.

When you say killing characters here - are you implying player characters? In general, most RPG fights end with the PCs victorious and no PCs killed. Even in fairly lethal games like Call of Cthulhu, we don't have PCs dying every combat.

Among all games (regardless of system), there are shorter combats and longer combats because of the type of enemy being fought. They typically end by the opponents being killed or disabled. Enemies will vary in damage compared to toughness. Some monsters are dangerous without being very tough, say.

There's always a range here - including how long the enemy takes to fight, and how overall threatening they are. Those always vary.

Within the spectrum, I'm talking about ways of leaning towards resolving combats in fewer rounds. I've done this sometimes by choosing which monsters or enemies to fight, and sometimes by creating variant versions of monsters that are faster-resolving, and sometimes by ruling that resolve things faster. I've also considered house rules that lean things towards fewer rounds.

I've long argued that Rolemaster combat is fast because things die in fewer rounds.  Well, okay, things get stunned and die the next round while stunned.  I swear, in my games, the first level mentalist spell Jolts has been responsible for more kills than anything else.

Quote from: Ruprecht on June 19, 2024, 07:22:50 PMVenger had a system (Crimson Escalation?) where the critical hit range expanded each round. I havent used it but that should make combat quicker.

This is not a bad idea.  I'm having a thought. 

Have a critical hit chart that has a bunch of bad things that range from just making future critical hits easier, or at the other end an instant death, with a few other bad, but survivable injuries in between. 

As you said, each round lowers the bar for a critical hit by one.  Also, each "hit" also lowers the bar by one, but only for the character that took the hit. 

Death only happens via the critical hit chart.

This combat system doesn't even need hit points. All a hit does is increase the chance of an injury from later hits

Quote from: weirdguy564 on June 20, 2024, 11:44:06 PMThis combat system doesn't even need hit points. All a hit does is increase the chance of an injury from later hits

Mutants & Materminds already does this for damage resolution.

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 21, 2024, 12:20:45 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on June 20, 2024, 11:44:06 PMThis combat system doesn't even need hit points. All a hit does is increase the chance of an injury from later hits

Mutants & Materminds already does this for damage resolution.

The first game I wrote (sadly never finished) was like this.  Based on margin of success for an attack the results could be miss, wound, cripple, kill.  Wound was the most common and caused a cumulative -1 on all resolutions, both attack and defense.  With a few wounds on you any attack had the potential to be game over.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on June 20, 2024, 11:44:06 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on June 19, 2024, 07:22:50 PMVenger had a system (Crimson Escalation?) where the critical hit range expanded each round. I havent used it but that should make combat quicker.

This is not a bad idea.  I'm having a thought. 

Have a critical hit chart that has a bunch of bad things that range from just making future critical hits easier, or at the other end an instant death, with a few other bad, but survivable injuries in between. 

As you said, each round lowers the bar for a critical hit by one.  Also, each "hit" also lowers the bar by one, but only for the character that took the hit. 

Death only happens via the critical hit chart.

This combat system doesn't even need hit points. All a hit does is increase the chance of an injury from later hits

My house rule system is based on Knave 1E, a BX adjacent rule kit. I added a basic resolution system to measure competence and ability. So keep in mind that to hit is a 2d10 + a d3 to d12 depending on relevant characteristic. Weapon skill adds:


Melee Weapons:

Ability:          Bonus:
Perk Level 1: Competent at    +1d3 Damage. On natural 20 effect occurs on a natural 19 or 20.
Perk Level 2: Good at       +1d4 Damage. Special effect on natural 18, 19, or 20.
Perk Level 3: Skilled at    +1d6 Damage. Special effect on natural 17, 18, 19 or 20.
Perk Level 4: Expert at    +1d8 Damage. Special effect on natural 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20.
Perk Level 5: Mastered    +1d10 Damage. Special effect on natural 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20.

Ranged Weapons:
         Ability:         Bonus:
Perk Level 1:       Competent at      +1d3 Damage. +10% Range.
Perk Level 2:       Good at      +1d4 Damage. +20% Range.
Perk Level 3:       Skilled at      +1d6 Damage. +30% Range.
Perk Level 4:       Expert at       +1d8 Damage. +40% Range.
Perk Level 5:       Mastered      +1d10 Damage. +50% Range.

