TheRPGSite

So I was reading through the Zweihander kickstarter pdf, and when I got to the combat chapter, I saw the rules specify a one minute combat turn.

It really deflated my enthusiasm. I mean I know D&D had one minute turns, where the attack roll represented the "one good strike" in a flurry of activity, but then how do you justify parries? Special results, grapples, etc?

What do you all think? Does the one minute turn break verisimilitude?

Quote from: AaronBrown99;919429What do you all think? Does the one minute turn break verisimilitude?

No more than it did in D&D. So, yes. Absolutely.

Does it matter?

The length of a combat turn is relevant in only two respects:

1. fused grenades
2. how much movement you can have in a turn

The former is rarely encountered in games these days as most prefer fantasy. That leaves the latter. We don't want turns to be so short that your character can only do a single step, that is slow and tedious - eg a single "round" of boxing of 3'00" in GURPS would be 180 combat rounds. But we don't want so much movement that a combatant can step in, attack, then flee to a place of safety before their foe can strike back, because then combat will be like a moth on a lampshade, and likewise slow and tedious.

Amount of movement vs number of attacks or other actions is what matters. Otherwise the "real" length of the combat round is irrelevant.

For me, definitely. Way too much can happen in one minute. An awful lot can still happen in six seconds, actually. My own personal preference for most games like D&D is a three-second round. That generally makes things make a lot more sense, especially with their movement rates. A lot of games I've found give characters absolutely glacial speed. The typical athletic adventurer shouldn't be moving slower than an overweight couch potato. Simply cutting down the time a round takes fixes a lot of that.

Firstly, thanks for supporting ZWEIHANDER Aaron! This, along with normalized Damage across all weapons, has generated a lot of great discussions on our forum. Glad to see this talking point land here, too.

A little bit about me:
My roots are old school 80's Warhammer and D&D. We always approached combat in the abstract and never used miniatures, The D20 roll always represented that "one lucky strike" to deal Damage, with everything else happening in the theater of the mind. Every blow was described with flourish; in fact, it was encouraged through a house rule we'd used for nearly two decades. We placed a "Flourish" D6 die in front of the DM screen. When combat began, it started on a face 1 and changed by one face positively every Round, adding more Damage for melee & ranged weapons. This means that with five players, it would start at face 1 and once returning to the first player, it would move to a face 2. It continued to escalate, but only if every player described their attack. If a player missed a beat, it immediately de-escalated back to face 1 and we had to start all over. It was used for two simple reasons: keep players role-playing in the moment, and as a way for melee & ranged weapons to be more useful against casters.

A little bit more on ZWEIHANDER's development:
As a part of the Flourish D6 die, I always lamented not having neat maneuvers with mechanics behind them to affect enemies with shield slams, turning away blows, shoulder-checking foes, flipping them over my shoulder, blinding them with mud, etc... So, when I began to write out how combat in ZWEIHANDER worked, I immediately made the decision to strip out Segments, Rounds and the time they traditionally represented. I dialed it back to square one, and thought about what it meant to roll dice in combat. I needed a term that strongly resonated around the table. The Turn, in this case, made sense. A Turn in-game of structured time carries over at the table as a player's turn. I thought everyone could get behind that, as it's a relatively simple and familiar concept both in tabletop RPGs and real life. Then, I thought about all the cool descriptions of things both myself & players tried to narratively describe leading up to the point where we did Damage. I consolidated these descriptions down to 24 different stunts. They eventually changed into the 7 Perilous Stunts you find in the core book. Coupling this with a defense mechanism through Dodge and Parry, along with  actions like inspiring your allies and intimidating your foes, it all wrapped up nice and neat for a smooth, CRUNCHY tactical experience.

But that left the Turn to be defined in-game as a distinct amount of time. I erred on the side of caution, settling on a minute. Players loved it; it gave them enough wiggle room to describe what their character does in combat. Under this approach, they can narrate that their character rushes into action charging forward (Charge 2 AP), clashing into their enemy's shields (Splinter Shield 1AP) and breaking through with with a massive swing (use Fortune Point for +1AP, Melee Attack). It allowed them to trade feints and blows (Dirty Tricks 1AP), until they found that right moment to make a critical strike (Take Aim 1AP, Melee Attack 1AP). It allowed them to suss out and assess the situation (Use Skill 1AP), before making their move to get out of harm's way (Maneuver 2AP).

In essence, it gave them the opportunity to think more about how to translate distinctly tactical moves into a narrative description that was far more evocative than simply trading blows like they were playing a turn-based video game.

It seems like an odd thing to get hung up on, but here are two easy fixes: 1) a Turn can vary anywhere from 1 second to a minute, or 2) you can simply rule that a Turn is 6 seconds. BOOM, done, house-ruled and fixed. It wouldn't disrupt any major mechanics in the game whatsoever, as long as you adhere to the AP costs for casting spells (thereby ignoring the minute requirement to cast Magick).

As for me? I'm sticking with the one minute Turn. My experience has been that a minute gives more leeway to illustrate from the character's perspective what happens in combat. Your mileage may vary, however.


Cheers~

One minute combat rounds, now and forever!

I tried the other way.  That way lies madness.

I have just one question for you: on average, how many turns do a combat between two competent fighters last in Zweihander?

Quote from: AaronBrown99;919429What do you all think? Does the one minute turn break verisimilitude?

Quote from: Xúc xắc;919435No more than it did in D&D. So, yes. Absolutely.

Pretty much this.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;919444One minute combat rounds, now and forever!

I tried the other way.  That way lies madness.

For you.

I ignore how long a turn is supposed to take in real time. I've found that it really doesn't matter as much as actions per turn, or turns to do one action.

Quote from: Brand55;919440For me, definitely. Way too much can happen in one minute. An awful lot can still happen in six seconds, actually.

Ditto. Trying to handle a large chunk of combat via a single abstract roll looks like a good idea on paper, but it pairs poorly with literally anything else that might be happening in the vicinity of the swinging swords. (And it's handled particularly poorly in older editions of D&D where literally none of the secondary mechanics -- movement rates, expenditure of ammunition, etc. -- seem to be designed with the one minute round in mind.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;919444One minute combat rounds, now and forever!

I tried the other way.  That way lies madness.

How many arrows is your archer shooting in that one minute round?

I should clarify that the one minute turn is by no means a deal breaker, it was just unexpected. It's hard to explain but when I think 'gritty, grim, and perilous' my thoughts assume more 'zoomed-in' details, and and the turn length just feels 'abstract.'

Of course as was stated above, in-game the turn length will sort of disappear and we'll just play.

Thanks for the replies!

