TheRPGSite

I'm looking for data followed by opinions here.

Name some systems. Then, based on your experience, state the maximum number of fights you can 'comfortably' fit into a single reasonable length (4-6 hours) session for the chosen system(s).

Comfortably in this case is defined as not feeling like a slog or chore to the players or the GM.

I'm starting this thread because I feel like the designers of systems that are intended to feature a lot of combat are often extremely optimistic about how fast and frequent fights actually are under their rules. I want to see how others feel about this.

ZWEIHÄNDER Grim & Perilous RPG (http://grimandperilous.com) can comfortably fit in at least two combat encounters during a 4-6 hour session between an equal number of foes and characters, or a few powerful foes against five characters. That includes explaining rules, narrating combat, magic and using the theatre of the mind, instead of miniatures and hexes, to illustrate movement.

Naturally, I am its creator so I understand all the nuances. Our playtesters are also running combat on their own from the GM's chair, and takes the same amount of time because they understand the system.

We recently had a new GM run a single instance of combat, and it took an hour at most. When adding in magic, it took roughly 1.3 hours.

This seems like a 'how long is a piece of string?' question and is equally impossible to answer. I don't care how fast or slow a version of D&D is, I'm always going to think it's a chore because I just don't like many of its assumptions. Most people playing the Boardgame Titan for the first time are going to think it's hellishly drawn out and tedious, but can be played with great speed by players who are expert with the rules and the game can zoom along. A combat in RuneQuest can be drawn out and complicated but nevertheless hugely exciting but will never be played by people who "don't like roll-under systems", equally a combat in RQ can end in a single round since a resolution doesn't depend on hacking everything to bits.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;883119I'm starting this thread because I feel like the designers of systems that are intended to feature a lot of combat are often extremely optimistic about how fast and frequent fights actually are under their rules. I want to see how others feel about this.

I feel kind of feel the same way.

I also feel like, despite any evidence to the contrary, I am always overly optimistic about

• How quickly my players will decide what their PC is going to try to do this round in combat.
• How long it takes my players to roll the dice and announce the result.
• How long it will take for our group to play out any given interaction with NPCs.
• How long it will take the players to plan (outside of combat) what the group is going to attempt to do next.

But I don't blame the designer for any of that. That's on me.

Quote from: Bilharzia;883130This seems like a 'how long is a piece of string?' question and is equally impossible to answer.

Despite mostly agreeing with this, I will still try to answer.

For Honor+Intrigue it depends a bit on the experience level of the characters involved. Expert and better duelists effectively get additional actions which extends the duration of a combat round.

Pawn opponents (the H+I Mook-equivalent) can be fought and defeated (the usual result) quickly. You could have easily run half a dozen or more combat encounters with Pawns in a 3 hour session.

Retainer level opponents will take longer. If the Retainer is an expert duelist, even longer still. Unless the session is non-stop fighting 1 encounter with Retainers per hour is about as fast as you can play out.

Villain level opponents take a lot longer. One combat with multiple Villains and Hero PCs can take 2-3 hours.

Playing BFRPG with my students, we can fit 1-2 fights per session. Here are the caveats:

- our sessions are ~40 minutes long, INCLUDING farting around with setup (grabbing dice and character sheets, running back to lockers to get lunch, etc)

- our PCs are all low level

- the PCs spend a lot of time getting into fights with stuff they shouldn't, and are often killed as a consequence (see previous point)

My DCC group is harder to measure, because we can go entire 4-6 hour sessions without any combat, and they try to make every fights unbalanced in their favour as possible. We have had four or more combats in a session without noticeably reducing the time spent exploring, planning, and roleplaying. They are pretty much the complete opposite of my school group.

Indeed, how long IS a piece of string?

I had 4th edition D&D fights go over 3 hours consistently--but that was with 12th level characters, 8 players at the table. Around 8th level, you can be confident of around 2.5 hours a fight.

I've had 4 hour sessions of 2E D&D go through half a dozen or more distinct battles, with 4 players, around third level (man, shoulda seen how many plastic figures I had to put away after that day, well over 50...)

Level, number of players, significance of battle (4 orcs is different than a dozen orcs, though both could be encountered in the same adventuring day).

That said, when I build a dungeon for a regulation 4.5 hours of play time (start at 6:30ish, end at 11ish), I need at least 4 decent battles in that dungeon. Now, that's for 5th edition D&D, roughly 4th level characters, 5-7 players.

