Forgive 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 (as well as folk's thoughts on how much combat actions in games should reflect specific actions or whether abstracting combat is desirable). For combat do you prefer something like 10 second rounds, 1 minute rounds, 10 minutes, 1 roll for for each major clash? I realize that is usually tied to the scale of each action, but do want each die roll your character makes in combat to represent a specific action or do you prefer making a roll and having that encompass a lot of things that could play out over part (or even all) of the combat.

3-6 seconds per round, 10 seconds on the outside. Palladium Books is an interesting case in that while "melee rounds" are 15 seconds, each player has 4+ actions that are run through round robin with everyone else it plays more like 3-5 second rounds.

6 seconds is fine for me, but I also like 1 second rounds.

From years of playing tabletop wargames, I developed a bias.  A simulation that represents ten minutes of real time should be resolved on the tabletop in ten minutes or less.  That is almost impossible to achieve at the scale of a RPG, but I think the closer, the better.  For that reason I lean toward games where a typical combat involving the entire party can be resolved in five minutes or less.  Rules which allow that generally fall into the "rules-light" category which don't specify any specific time for a combat round but allow combat to reach resolution within a few rounds.

I have never played a game that resolves a fight with a single role, although I'm sure they exist.  I usually stop reading rules if they tell me that a round lasts less than ten seconds or if they break rounds into multiple sub-units.  That generally means too much crunch to meet my "real time" preference.

I don't have a strong preference for a particular scale--only that it be consistent with the rest of the design.  There are advantages and disadvantages to a tight scale, and the same with more abstract play.  

About the only thing I don't care for is when a system goes so abstract that it resolves the entire conflict in one roll.  There are advantages to that, too, but those advantages don't particularly resonate with the style of games I want to play.

I use vaguely 1-minute rounds. Like Steven, I don't use a strict scale, and in my game a "Round" is more about how many effective actions can be taken than it is about the amount of time that passes. House rules for durations are typically written like "The effect lasts 10 combat Rounds, or 10 minutes outside of combat".

10-second rounds, max of one action per second up to ten actions a round.

While an individual's OODA loop (Observe Orient Decide Act) is in the region of 3-5 seconds, a squad level OODA is more like 10-12 seconds. Almost all RPG combat occurs at squad level. Ergo RPG combat rounds should be 10-12 seconds.

If the game was one of individual duelists, then 3-5 seconds.

Quote from: S'mon;1056347While an individual's OODA loop (Observe Orient Decide Act) is in the region of 3-5 seconds, a squad level OODA is more like 10-12 seconds. Almost all RPG combat occurs at squad level. Ergo RPG combat rounds should be 10-12 seconds.

If the game was one of individual duelists, then 3-5 seconds.

I don't think your logic quite follows. Most RPG's may involve 'squads' on each side, but each player is only controlling an individual (OODA loop of 3-5 seconds) who may or may not be acting as a 'leader' (if there's even one present) directs, but instead be acting on their own initiative for what they believe is in the best interests of the group.

Put more simply, most adventuring parties aren't military squads, they're a bunch of extremely individualistic people who just happen to be in proximity when combat breaks out because they have a shared goal of breaking into a giant lizard's basement, murdering it and wandering off with more magic loot than you'd find in an 80's Saturday morning cartoon lineup.

Thus it makes more sense from my perspective to use OODA loop for individuals unless the party is regularly dragging along and ordering around a squad of troops each during the battle.

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 (as well as folk's thoughts on how much combat actions in games should reflect specific actions or whether abstracting combat is desirable). For combat do you prefer something like 10 second rounds, 1 minute rounds, 10 minutes, 1 roll for for each major clash? I realize that is usually tied to the scale of each action, but do want each die roll your character makes in combat to represent a specific action or do you prefer making a roll and having that encompass a lot of things that could play out over part (or even all) of the combat.

I'm really in favor of not being tied down to a set measurement. There's so many different things that can happen in a "turn" or "round", and trying to be accurate to the second seems unneccessarily fiddly to me.
I never liked the 1 minute per turn measurement in AD&D. I felt that was too long. I'd eyeball the typical round at 1-5 seconds, and the turn as a little more than that, 3-10 seconds. (Characters can be acting close enough to simultaneous.)

Quote from: Chris24601;1056358I don't think your logic quite follows.

Nevertheless, I am correct.

Or at any rate, the B/X 10 second rounds feel a lot more appropriate to me than the 3e-4e-5e 6 second rounds. Too much stuff happens in 6 seconds and there is too much coordination. Likewise 1e-2e 1 minute rounds feel too long.

It only matters for when you have to adjudicate time for anything not already covered by the rules. I'm OK with the inevitable minor inconsistencies, so I've been happy with one minute rounds, six second rounds, and 1 second rounds, and just hand wave at the oddities.

For what actions take place in each round, I want enough granularity that characters can change their strategy. So I avoid genres where combat is expected but too prone to random death, or games where the entire outcome of what should be a lengthy battle is decided with a single die roll.

I do 2-3 second rounds.  Have everyone declare what they are doing and resolve things in order of reach.  Missile weapons that are ready to go, magic spells, pikes, spears, polearms, you get the idea.  A character can get inside the range of longer weapons and people are free to give ground to reopen the space (but in cramped dungeon environs, you don't always have the option).  Shields grant cover bonuses to missile weapons.  Technology is early iron age so lots of spears and shields, javelins and bows abound.

BX(and I believe OD&D), AD&D and 2e had 1 minute rounds because combat was abstracted within that round. ALOT was going on in an early D&D round, just as ALOT was going on in a D&D Turn of 10 minutes. 3e and on reduced a round to 6 seconds. About the the length of a segment in older editions.

It really depends on what the game is trying to do with what is going on in a round. Is it abstracted like in older D&D? Or is it supposedly more "realistic" as in other games.

Depends on the scale, but I tend to like tactical games that are about very specific combat situations where I want to be able to resolve every action, so that leaves me with 1-second turns (GURPS) to 5-second turns (TFT)... except I realize that even though a flurry of action can have quite a lot going on in a few seconds, more time in an engagement will tend to be spent in pauses.