I don't use combat turns.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;919451I have just one question for you: on average, how many turns do a combat between two competent fighters last in Zweihander?

On a bell curve, without taking under consideration anything but raw Damage using average Primary Attributes for Damage and soak, it would be three Turns for two bog standard Characters - not fighters - to kill one another.

Additional stunts, exploding Damage rolls, Talents, Traits, differences in Primary Attributes, equipment and positioning can change this, either reducing it down to one Turn or many Turns.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;919514On a bell curve, without taking under consideration anything but raw Damage using average Primary Attributes for Damage and soak, it would be three minutes for two bog standard Characters - not fighters - to kill one another.

So that's 3 combat turns?

To be honest I couldn't tell you how much time is represented by a combat turn in the games I am currently running. My standard is "enough time to take one significant action". Some actions, such as picking a lock, will take more than one combat turn.

Regardless what rules say I found that two thirds of players (if not higher) instinctively equate one roll = one swing of the weapons, or in modern combat one pull of the trigger.

That most players preferences fall in what they can do in combat is a move and an attack i.e. two actions one of which is to attack a target.

Any more confusion results like the action point system in FASA Star Trek. Less the players feel straightjacked like GURPS 1 second round and you can do one thing and one thing only each round.

Quote from: AaronBrown99;919429...Does the one minute turn break verisimilitude?

Yes, unless the combat system resolves most battles satisfactorily in one turn, or you just ignore the rule and have the GM figure out how long a battle took afterward.

It's possible for a real fight to take minutes, but that would tend to mean it includes a lot of no one actually being hurt. Stand-offs, shifting position without fighting, struggling to open/close a door between parties, grappling & wrestling in armor.

The problem is mainly one of precision. For one thing, if you want to include detailed back & forth of specific actions, fighting actions don't take very long, and if they take someone out, then other things can happen. So if the one-minute turns don't include the possibility of one person attacking many enemies, or taking out and enemy and then doing other things, including possibly leaving the scene, then your turn size is making it impossible for things to happen that otherwise could. A lot of things can happen in one minute, including running, hiding, killing several people using different weapons, making clothing & equipment changes, getting on and off of horses, traveling quite a bit of distance, etc. And all of those things would create opportunities for everyone present to react to them and do different things in response. That interaction and multiplicity of actions, and determining who has what opportunity in what order, is what turns allow.

The GM can try to track and narrate much of that in his head, but then your combat system is largely the GM's imagination and the player's conversational interface to the GM. Perhaps that's the intention.

Quote from: Bren;919480How many arrows is your archer shooting in that one minute round?

Some.

And the magic arrow represents waiting for the good shot.

And I sleep very well at night.

D&D is a GAME first and foremost, and every decision I make as referee is to make the GAME play better (in my estimation.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;919549Some.

OK. So are you tracking torches burned but not arrows expended?

QuoteAnd I sleep very well at night.

You are fortunate. I find that the older I get, the more restless my sleep becomes.

I take a 1-minute turn with a grain of salt. It's not more abstract to me in play than when I play Savage Worlds and I go Full-Auto and that translates to a hail of bullets that bounce off my target wearing a T-shirt because of a bad damage roll.

I can squint and play through. I confess for some odd reason I prefer a ten-second round. Totally arbitrary. I also don't mind just doing an initiative-track.

I guess this thread reveals to me that I don't care as much as I thought. Interesting.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;919514On a bell curve, without taking under consideration anything but raw Damage using average Primary Attributes for Damage and soak, it would be three Turns for two bog standard Characters - not fighters - to kill one another.

Additional stunts, exploding Damage rolls, Talents, Traits, differences in Primary Attributes, equipment and positioning can change this, either reducing it down to one Turn or many Turns.

In the Italian language, we call this "la supercazzola sbrematurata con lo scappellamento a destra, come se fosse Antani".

Or, as Bren said, "3 combat turns".

Three minutes to kill one single enemy.

Sorry, but this breaks my very personal suspension of disbelief. If I were you, I would make some appropriate considerations. And I only say this because I find the other details of your game Very Promising and Well Devised.

I've found the push for very short (e.g. six-second) combat rounds is the effort to chase "realism" on the tabletop, which I get.

The fallacy is, however, believing that just because someone can accomplish a given task in that six-second period, they can thus string six-second actions along sequentially without pause. Thus, move-move-swing-swing-move-unlock-move-swing-parry-swing-move-blah-blah-blah with robotic precision.

Actual humans dither, hide, hesitate, stop to catch their breath, and otherwise waste lots and lots of "rounds" doing nothing.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;919594Actual humans dither, hide, hesitate, stop to catch their breath, and otherwise waste lots and lots of "rounds" doing nothing.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. Always assuming they don't isn't a better solution than always assuming they do. Rounds of short duration with enforced fast action declaration can provide hesitation. Of course that hesitation is based on player ability rather than on the ability of the character.

I like the idea of one-minute rounds. I'd have each action take x-seconds, so you could do a number of things during this time.

Quote from: vgunn;919599I like the idea of one-minute rounds. I'd have each action take x-seconds, so you could do a number of things during this time.

But at that point, why even have rounds? Just use tick marks, action points, strike ranks, or what have you in a numerically increasing sequence. There's really no need to demarcate the beginning or end of a round.

I personally find even six seconds for one action.  I did some boxing back in the day, and lemme tell ya, a LOT can happen in less than a second on a one on one fight.  One minute breaks any suspension of disbelief that I have and shows that most game designers have never been in a a school yard brawl.

Quote from: AaronBrown99;919429So I was reading through the Zweihander kickstarter pdf, and when I got to the combat chapter, I saw the rules specify a one minute combat turn.

It really deflated my enthusiasm. I mean I know D&D had one minute turns, where the attack roll represented the "one good strike" in a flurry of activity, but then how do you justify parries? Special results, grapples, etc?

What do you all think? Does the one minute turn break verisimilitude?

The same way you resolved parries, grapples, and other special results in D&D? I'm not seeing the problem here. In fact, it opens up a lot more room to interject "color" into the scene, from either GM or player side. (That said, I may have just "crossed the streams" of two topics... so everything might now blow up. My apologies.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;919624The same way you resolved parries, grapples, and other special results in D&D?

Meaning, we didn't?  I don't have my AD&D 1st edition DMG here, but does the word "parry" occur even once in the book?

It did in my 2e books, in both the PHB and the Fighter's Handbook optional Parry.

It's all about the opportunities that open up in a minute. Yes, even one's arrow shots.