When hit dice are d8, a goblin who has mastered a short sword hits for a d6 + d10 damage. This gets the PC's attention. So far, PC's are level 4, variable weapon damage plus variable skill damage vs limited hit points keeps combat short and interesting.

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 21, 2024, 12:20:45 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on June 20, 2024, 11:44:06 PMThis combat system doesn't even need hit points. All a hit does is increase the chance of an injury from later hits

Mutants & Materminds already does this for damage resolution.

A couple games do. 

Star Wars D6 doesn't have hit points.  It has defense skills of block (unarmed melee), parry (armed melee), and dodge (ranged).  Those skills go up, as does damage resistance which determines how bad a hit is.  But, you just have damage states of stun, wounded, wounded again, incapacitated, dying, and dead.

I don't have Mutants and Masterminds, so I can't comment.

But the main point I want to come back to is that hit point bloat just makes combat drag on and on.  Focus on games that increase you defense skill as you level up, not how tough you are.

Also, narrative explanations about how hit points aren't life points and toughness, but represent skill and such are pointless.  The math is still the math.  It takes the gambling nature out of it and just makes it a waiting game as the inevitable eventually happens.

Of course any good GM and player should also be spicing it all up with in depth descriptions, and some bonuses for Role Playing while in the middle of a fight.  Don't just hit him.  Spit in his eyes to blind him too, or shove him over the railing.  Throw the torch at him.  Stuff that is definitely NOT in the rules. 

Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2024, 02:30:53 PMStill, I find that shorter, punchier combats are pretty popular with players.

Until one of the player-characters dies after a single dice roll.

Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2024, 02:51:50 PMResolving in fewer rounds doesn't inherently increase the potential for PC death.

Absolutely correct.

But it doesn't feel the same. After all, in your example of a couple of 9th level combatants fighting it out, it's quite possible that one of them could get down to half their hit points, decide this isn't worth dying over, and flee or surrender.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on June 21, 2024, 06:10:11 PMBut the main point I want to come back to is that hit point bloat just makes combat drag on and on.  Focus on games that increase you defense skill as you level up, not how tough you are.

This has the effect that characters go from "just fine" to "fine red mist" when the lucky hit does goet past their defenses. Unlike hit point and other attrition-based methods, the escalating defense/static damage capacity method is much harder to gauge how much the PCs (or the NPCs) can take, and as a result, can be very swingy. If you like that, then go for it. Rolemaster tends to play out this way as concussion hits almost never drop the targets--criticals from high attack rolls usually do it.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on June 21, 2024, 11:51:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2024, 02:30:53 PMStill, I find that shorter, punchier combats are pretty popular with players.

Until one of the player-characters dies after a single dice roll.

Quote from: jhkim on June 20, 2024, 02:51:50 PMResolving in fewer rounds doesn't inherently increase the potential for PC death.

Absolutely correct.

But it doesn't feel the same. After all, in your example of a couple of 9th level combatants fighting it out, it's quite possible that one of them could get down to half their hit points, decide this isn't worth dying over, and flee or surrender.

This touches on something called the pace of decision (a term I got from Brian Gleichman's "Elements of Tactics" article), which in the original article was defined as "how fast can the PCs lose?", and in this context can be phrased as, "How many chances do the PCs get, or need, to settle the outcome of a fight?"

If you think of a combat as a sliding gauge which is constantly moving towards either victory or defeat, each individual round is an opportunity to increment that slider one or more notches in either direction. In that context, the important question is not how many notches are on your bar but how easy it is for the momentum to shift back and forth. What makes the combat interesting isn't simply the process of finding out which way the dice have moved your slider in that round, but the decisions that change the odds of which way it moves. If "whittling down" hit points takes too long to be interesting, create high-risk high-reward tactical options that the brave can attempt and let the chips fall where they may.

Are you using Morale rules or at least having enemies run away at a reasonable time?