Bottom line, YMMV, big time.

With Fractured Kingdom most of the demos are kept to around two to three fights per 3.5 hour session. This assumes all players are first timers and will need rules explained to them. We do have some demos that have up to 5 but it's designed like a modern dungeon crawl, escaping from an underground research facility.

With Metahumans Rising low level combat has been speed up quite a bit with the introduction of Background Characters (aka Mooks). These help simulate taking down street crime and some low level villains.

The demo has 5 potential encounters.

Spoiler

A battle with a medium sized gang of super jocks aided by a lightening powered super villain. A three way battle between a corporate hit squad  and more super jocks joined by a gargoyle. A race to stop a roiding out football player from demolishing everyone on the field. A shakedown of several now mutating super jocks. With the climax potentially involving a full super team, the two super villains from before plus the rest of their team, a large mob of now mutated jocks and their new leader, and the corporate hit squad. However, depending on if the players tackle the story, that fight fight may just be a small band of mutated jocks and half the villain team.

However, the more scenes in which the players are successful building up to the climax the few foes they have to face. So, I've never had a session go where the players actually have all four lead in encounters and still face the full villain team at the end. Generally, at least one of the villains gets taken out in a lead in scene and occasionally so does the hit squad.

While I agree with Bilharzia ... hrm.  

I do GURPS, and my sessions are approximately 6 1/2 hours long.  There's a fair bit of digression (a room full of old friends who see one another only once a fortnight), and a long lunch break.

If we're talking a mano-a-mano, that doesn't take long at all.  But the battles my group tends to get into involve at least four PCs, two party NPCs, and a couple dozen bad guys.  If that takes as little as an hour, that's pretty quick.  I don't commonly plan for more than one of these a session.

The largest battle in recent decades involved five PCs, 27 party NPCs (I am not making this number up) and various allies, spread across a city center against a massive bad guy horde, as the climax of a four-year-long plot arc.  That one took the better part of two sessions.

My 4e game (level 26) has 1 fight per 3 hour session, it's been that way since around 11th level. At 1st level it was 2 fights/session. Not sure we've ever had 3 fights in a session.

When we were playing D&D4e, we never managed more than one fight in a session, and it would never take less than 2 hours. So if we got towards the end of our slot and it looked like a fight was about to break out, we'd stop and be ready to run it at the start of the next session.

By contrast in 13th Age which came next, we could easily get 2-3 fights without breaking the usual flow of a 4 hour session.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;883119Name some systems. Then, based on your experience, state the maximum number of fights you can 'comfortably' fit into a single reasonable length (4-6 hours) session for the chosen system(s).

This is very hard to put into precise numbers, since there are many variables involved (number of players, their expertise level, number of opponents, etc), so rather than break things into details, I'll settle for time:

When we assume a session to be 3-4 hours long (and that it starts no later than 6 PM), then the sweet spot according to yours truly is 1 tactical encounter no longer than 30 minutes per each hour of play, or 2-4 no longer than 10 minutes/hour.

The real problem starts with over 30 minutes long encounters per session. If there are "summons" involved (creatures summoned/controlled by combatants), it's really exhausting.

Systems? Pathfinder, d20. I rarely touch anything more complicated than this.

Fun fact:
The longest single, continuous fight I recall was 4 PC x 2 NPC (+1 additional DMPC) in Amber RPG. It featured multilayer reality environment similar to  Inception movie and it took +/- 5 hours for PCs to win this Armageddon.

I think that in order for any data to be meaningful, we need to quantify exactly what we meant by a ' fight'.

Pick any system you like, and a fight with a pair of kobolds is likely going to take less time than one against horde of orcs that outnumber the party 6 to 1.

Also, party composition affects combat times. A group light on, or with no AOE capable magic will take longer to get through a bunch of foes than a group heavy with magical power.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;883234Pick any system you like, and a fight with a pair of kobolds is likely going to take less time than one against horde of orcs that outnumber the party 6 to 1.

Not my experience with D&D4e compared to ACKS. A standard 4 PCs vs 10 opponents fight took on average 2.5 hours in D&D4e. By contrast we ran a 29-member PC+Henchmen party v 60-odd raiding tribesmen skirmish in about 1.5 hours in ACKS.