Instead of tabulating how many arrows were shot about, just like sword swings, you calculate the opportune shots — the ones that could actually damage the arrow and not be easily recovered on the battlefield mid-combat. Then we'd use the optional rule of recover half, so that some risked arrows needed repair, from glancing off armor or caught in brambles, instead of harmlessly skidding along, or sinking into soft soil/sand. In the end it also just played out faster as HP bloat and action micro-management didn't stall out the game.

You'd be surprised how quickly a combat can end; two to three rounds is not uncommon, nor is ambush, surprise, done in the 1st round of combat. Had more than one new school player remark how much more could get done with such fast combats. Low HP, KO%, and the like really sped up combat.

(edit: Story time!

I had one awesome scene where I had a somewhat reluctant player play an NPC wizard who had Punching Specialization. It was roughly a festival of imprisoned, gagged wizards forced into a pugilism arena for festival entertainment. They had to fight it out without magic as the crowd cheered and placed bets.

Well that lucky son of a gun kept rolling crazy well on the KO% chart. Sure he had a little advantage with his Punching Specialization (any class can have this from CH:F). But the luck on his KO rolls were bizarre that night.

After a while he ended up at the final of the "tournament" and people were chanting his nickname "One-Shot! One-Shot!" By then he already one-shotted four other wizards, either from damage or KO% roll. His last bout was a duel and in his first swing he rolled disgustingly well, another 2 damage hit, plus his +1 for specialization, and he got the KO% roll! So it was something out of Bloodsport, a one-hit KO, but with wimpy wizards all sweaty and stripped down to their shorts.

He still ended up retiring that NPC, but it still lives on in that campaign. It's currently the wizard attachment to a group of employed county marines, privateered to capture ships from nearby or docking pirates. He got a pardon and employment all in one festival. And, well, he's earned the respect of his fellow marines, too.

"One-Shot! One-Shot! One-Shot!")

Quote from: RosenMcStern;919583In the Italian language, we call this "la supercazzola sbrematurata con lo scappellamento a destra, come se fosse Antani".

Or, as Bren said, "3 combat turns".

Three minutes to kill one single enemy.

Sorry, but this breaks my very personal suspension of disbelief. If I were you, I would make some appropriate considerations. And I only say this because I find the other details of your game Very Promising and Well Devised.

The typical Hollywood climactic sword fight scene takes between five to ten minutes.  I am not interested in "realism" in my D&D game in the slightest.  YMMV.

To a lot of us, it just plain isn't an issue.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;919721The typical Hollywood climactic sword fight scene takes between five to ten minutes.  I am not interested in "realism" in my D&D game in the slightest.  YMMV.

And all of the other fight scenes with faceless, unnamed mooks during the movie take a few seconds. It's great that minute-long turns work for you, but most Hollywood movies and D&D don't make for a great comparison.

Quote from: Brand55;919724And all of the other fight scenes with faceless, unnamed mooks during the movie take a few seconds.

Fighters, <1HD creatures in AD&D. Look it up, young gamer.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;919721The typical Hollywood climactic sword fight scene takes between five to ten minutes.  I am not interested in "realism" in my D&D game in the slightest.  YMMV.

Actually, as someone who timed it, you'd be wrong.  Most CLIMATIC end fights last between 3-5 minutes.  And often are one on one fights.  So unless you hand wave all the goblin raider fights (the ones that show up between 20 to 200 in the entire dungeon, I will concede that I, and many other local DMs may have misread the amount showing) and skip right to the fight with the Goblin King, Orc Chief, Dragon or what-have-you, then you're even more wrong and have less clue about timing in an action movie.

10 minutes for a fight scene between the hero and villain?  That's an annoying drag that would bore most people watching.  It works best in a video game because you're controlling one actor/playing piece yourself.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;919721To a lot of us, it just plain isn't an issue.

Now, again, this is purely anecdotal, but for us, back in my 2e days, it also wasn't an issue because we often quickly FORGOT that rounds were 1 minute long.  Simply because we didn't mentally envision the Errol Flynn dashing and one handed sports dandy dancing with a rapier with an Orc brute playing the role of the Cardinal, or just one of his captains to our musketeers.

Our eyes simply glazed over at how stupid it sounded, and played the game our way.  Which yes, yes, I know is the wrong way, but we weren't at the ground floor after all.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;919728Fighters, <1HD creatures in AD&D. Look it up, young gamer.

AD&D 1e, NOT in 2e.  Please make sure you get your editions right.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;919728Fighters, <1HD creatures in AD&D. Look it up, young gamer.

I don't need to. Not every character on-screen is a fighter so that rule doesn't apply. Sometimes none of them are. And sometimes the character who goes down swiftly is not insignificant. Yet time and again we see quick fights where someone is taken out in one or two blows that take but a moment, or we see a longer fight of a minute or two where dozens of unnamed baddies are taken out.

That's the thing. If one-minute rounds works for you, that's great. Stick with them and have fun. I'm just saying that Hollywood presents fight scenes in so many different ways with so many variables that basically every system of tracking combat out there can point to it as inspiration, making it somewhat pointless.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;919733AD&D 1e, NOT in 2e.  Please make sure you get your editions right.

That helps, as I didn't recall that from 2e and never played the first edition. Then again, we didn't use all the rules as-written in 2e and it was a long time ago so I could have easily been forgetting it.

*shrug*

"I play an edition of a game which doesn't have the rules I like."
"Here, this other edition does, play that instead."
"I play an edition of a game which doesn't have the rules I like."

Play AD&D1e. Or houserule 2e. But either way, stop complaining. If you want most fights against strong foes to take a while, and most fights against faceless goons to be quick, the (house) rule is there for you to use.

As for non-fighters, It reminds me of when we played Recon, "but why can't my medic be a demolitions expert and sniper too?" Non-fighters should have a hard time in melee against faceless goons. It's the fighter's job to cut down faceless goons like a farmer scything through long grass, the other classes have other jobs.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;919742As for non-fighters, It reminds me of when we played Recon, "but why can't my medic be a demolitions expert and sniper too?" Non-fighters should have a hard time in melee against faceless goons. It's the fighter's job to cut down faceless goons like a farmer scything through long grass, the other classes have other jobs.

No one said otherwise. But those rules don't apply to movies, where everyone from the heavily-muscled warrior to the plucky child sidekick can take out a bad guy in one shot.

I got lucky to play once with Dave Arneson at PacifiCon in the Bay Area. Dave's rule for fighters was that if you killed something, you got a free attack. AKA, cleave. Since that day, I ditched the RAW and gave all 0e Fighters "Kill & Kill Again!" which has been a huge hit with players.

As I use 1D6 for base damage and 1D6 for HDs in my 0e games, its quite common for fighters to chop down 3-4 bandits, gobins or babies in one round which for players is really great fun.

