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. :p
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.
I like to think of typical fight rounds as a few seconds, but I dont think it really matters very much. It's enough time for most people to move around and do something.
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 do combat in real-time, just as with any other situation in a game session. No combat rounds or turns used.
Quote from: Omega;1056374BX(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.
I'm pretty sure my Rules Cyclopedia says rounds were 10 seconds, while turns were 10 minutes. But turns were for exploration.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1056498I'm pretty sure my Rules Cyclopedia says rounds were 10 seconds, while turns were 10 minutes. But turns were for exploration.
Yup.
6 seconds, with two actions per round basically a move and an attack.
However I am also partial to GURPS one second combat rounds where each round a character can do one thing only.
Quote from: estar;10565006 seconds, with two actions per round basically a move and an attack.
However I am also partial to GURPS one second combat rounds where each round a character can do one thing only.
What is your view on the 1 minute round?
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1056428I do combat in real-time, just as with any other situation in a game session. No combat rounds or turns used.
Do you do free-form initiative?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1056509What is your view on the 1 minute round?
I'm not estar, but I seem to have similar opinions on turn lengths so I'll say I find 1 minute rounds abstract to the point of uselessness for anything smaller than company-scale (100+ men per unit) combat.
At the man-to-man level only the least serious of skirmishes (i.e. practice sparring or putting on a show) would even last a full minute. Look at the average length of a fencing round, a round in high school or college wrestling (where you can't punch or kick and have to rely entirely on pinning an opponent to end the the round and it's STILL over in a minute most times) or an American football play for something resembling a reasonable small-unit combat length. Note too that, The average street fight is over in 3-8 seconds (a minute long fight sometimes happens, but is comparitively rare).
D&D originally had 1 minute rounds because it was adapted from wargaming mass combat rules. When you're just trying to calculate casualties between forces of hundreds of troops that's a perfectly acceptable scale. It's severely lacking at smaller scales though which is why no systems I'm aware of outside of early D&D and retroclones of early D&D use 1 minute rounds for anything that isn't mass combat or capital ship-to-ship combats.
Honestly, one of the reasons a six second round is useful for man-to-man combat is because it's an easy factor (x10) for scaling up to a mass combat scale. It's also slightly longer than a typical combat in those rulesets (about 4-6 rounds) which makes it very easy to intercut between personal scale PC combat and a larger mass combat (i.e. move units in mass combat; those in range of the PCs become a combat encounter for them; after that is resolved then resolve the rest of the mass combat round and repeat until mass combat is resolved).*
* The above is a house rule I've used for years that I adapted from old set of naval war gaming campaign rules. You used a 10x10 or larger grid of drawers as the campaign area and on your turn moved your units from box to box. If you opened the box and found some of your opponent's units there you set up the battle using the units you were moving and the units in the box and resolved the battle using the ship-to-ship rules. It runs even more smoothly if you've got a GM to manage where both sides' units are located.
If everyone allows the same number of effective actions in one round, then what difference does the length of the round in time make? A round is measured by the number of actions.
Do you find that the length of time comes into play in your game? Does it achieve anything other than encouraging arguments over how much, or how little is "realistic" to achieve in that time?
Quote from: Zalman;1056568If everyone allows the same number of effective actions in one round, then what difference does the length of the round in time make? A round is measured by the number of actions.
Do you find that the length of time comes into play in your game? Does it achieve anything other than encouraging arguments over how much, or how little is "realistic" to achieve in that time?
This is pretty much where I'm at now. Most combat rounds are 6 seconds long, just because the rules say they are (SWN, D&D5e, and other games I've played over the years). But unless you're tracking vehicle movement quite accurately, rounds can be as long or as short as you like.
Ship combat in Traveller can go like this, if you want to, say, simulate Star Wars style dogfights--or you can go the other way, and make a combat round an hour, to represent slow nail-biting "sub-hunts" where the tension and interpersonal RP is more important.
Quote from: Zalman;1056568If everyone allows the same number of effective actions in one round, then what difference does the length of the round in time make? A round is measured by the number of actions.
Do you find that the length of time comes into play in your game? Does it achieve anything other than encouraging arguments over how much, or how little is "realistic" to achieve in that time?
It comes up if the characters do something that is not a specific effective action (in 5e, an action, bonus action, free action, interaction with the environment, movement or reaction - you get some of each of these each round), to decide how many rounds a lengthier activity takes. For short enough things that are not explicitly listed in the rules, I treat it as one of the categories I just listed - usually action or interaction with the environment, but sometimes a free action or some of the character's movement, and require an ability check if the player is pushing the limits.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1056510Do you do free-form initiative?
I don't use initiative, if that is what you're asking.
I 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).
