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.