As for the 1 minute round...whatevs. One of the many rules that got tossed out long ago from our table, but we still use 1 turn = 10 minutes = 10 rounds, but since all D&D combat is abstract, its a non-issue for us to abstract how long a round may be. A round is the time it takes to do your thing.

RPG rules are full of weirdness, and you either roll with them or change them. I don't know what's the wonkier rule - the 1 minute D&D rounds or the 1 second GURPS rounds. But in actual play, we pretty much used them the same.

Quote from: Bren;919598Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. Always assuming they don't isn't a better solution than always assuming they do. Rounds of short duration with enforced fast action declaration can provide hesitation. Of course that hesitation is based on player ability rather than on the ability of the character.

Yes. Unless you add the pausing to the game mechanics, too. In my house rules, Combat Awareness is often one of the most important measures of effectiveness in combat. It also lets you game someone, who can sometimes avoid or get past goons without actually fighting them (maybe not even using a weapon), by confusing or faking them out.

Quote from: Spinachcat;919747RPG rules are full of weirdness, and you either roll with them or change them. I don't know what's the wonkier rule - the 1 minute D&D rounds or the 1 second GURPS rounds. But in actual play, we pretty much used them the same.

I don't know which is more wonky, but in my experience the 1 minute round makes things go faster.  As referee I'm not afraid to make a rough guess of "this is how much you can do in a round" and nobody's ever complained.  This is why a friend 30 years younger than I tossed over D&D 3whatever/Pathfinder and got the PDFs of OD&D after playing in my campaign.  To quote, "I like the fact that if I want to sneak up behind somebody and knock him out I just say so, you roll the dice, it either happens or it doesn't, and we get on with the damn game."

I wonder if a wargame background influences preferences.  Except for Korns' rules, historical wargames tend to have long turns (yes, combat turns too) and an abstract combat resolution.  For instance, TRACTICS considers a turn to be ten minutes of movement and one minute of fire.  The fact that not moving does not let you fire ten times bothers absolutely nobody I've ever encountered in 45 years of playing.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;919824I wonder if a wargame background influences preferences.  Except for Korns' rules, historical wargames tend to have long turns (yes, combat turns too) and an abstract combat resolution.  For instance, TRACTICS considers a turn to be ten minutes of movement and one minute of fire.  The fact that not moving does not let you fire ten times bothers absolutely nobody I've ever encountered in 45 years of playing.

I tend to agree, because the people writing and playing those rules are familiar with how battles actually play out, either through study or first-hand experience. Thus, the understanding that people typically don't fight-fight-fight continually, and instead are prone to the dithering, cowering, hiding, catching their breath, etc, for considerable stretches that I mentioned up-thread.

That sort of phenomenon gets happily abstracted in a longer combat round, which provides a realistic tempo but also doesn't enforce "you have to sit doing nothing for the next 10 rounds to catch your breath" rules that might not be as fun.

I've been rereading the AD&D1e PHB lately and I was surprised to find a rule (pg 25) that all Fighter classes get one attack per level against 1HD (less than d8) monsters and all zero-level humans, etc...   I totally forgot that AD&D had a so called "mook rule".  So your 12th level fighter against a goblin mob can get 12 attacks in.  Then the 1-minute round starts to look a bit better.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;919733AD&D 1e, NOT in 2e.  Please make sure you get your editions right.

Wrong. It is in the 2e DMG as well.
(Black border DMG, p. 80, 2nd column, 2nd optional grey box.)

I think this issue is a great litmus test for someone's understanding of the purposes or goals of rpg's (and games generally). A 1 minute combat round is stupid if you think you are playing a game that emulates detailed, super-slowmo action movie fights. A turn that represents 10 seconds of real-world time would be stupid if you were playing monopoly. So, if you are playing OD&D and believe the game is about beat-by-beat combat action, you are simply wrong and should either switch to a different game that is about that, hack the game to be more like what you wanted in the first place, or happily accept that an OD&D combat round is a schematic, 'gamist' representation of the integrated activities of a minute of skirmishing.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;919829I tend to agree, because the people writing and playing those rules are familiar with how battles actually play out, either through study or first-hand experience. Thus, the understanding that people typically don't fight-fight-fight continually, and instead are prone to the dithering, cowering, hiding, catching their breath, etc, for considerable stretches that I mentioned up-thread.

That sort of phenomenon gets happily abstracted in a longer combat round, which provides a realistic tempo but also doesn't enforce "you have to sit doing nothing for the next 10 rounds to catch your breath" rules that might not be as fun.

Also, the value of these games as games is totally independent of these issues; the only sense in which it matters what period of time you declare corresponds to a movement or combat phase (if you are playing a game that has such things) is the feeling of realism, which doesn't have that much to do with the way the game works as a game. How big is a square in chess? How long are we to imagine it takes a pawn to move?

Quote from: Larsdangly;919841How big is a square in chess? How long are we to imagine it takes a pawn to move?

If you're playing me, about three minutes longer than you'd think it should. :)

Quote from: Opaopajr;919831Wrong. It is in the 2e DMG as well.
(Black border DMG, p. 80, 2nd column, 2nd optional grey box.)

'Black border'?  Honest question:  do you have a picture?  Cuz the one I had was this one:  
[ATTACH=CONFIG]387[/ATTACH]

But it could also have had that rule, and I missed it, would not be the first time.  But in AD&D 2e's Player's Handbook that I remember, it didn't have that rule for the Fighter.

Quote from: Larsdangly;919837I think this issue is a great litmus test for someone's understanding of the purposes or goals of rpg's (and games generally). A 1 minute combat round is stupid if you think you are playing a game that emulates detailed, super-slowmo action movie fights. A turn that represents 10 seconds of real-world time would be stupid if you were playing monopoly. So, if you are playing OD&D and believe the game is about beat-by-beat combat action, you are simply wrong and should either switch to a different game that is about that, hack the game to be more like what you wanted in the first place, or happily accept that an OD&D combat round is a schematic, 'gamist' representation of the integrated activities of a minute of skirmishing.

The problem is, as Gronan asked, what background players have.  In my circle, most of us weren't wargamers first, and so our frame of reference were 80's Fantasy novels, shows and movies.  Which a lot can happen in a minute, especially against small groups of 'minions', which has been in various forms of media for a VERY long time.  From the ancient Greek stories and epics to modern comics and movies.

And the comment about 'how many arrows did you lose' is actually pretty relevant, if I remember what a 1 minute round describes:  Parries, blocks and dodges.  Now assuming that you're an archer facing off with another, and both of you are running around the battlefield, you're going to be loosening shot after shot, as you're target may be just perfect, but manages to juke, the wind bursts and takes your arrow too far left, or he dives into cover, miraculously avoiding your arrow.