In general, if I were pressed to state a a preference, it would probably for 5 - 12 second rounds, but as long as the game works, I'm happy to roll with whatever the rules stipulate and play the game accordingly. If I'm running AD&D with 1 minute combat rounds, then I don't bother with precise movement and positioning most of the time. If a number of combatants are engaged in an area, that area is considered a "general melee" and I use RAW to allocate attacks randomly; if you're not in melee you can drink potions, rummage through your pack etc as you see fit. If I'm running GURPS with 1s rounds, then every little thing you do needs to be accounted for. If I'm running Blades in the Dark, a "round" is as long as it needs to be for characters to attempt the things they're attempting.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1056509What is your view on the 1 minute round?
Too abstract along with being too much at odds with players associating one to hit die roll = one swing of a weapon. If you casually ask players about this 9 times out of ten it will be one roll = one swing. My observation is almost reflexive to view rolls like this. However you give players any chance to think about it and then many will remember "Oh yeah the roll is only for the decisive blow or overall result of the time of the combat round." Then of course they go right back to thinking one roll = one swing.
GURPS is the best in that regard but it is overkill for what most hobbyists want out of a game.
Six to ten second combat round with two actions seems to be the happy middle ground.
The way I rationalize it with my current S&W/MW rules with six second combat round is that in GURPS you have defense rolls. That many rounds consist of attacker hitting, and defender successfully executing a parry, block or dodge. So the roll in my campaign is an actual swing (or shot) but represent the attempt when the defender has failed to defend.
Or yet another way of thinking about it the attempt to hit when the defender has left themselves open to attack.
Quote from: Zalman;1056568If everyone allows the same number of effective actions in one round, then what difference does the length of the round in time make? A round is measured by the number of actions.
Suspension 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.
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 ( (http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/smiles/emo-emot-smug.gif) ) 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.
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."
Quote from: Bren;1057105But the example given was only 1 company vs. 1 platoon. It was not the entire war.
Yes, and that example was deliberately chosen as rpg combat generally takes place on a small and tactical scale, and because it demonstrates that even when one side has numerical superiority, its movement is quite constrained by enemy fire. 200 yards over 120 minutes would mean less than 2 yards' movement in a one-minute combat round, and in a ten-second combat round any individual would be essentially pinned in place. Does anyone want to resolve 120 combat rounds? How about 1,200?
I would observe, too, that the example shows: most attacks miss. 200-400 rounds for each of 100 men firing at 30, even if all 30 were killed or wounded (which they were not), that means 667-1,333 rounds to wound or kill one guy. Do you really want to roll the dice 1,000 times to get one hit? Even if an "attack" was a 20 round magazine from their SLR, that's still 50 rolls to get one hit.
So again: combat round length only matters in the case of a ticking bomb, and in terms of how much movement you get vs how many other actions. A more abstract system will allow a high movement:action ratio and a high "hit" rate, leading to relatively quick resolution of combats, while a more realistic system will insist on a low movement:action ratio and a low "hit" rate, leading to much slower resolution of combats.
The few first-hand accounts we have of ancient and medieval melee combats, and the many we have of modern melees (usually with some of the combatants unarmed), suggest that melees are a bit quicker-moving, but they still don't have people running around Legolas-style - once they're in melee they're pretty much stuck there until one of them gives up or is knocked down. And these melees are either very quick - because someone ambushed someone, or there are several against one - or take a surprisingly long time, a matter of 10+ minutes even just for two guys to beat each-other up. So as with the ranged combats this suggests a low movement:action ratio and a low hit rate.
I would suggest that most players will
say they want a more realistic system, but when confronted with it and a low movement:action ratio and low hit rate, find they prefer a more abstract system, where their characters can move around a lot, hit at least as often as they miss, and things are resolved relatively quickly - certainly less than half an hour for a small melee, like the 1st level party fighting a kobold patrol.
As for fighters holding someone off while the thief picks a lock, realistically nobody is picking a lock while a melee is going on ten yards away from them. So again you abstract it. You say something like, "given time, you can certainly pick the lock, it will take a base of 3 combat rounds, and 1 round less or more for each 10% you succeed or fail on your roll for."
So don't sweat the combat round length, just let them do stuff and get it over with quickly. Don't worry about how long the combat round is in game, worry about how long it takes to resolve at the game table.
As a rule, I really like the "6 seconds per round" rule.
However, in some games you want something different. In Aces & Eights, for example, you have each 'count' of initiative representing only one-tenth of a second, and yet that really really works well for the type of 'realistic' gunfights in the wild west (what with most gunfights taking only a few seconds). Even the gunfight at the OK corral only lasted less than 30 seconds.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1056936Unless 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 ...
Kyle gets it. Outstanding explanation.
Well, yes and no. In most games, it won't matter at all if a combat round is 6 seconds or 10 seconds or 15 seconds.
But there's a very big difference between combat rounds that are 0.1 seconds and those where combat is 1 minute. They mean the combat system has to be radically different. And that means that you're using these for very different styles of games.