I should note we use a battlemat and tokens/minis for both systems.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;883234I think that in order for any data to be meaningful, we need to quantify exactly what we meant by a ' fight'.

Pick any system you like, and a fight with a pair of kobolds is likely going to take less time than one against horde of orcs that outnumber the party 6 to 1.

Also, party composition affects combat times. A group light on, or with no AOE capable magic will take longer to get through a bunch of foes than a group heavy with magical power.

While we're comparing apples to spandex with Metahumans Rising a fight with two Kobolds would likely take less than a turn. An action from two players or less than 5 minutes. Assuming they are like the classic D&D Kobolds, they would be build as an extremely low threat.  

If we used the same measure with Orcs outnumbering the PCs 6 to one, these would be slightly more powerful background characters, likely with a leader of some type. This would likely constitute a large mob and may take 2 to 4 turns depending on how creative the players get and the toughness of the Orc leader. So between 20 and 45 minutes.

Now if we're talking 3872 Orcs as a GM I wouldn't run this as a combat but as a Disaster to encourage players to get more creative in their narration and use of powers. Something this scale would likely take around a hour to a hour and a half.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;883234I think that in order for any data to be meaningful, we need to quantify exactly what we meant by a ' fight'.

Pick any system you like, and a fight with a pair of kobolds is likely going to take less time than one against horde of orcs that outnumber the party 6 to 1.

Also, party composition affects combat times. A group light on, or with no AOE capable magic will take longer to get through a bunch of foes than a group heavy with magical power.

Well, sure.  If the OP is looking for a genuine survey of "how long a fight takes in X system," then we'd need to run a number of test fights, with the following parameters in mind:

* Low skill vs high skill;
* Low armor protection/defenses vs high AP/D;
* Low supernatural aid vs high supernatural aid;
* Numbers on each side;
* Use of optional rules/"light" options/splat rules;
* Familiarity with the rules by all parties;
* Relative aggression of all parties;
* Availability of battlefield insta-healing;
* Willingness of the table to allow dithering ...

There are probably more.  

That being said, just by way of example, again using GURPS ... if we have veteran players running a combat between three or four 50 pt shmucks, all unarmored, none with shields, zero magic, and with a GM keeping things snappy, that's going to be over pretty quickly unless everyone's hanging back and fighting very defensively.  I doubt the battle would take five minutes, and it could be over after the first round, a minute flat.

My current group, by contrast, has four wizards (ranging from 135 to over 300 pts), and one beleaguered NPC spearwoman trying to protect them as best she may.  One of the wizards is a combat specialist, one an elementalist with good combat punch, one the same but a relative rookie (the 135er), and one a utility caster with damn near no ability to put hit points of damage on an enemy unless he hauls out his arquebus.

The last major battle they fought was defending a frontier fort against an orc horde, with about 15 useful locals aiding in the defense, four of whom were armored and trained legionnaires.  THAT one took over three hours.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;883119I'm looking for data followed by opinions here.

Name some systems. Then, based on your experience, state the maximum number of fights you can 'comfortably' fit into a single reasonable length (4-6 hours) session for the chosen system(s).

Comfortably in this case is defined as not feeling like a slog or chore to the players or the GM.

I'm starting this thread because I feel like the designers of systems that are intended to feature a lot of combat are often extremely optimistic about how fast and frequent fights actually are under their rules. I want to see how others feel about this.

This depends heavily on the players' appetite for combat, the skill and speed of th GM with the combat system, the interestingness and complexity of the situation, and so on.

I've usually run combat-oriented games for combat fans, using TFT and GURPS. TFT is simpler and faster than GURPS, though once you get good at GURPS, it can be nearly as fast. Requiring players to be ready with their action when it's time for them to say what they do, helps a lot. So does having the GM do most of the rolling and resolution without mentioning the game mechanics - just describing what happens as he PCs are aware of it, and moving the counters appropriately.

My players don't seem to be visibly put-off by heavy combat except in the rare cases where there is a massive battle and I play it out on the map with counters and stats for each of 100-200 fighters, which has sometimes taken 2-3 sessions, with the PC's only getting to do something amidst all the NPC combat. I developed some systems to speed up NPC combat without sacrificing too much detail, though, which helps.

In a session that involves several little combats separated by some non-combat, I'd say you can fit a small fight per hour in pretty comfortably. Or more for short/small/simple fights. A fight between just 2-4 people can be done in just a few minutes with a fast GM.