In that minute, you could empty an entire 24 arrow quiver and miss most of the shots.  Less if both targets are not moving, but you've lost several arrows anyway, trying to judge wind, distance and arc required to hit your foe over there on the low hill beneath you.

A minute round is unfeasible for several types of combats.  My local groups and I rolled with by putting it out of our minds.  We just did the 'beat by beat' thing because to us, it felt better.

Quote from: gwb79;919830I've been rereading the AD&D1e PHB lately and I was surprised to find a rule (pg 25) that all Fighter classes get one attack per level against 1HD (less than d8) monsters and all zero-level humans, etc...   I totally forgot that AD&D had a so called "mook rule".  So your 12th level fighter against a goblin mob can get 12 attacks in.  Then the 1-minute round starts to look a bit better.

Actually it is less than 1 HD so that all 1-1 HD and lower monsters and NPCs.

Right.  That's what I meant by less than d8. So that still includes goblins, kobolds, and the like.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;919887'Black border'?  Honest question:  do you have a picture?  Cuz the one I had was this one:  
[ATTACH=CONFIG]387[/ATTACH]

Full picture DMG, p. 57, 1st column, 1st grey box optional rule.

When I'm running OD&D, rounds officially last 10 seconds. I think Delta did some research that suggested that 10 seconds is also the average length of time between damaging blows for professional boxers and archers, so I'm happy describing a single attack. In practice though, rounds last some vague unspecified length of time, which is enough to do something interesting, but not too long that it feels like no one else is doing anything.

I'll admit that a minute seems like a really long time to me, and I have difficulty picturing all the stuff that could happen during such a long interval.

I don't think it really matters in play unless you have a player that obsesses about it and then it only matters because they won't just shut up and play.

There is always a solution (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?17565-My-worst-campaign&p=290600#post290600) for That Player.

Quote from: Moochava]Look, I saw this on the Discovery Channel, and I think it'd really help the gaming groups of many folks here on RPGNet. You know those monkeys with the candy-colored asses? Mandrills or whatever? Well, I was watching the Discovery Channel, and apparently, when in a group (read: gaming group), the bright-assed monkeys symbolically mount on-another to show dominance. The males, I mean. The dominant ones just pin down those lower in the pecking order and rut again them.

Now, it's not actual sex--the monkeys aren't getting any jollies out of it (I'm a keen judge of when a monkey is really enjoying his rutting)--it's just to keep the lesser bright-assed monkeys in their place.

So, I figured, why not try this in the gaming group? You know, I'm the DM, thus the dominant male, so when one of the bright-assed monkeys I game with gets all uppity, I just pin him to the table and hump his hams. Now, we're all well-adjusted, perfectly normal heterosexual men, so there's nothing erotic about it; it just goes to symbolize that I am, in fact, the master, and he is, in fact, the player (bitch).

I mean, really, you've gotta keep those players in their place. Mocking them and throwing dice at them only goes so far; eventually, you gotta take the final step, pin them against the table, and hump them vigorously in order to show that you are the dominant male. It's the only way.

I can understand if you're apprehensive, of course--pinning other guys down and humping them is normally a "homosexual" activity, and you don't wanna be associated with that sort of stigmatized life-style. And I sympathize with that concern! But really, the bright-assed monkeys have shown me that you *can* rut against your fellow male gamers in a completely hetero-sexual, ritualized way, merely to show that you are the dungeon master, and that you wear the Viking hat, whereas they are the bitches, and are forced to wear little beanie hats to symbolize their submissive position within the gaming group hierarchy.

Have I made myself clear?

Quote from: Skarg;919811Yes. Unless you add the pausing to the game mechanics, too. In my house rules, Combat Awareness is often one of the most important measures of effectiveness in combat. It also lets you game someone, who can sometimes avoid or get past goons without actually fighting them (maybe not even using a weapon), by confusing or faking them out.

I'm interested in how you work this in.

Quote from: Larsdangly;919837A 1 minute combat round is stupid if you think you are playing a game that emulates detailed, super-slowmo action movie fights.

The problem is that this thread started with a discussion about Zweihander, which unlilke OD&D is exactly about detailed action movie fights. This might lead us to the conclusion that this rule might be inappropriate (I would not use the word "stupid") for the goals of that specific game.

Quote from: yosemitemike;919960I don't think it really matters in play unless you have a player that obsesses about it and then it only matters because they won't just shut up and play.

Some of us play with players who will care, and since the GM is one, there tend to be situations where it matters what is happening besides combat and away from the combat, during combat.

Examples that come immediately to mind include: People who run away, who are either part of the combat or are near the combat (e.g. witnesses or people being protected by the fighters on one side, who flee and leave people to stall the attackers). The time the combat takes is also the time that these people have to hide, scatter, run away, go for help/reinforcements, take pictures, call 911, wander along into the combat zone from outside, notice the noise, lying on the battlefield bleeding from wounds and not receiving first-aid, not putting out fires, etc etc etc. In a dynamic situation that includes nearby people, the time a combat takes can make many kinds of vitally-important difference.

Quote from: Onix;920019I'm interested in how you work this in.

I've tried various sets of house rules over the years, and/or GM rulings. Each combatant has one or more ratings and/or states which influence how they can behave in combat, which can range from dirt simple to complex. Complex can include vision, hearing, leadership, combat experience, group training, gesture, etc etc.

An overview of a simple version can be something like:

Ratings:
======
Non-fighter (usually only runs, stuns, or cowers)
Green (roll or delay to switch states)
Trained (easier roll or shorter delay to switch states)
Vet (switches states readily but rolls to notice/react to things)
Expert (full options with some rolls to notice or react to some things)

Basic States:
==========
Surprised/frozen/unaware/startled/confused (can't do anything, attackers get advantages on them)
Fleeing/hiding (can only flee or hide)
Passive (alert but not doing anything unless attacked - then they can fight back against whoever attacked them)
Active (can take basic combat actions)
Lucid (can take complex combat actions)

More Detailed State Breakdown, if desired:
=================================
Surprised/frozen/unaware (Unaware of combat - does nothing or non-combat activity, no tactical movement)
Startled/confused (aware of threat, but confused - can only take a step, change facing, some defensive reactions (at penalty) to immediate proximate attacks)
Fleeing/hiding (can run away and/or hide, maybe duck/weave/dodge, and that's about it)
Passive (doing nothing proactive but can fight back if attacked in melee, or dodge/take cover etc under ranged attack)
Focused/Engaged (doing one sort of combat activity (e.g fighting one person) - can keep doing that, but not higher state actions)
Waiting (alert but choosing to wait for a good moment - gives an advantage on eventual action but does nothing in the meantime)
Active (can move and choose to engage people or take most basic actions)
Lucid (unrestricted player choice of clever/complex actions)

I'm usually playing with one-to-five-second turns, so even in a non-surprise combat, many figures are spending many turns Waiting, Focused/Engaged, or Passive. Some events/actions can knock some people into startled/confused, too. Because Engaged allows fighting back, it's not just giving the more aware people extra turns, it's more that the more aware/experienced/coordinated and better-led side gets more options to drive who is fighting whom when, and where people maneuver on the field, which can be decisive but in a very different way to just letting one side attack more, which feels very good to me (worth doing the extra layer of rules/rolling/rulings, to me, anyway). There is also a nice effect on time spent, where the total time taken feels more realistic (not just fight fight fight every second, so total time for battles feels more right) and there are tradeoffs between deliberate delays and waiting till your side is coordinated, and taking immediate actions even if your comrades aren't quite ready to back you up, etc.

I'm sure it could tend to drive "lets get combat over with" players nuts to think about, though I usually just GM-side it. I do get push-back from players who hate being told their character is spacing out during combat, but that can be overcome by giving them characters who are (and invest character points in) an expert level of Combat Awareness etc. - in fact, that can turn such players completely around, as those players also tend to LOVE having their characters be more alert/aware than most others on the field. It gives an effect of character ability that lands at the player's level of control, so not only do they get better to-hit and damage rolls, but they get more freedom of action than others more often. It lets you replicate in a literal way fights where an expert dominates rookies by being able to drive the action and take them on without getting immediately surrounded and butchered, because they hesitate and can't coordinate in time.

Quote from: Skarg;920069An overview of a simple version can be something like: Interesting. Thanks.

Sure. Oh, one more thing: it gives leaders a reason to actually lead! That is, help coordinate people. So it's good to have a good leader who has good awareness and leadership / communication skills, and to have your group train having him lead you. The leader needs to take time to tell people what to do, but that gives them bonuses and options to do what he's telling them to do when otherwise they would be spacing out. So even if your leader is a good fighter himself, it's often better if he's taking the "tell everyone to attack but stay in line formation" option for the turn, because otherwise they may be standing around doing nothing, or attacking irregularly in a way that exposes them. Suddenly skills like tactics, leadership, communications, gesture, and even foreign languages can have very decisive effects on combat.

Basically one minute combat rounds imply Flynning or their modern equivalent. Sometimes that's what you want, sometimes you want something more nasty, brutish and short. I'd have a hard time imagining running, say, The Black Company with one minute combat rounds.

Quote from: Spinachcat;919747I got lucky to play once with Dave Arneson at PacifiCon in the Bay Area. Dave's rule for fighters was that if you killed something, you got a free attack. AKA, cleave. Since that day, I ditched the RAW and gave all 0e Fighters "Kill & Kill Again!" which has been a huge hit with players.

As I use 1D6 for base damage and 1D6 for HDs in my 0e games, its quite common for fighters to chop down 3-4 bandits, gobins or babies in one round which for players is really great fun.

As for the 1 minute round...whatevs. One of the many rules that got tossed out long ago from our table, but we still use 1 turn = 10 minutes = 10 rounds, but since all D&D combat is abstract, its a non-issue for us to abstract how long a round may be. A round is the time it takes to do your thing.

RPG rules are full of weirdness, and you either roll with them or change them. I don't know what's the wonkier rule - the 1 minute D&D rounds or the 1 second GURPS rounds. But in actual play, we pretty much used them the same.

A simple solution I came up with was to make a round 6 seconds and a turn 1 minute. That way the number of rounds in a turn remains the same but things like movement make more sense. I also use a house rule similar to the one you describe from Arneson: if a hit is scored and the minimum damage is enough to kill the target, then you get a free attack. I stole it from Battlesystem, where if a unit's minimum damage destroys a counter, it's a free attack.

Quote from: Daztur;920103Basically one minute combat rounds imply Flynning or their modern equivalent. Sometimes that's what you want, sometimes you want something more nasty, brutish and short. I'd have a hard time imagining running, say, The Black Company with one minute combat rounds.

I was thinking on this, when I was reading the Scarlet Heroes book, and although 1 minute rounds are just too long for a single attack per, (Yes, level 1 heroes aren't very skilled, yet, but they're still meant to be head and shoulders above the average soldier, right?) so it got me thinking.

In SH (Scarlet Heroes, which is based off OD&D, I believe, it uses the same system as Swords and Wizardry, I think?) the four classes have something called a "Fray Die" which players will roll for 'free' damage during a round.  It's to simulate the random swings or arcane blasts that happen during a fight, that get lucky.  Except for the Magic-User, everyone can only do damage to targets of their level in hit dice or lower (So level 1 can only Fray Die other 1HD creatures, level 2 gets to do it to 2HD and lower, so one and so forth.)

A fighter gets a D8, because he's suppose to be the combat machine.  Clerics and Thieves get a D6.  Whereas a Magic-User just gets a D4, but breaks the HD cap, allowing them to hit higher level/HD monsters for damage.

So, what if you house ruled that into the 1 minute rounds, how would that feel?  I'm curious, so I'm going to prepare a single adventure for my home group to see how it goes.  Which I will concede right now, it could go really badly.

AD&D had one-minute combat rounds.  D&D had 6 second combat rounds, which made much more sense. In fact, every game of AD&D I was ever in as player or DM was run as though rounds were 6 seconds.

I like the elegance of 1 minute round -> 10 minute turns.

Quote from: RPGPundit;922397AD&D had one-minute combat rounds.  D&D had 6 second combat rounds, which made much more sense. In fact, every game of AD&D I was ever in as player or DM was run as though rounds were 6 seconds.

Huhn, you are correct (as per Swords and Wizardry and Scarlet Heroes), I wonder how I missed that.  Either way, the Fray Die might be a personal remedy for time issue I have.

Like so many things in D&D, this is largely the result of OD&D being an inconsistent mess of a rulebook (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/7849/roleplaying-games/reactions-to-odd-turns-rounds-and-segments-oh-my).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;923406Like so many things in D&D, this is largely the result of OD&D being an inconsistent mess of a rulebook (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/7849/roleplaying-games/reactions-to-odd-turns-rounds-and-segments-oh-my).

The meaning of turns, rounds, and movement rates seemed straightforward when I read the rules.

• Underworld Turn = 2 moves at a normal movement rate or 1 move at a cautious movement rate.
• Movement rates are measured in inches which are 10 feet to the inch in the underworld and 10 yards to the inch in the wilderness.
• Reading Chainmail clarifies that movement for Light Foot = 12", Heavy Foot = 9", and Armored Foot = 6".
• The movement rate for flight or rout is doubled, so Light Foot move 24" per move.
• There are 10 combat rounds in a turn, ergo a combat round is 1 minute - which always seemed too long to me, but that is what the rules said.
• I presumed the slow underworld movement was a justification for the chance for spotting secret doors and traps by assuming movement is slow and cautious and the explorers are observant.
• I presumed the slow underworld movement was also intended to justify or create the need (for game reasons) for resource management and tracking of torches and oil expended for light sources.

If I were to change things, a 2 minute turn would make more sense for the outdoor movement rate as that would mean that one normal move would cover 12"/9"/6" respectively. Which, for 2 moves per turn, is a rate of 120 yds/90 yds/60 yds per move or per minute which works out quite close to a rate of 4mph/3mph/2mph for foot speeds. (More accurately, 4 mph = 117 yds/minute, 3 mph = 88 yds/minute, and 2 mph = 59 yds/minute.)

LOL! When I was 10-12 and tried several times to make any kind of sense or game out of Whitebox D&D (without having Chainmail, but having played with but not owned the later D&D editions), I had already learned the rules to several wargames (e.g. Midway, Alesia, Squad Leader) and The Fantasy Trip, which are actually complete and logically consistent and make sense once you focus enough attention and patience to learn the terms. The most opaque rules I had seen before 0D&D were the rules for War At Sea, which is actually not very complex for a wargame, but the writing is weird and hard to learn unless you already know the game. Whitebox D&D seems to have both that same problem to a greater degree (i.e. the writers are very familiar with what they're trying to say, but are awful at explaining it to new people who have no clue) AND only present a start to a complete system with peculiar details included and omitted, and the assumption that players will get creative and make up what's not said. Coming from TFT, where there are very concise well-explained rules that do make sense, it seemed amazingly (almost unbelievably) crazy. I love the line in the linked article above:

QuoteThat way they can fully appreciate the archaeological reconstruction of the rulebooks necessary to actually play this game.

Yep. I did not have access to whatever artifacts, lore, terminology or miniatures wargame context to make 0D&D more than seem like a perverse joke or weird nostalgia collector's item project.

Quote from: Bren;923417The meaning of turns, rounds, and movement rates seemed straightforward when I read the rules.

• Underworld Turn = 2 moves at a normal movement rate or 1 move at a cautious movement rate.
• Movement rates are measured in inches which are 10 feet to the inch in the underworld and 10 yards to the inch in the wilderness.
• Reading Chainmail clarifies that movement for Light Foot = 12", Heavy Foot = 9", and Armored Foot = 6".
• The movement rate for flight or rout is doubled, so Light Foot move 24" per move.
• There are 10 combat rounds in a turn, ergo a combat round is 1 minute - which always seemed too long to me, but that is what the rules said.
• I presumed the slow underworld movement was a justification for the chance for spotting secret doors and traps by assuming movement is slow and cautious and the explorers are observant.
• I presumed the slow underworld movement was also intended to justify or create the need (for game reasons) for resource management and tracking of torches and oil expended for light sources.

I'm always fascinated by the different ways people interpret these books. I'm curious where you found a "cautious movement rate" in the books. Also surprised you needed Chainmail to clarify the Light/Heavyt/Armd. movement, which always seemed clear to me from pg. 15 of M&M. (But I never really understood why Gygax decided to list movement rates for full turns, but then split the turn into two moves. What was the intended function of having two moves per turn with each move equal to half your movement rate?)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;923487I'm always fascinated by the different ways people interpret these books. I'm curious where you found a "cautious movement rate" in the books.

I may be misremembering where the notion of "cautious movement" came from. Rather than the little brown books it might have been a supplement or an issue of The Strategic Review or even a house ruling. I don't have a searchable copy of the rules and I can't say that I'm curious enough to re-read the rules or various supplements to see exactly where "cautious movement rate" came from.

QuoteAlso surprised you needed Chainmail to clarify the Light/Heavyt/Armd. movement, which always seemed clear to me from pg. 15 of M&M.

When I read this from your article

QuoteMaking this even more confusing is the phrase "120 feet for a fully-armored character". The phrase "fully-armored" means absolutely nothing in the context of the rules..."

That did not seem to support your having a clear understanding of the movement rates simply from the D&D rules. Fully armored refers to the Armored Foot movement rate of 6". The 120 feet comes from making two 6" moves in a turn at the underworld scale of 10 feet per inch.

QuoteBut I never really understood why Gygax decided to list movement rates for full turns, but then split the turn into two moves. What was the intended function of having two moves per turn with each move equal to half your movement rate?

I don't think movement was half one's movement rate. But off the top of my head, I assume two moves was to facilitate partial movement and attack as well as well as split move and fire for certain troop types e.g. horse archers such as the Parthians, Byzantines, and Mongols. In addition, Elven Archers on foot have the ability both in Chainmail and in the entry for elves in Volumen 2 for split move and fire.

So, hit points, healing, and armor class are good, but a 1 minute round isn't?

A total lack of actual wounds is good?
No mitigation for damage through armor is good?
Abstracted healing of damage is good?

Abstraction of a combat round is bad?

You all just kinda ran out of shit to bitch about, haven't you?
Just change the scale and play the fucking game.

Quote from: Bloodwolf;924063You all just kinda ran out of shit to bitch about, haven't you?

Not hardly. But you are welcome to start a thread about one of those other things you mentioned and we can bitch about that for a while.

Quote from: Bren;923510I may be misremembering where the notion of "cautious movement" came from.

"Two moves constitute a turn, except in flight/pursuit situations
where the moves/turn will be doubled (and no mapping allowed)."

Dungeons & Dragons, Vol. 3 "The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures," p. 8

In theory I've always liked the 1 minute turn concept. In practice I find it hard with lazy imaginations. That's not to say if you don't like it you're a bad role player, only that people forget the convention and the collective construct of the battle collapses. The one action, or a set number of actions equals a full turn is generally easier for players to keep in their head. With Fractured Kingdom I went with the 6 second round with each character able to take 2 actions. With Metahumans Rising, a super hero RPG, player characters still have the 2 actions but in comic book fashion the time has been changed to 1 round should feel like a page in a comic book, sometimes 2 if you get a splash panel in. Splash panels in this instance offering PCs a reward for well described and generally amazing actions. (Such as using a tank to batter a foe, as happened in out AP.)

Quote from: Certified;924159In theory I've always liked the 1 minute turn concept. In practice I find it hard with lazy imaginations. That's not to say if you don't like it you're a bad role player, only that people forget the convention and the collective construct of the battle collapses. The one action, or a set number of actions equals a full turn is generally easier for players to keep in their head. With Fractured Kingdom I went with the 6 second round with each character able to take 2 actions. With Metahumans Rising, a super hero RPG, player characters still have the 2 actions but in comic book fashion the time has been changed to 1 round should feel like a page in a comic book, sometimes 2 if you get a splash panel in. Splash panels in this instance offering PCs a reward for well described and generally amazing actions. (Such as using a tank to batter a foe, as happened in out AP.)

So now we're lazy too?  Why thank you, oh great overlord of gaming.  Thank you so much for proving to us what we've been doing wrong all these years.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Christopher Brady;924220So now we're lazy too?  Why thank you, oh great overlord of gaming.  Thank you so much for proving to us what we've been doing wrong all these years.

:rolleyes:

Does the smiley mean you are joking, or that you missed what I was trying to say? To quote myself:

QuoteThat's not to say if you don't like it you're a bad role player, only that people forget the convention and the collective construct of the battle collapses.

This can happen to anyone whether you like the concept of the good hit amidst many or not. Additionally, I went on to talk about not using it in game design because it's a difficult concept to maintain at all times.

Quote from: Bloodwolf;924063So, hit points, healing, and armor class are good, but a 1 minute round isn't?

You really haven't seen people bitching about these other things?  People have been bitching about all of those things and more for as long as I can remember.

Quote from: yosemitemike;924313You really haven't seen people bitching about these other things?  People have been bitching about all of those things and more for as long as I can remember.

'Have been'? More like 'still are'.  I still am, for example.

Quote from: yosemitemike;924313You really haven't seen people bitching about these other things?  People have been bitching about all of those things and more for as long as I can remember.

And now there are games that don't have those things, too!  So people who don't like those things can, oh, I don't know... maybe play another game!

Quote from: spaceLem;919940When I'm running OD&D, rounds officially last 10 seconds. I think Delta did some research that suggested that 10 seconds is also the average length of time between damaging blows for professional boxers and archers, so I'm happy describing a single attack. In practice though, rounds last some vague unspecified length of time, which is enough to do something interesting, but not too long that it feels like no one else is doing anything.

I'll admit that a minute seems like a really long time to me, and I have difficulty picturing all the stuff that could happen during such a long interval.

Yeah, that's my reason to shorten the rounds, too, it's not even about realism anymore:).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;919976There is always a solution (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?17565-My-worst-campaign&p=290600#post290600) for That Player.

But if anyone uses said "solution", you'd need to come up with a solution to the problem of having That GM;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;924358And now there are games that don't have those things, too!  So people who don't like those things can, oh, I don't know... maybe play another game!

Totally true!

In my opinion, the fuzzy timing of the (specifically) COMBAT "turn/round" comes from this:

Chainmail page 8 says, "one turn of play is roughly equivalent to one minute of time in battle", where a "turn" encompasses troop movement, missile/magic attacks, and any "contained melees" where two troops touch bases and fight it out for a variable number of "rounds" (page 15: determine casualties, determine "morale scores", find difference and continue melee 'this turn' if the chart says to). Thus multiple "melee rounds" happen in a Chainmail "strategic turn".

Once the combat rules were brought to the tight confines of the dungeon and the troop-figurine scale changed to 1:1, melee is happening a lot more often  compared to the other phases (less maneuvering in formation and very few clear missile fire lines), so often the missile troops and artillery (mages) are sitting through a bunch of die-rolling for multiple melee rounds until some-one breaks/surrenders... -And then some-one asked "why can't we just do missile/magic fire along with melee?" and the modern "combat round" is born. Some groups reject this "let's do everything within the 'melee' phase" rule shift, and retain the other "phases" (movement/missile-artillery/melee/2nd missile), but shorten the turn down to a "6/10 second round" to avoid the previous problem of multiple melee-rounds-in-the-same-turn.


Anyway, that's how I see it. As a side note, this is why I decided to have "1 minute ship combat turns" for my re-design of the Earthdawn 4E ship-to-ship rules. The scale is much better for large blocks of people working together. Melee doesn't happen until a Boarding Action occurs, at which point we roll the Boarding Maneuver that turn to see how well then attacker can take ground on the target's deck, but then we flip back to individual (6 second) combat rounds as the Players are playing individual hero Adepts.

Trying to manage ship movement, ship weapon-reload times, and each individual's 1-action-per-round economy - while staying at the 6-second combat round scale (like they try to do in the various Pathfinder ship rules) is tedious, overly complex, and robs the people around the table of fun opportunities. In my design (1 minute ship combat turns), every ship gets 1 "Ship Maneuver" they take on their Initiative score, and a number of "Officer Maneuvers" they can spend like Instants (in various card games) to react to what the other ships are doing (and tap individuals for their expertise). As an example of that, an Officer Maneuver like "Return Fire!" may let you (the Chief Gunner, or one of his Mates) line up and fire one Ship Weapon Battery on the ship Ramming you during their Initiative count, but the "Assault!" Ship Maneuver lets you line up one Battery for every success scored on the Maneuver roll vs the other ship's Maneuverability (done on your Initiative count - and countered by the target's available Officer Maneuvers).

Quote from: Bren;923510I don't think movement was half one's movement rate. But off the top of my head, I assume two moves was to facilitate partial movement and attack as well as well as split move and fire for certain troop types e.g. horse archers such as the Parthians, Byzantines, and Mongols. In addition, Elven Archers on foot have the ability both in Chainmail and in the entry for elves in Volumen 2 for split move and fire.

We're not talking about combat rounds, though. We're talking about turns.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;924129"Two moves constitute a turn, except in flight/pursuit situations
where the moves/turn will be doubled (and no mapping allowed)."

Dungeons & Dragons, Vol. 3 "The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures," p. 8

Bren's "cautious movement" is one move per turn, though, so it's not covered there.

Quote from: Certified;924159In theory I've always liked the 1 minute turn concept. In practice I find it hard with lazy imaginations. That's not to say if you don't like it you're a bad role player, only that people forget the convention and the collective construct of the battle collapses.

I may have already said this, but there's a conflation here between "one minute combat round" as a general concept (which can work just fine) and "one minute combat round" as it specifically exists in OD&D (where it actively contradicts other mechanics).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;924659We're not talking about combat rounds, though. We're talking about turns.

And in Chainmail missile fire is one phase during a turn.

QuoteBren's "cautious movement" is one move per turn, though, so it's not covered there.

I agree Gronan's quote doesn't cover what I said.