Of course, if you allow people to check and discuss rules and options during combat, and don't know the rules well and so on, then that can go on and on. So I don't allow that. As the GURPS GM advice section says, "when in doubt, roll and shout" - resolve it as makes best sense to you, and discuss and master the rules between sessions.

OSR games are super fast and furious for combat. In either LotFP or DCC or Appendix P (Dark Albion's house system) or Arrows of Indra, etc., I can easily fit a half-dozen fights into a night's gaming, and often more.

Now, Aces & Eights on the other hand has a super-detailed combat system and it would probably not be a good idea to have more than one gunfight per night.  Two or even maybe three if it was one-on-one showdowns; but the system gets more complex and slows down more the more people who play it.

I have a large group (8 PCs)

My AD&D game could comfortably fit a dozen fights in a session, ranging from small skirmishes to much bigger fights with 20 - 30 enemies or even more. Generally, any number of fights still left plenty of time for exploration, problem solving, planning etc ...

Currently playing Hackmaster (current edition), and it's more like 1 to 4, depending on size and difficulty, and combat heavy sessions tend to involve combat and combat-planning, with not huge amounts of time left for anything else.

Edit: And I see that I've just given an answer that is almost identical to Pundit's immediately before me, choosing equivalent systems with very similar answers.

Further edit: Oh, in my GURPS X-Com game, UFO and alien base assaults were set up as ongoing combats on very big maps that took up the vast majority of a session, essentially run as a tactical wargame. That's not really indicative of the speed of GURPS combat though, as the more "story" oriented missions generally culminated in a single combat (or, sometimes, none at all) that was completed a lot faster.

The world has gone mad, mad I tell you!

I think of The Fantasy Trip (melee/wizard if you like) to be one of the crunchiest tactical fantasy combat systems out there, and it is rare for a fight to take longer than 10-15 minutes, unless it is huge ('yuuuge!!!') or no one at the table knows how to play.

I refuse to play games that are much slower than this; it just isn't fun. And for some reason, the same games that make combat drag on forever tend to have rules that make it nearly impossible for player characters to die. So, both slow and with a highly predictable outcome.

I run OD&D, and with 4-5 players and a similar number of enemies a single combat turn runs in 2-3 minutes, and at lower levels a combat will last 4-8 combat turns.

When I ran OD&D in NYC I often got 4 or 5 combats into a 2 to 3 hour session.

That's one advantage of the OD&D one minute combat round, abstract everything, all creatures get one attack, all attacks do 1d6; it can run a combat blazingly fast.

well im with several others on this i think its heavily dependent on a large number of factors.
 some of the biggest are likely to be
>system used
>number of combatants
>experience of gm / players involved

for example in a white room situation i can see the log horizon trpg
both playing very fast with 4 to 6 ish fights in a 4-6 hour session if the player know what they are doing
or 1-3 fights with luck if they dont

Quote from: RPGPundit;883753Now, Aces & Eights on the other hand has a super-detailed combat system and it would probably not be a good idea to have more than one gunfight per night.  Two or even maybe three if it was one-on-one showdowns; but the system gets more complex and slows down more the more people who play it.

You know I would be interested in seeing you try Hackmaster 5e after mastering Aces & Eight. From what I understand the combat system is very similar.

Quote from: estar;883935You know I would be interested in seeing you try Hackmaster 5e after mastering Aces & Eight. From what I understand the combat system is very similar.

It is, but for one gigantic difference, the firearms combat using the "Killer Crosshairs"-like ShotClock.

HM5 has nothing like that, has not as fine of round timing, and the criticals are different.  If you have mastered A&8 combat, HM5 will be simple.

Quote from: Doom;883150Indeed, how long IS a piece of string?

I had 4th edition D&D fights go over 3 hours consistently--but that was with 12th level characters, 8 players at the table. Around 8th level, you can be confident of around 2.5 hours a fight.

I've had 4 hour sessions of 2E D&D go through half a dozen or more distinct battles, with 4 players, around third level (man, shoulda seen how many plastic figures I had to put away after that day, well over 50...)

Level, number of players, significance of battle (4 orcs is different than a dozen orcs, though both could be encountered in the same adventuring day).

That said, when I build a dungeon for a regulation 4.5 hours of play time (start at 6:30ish, end at 11ish), I need at least 4 decent battles in that dungeon. Now, that's for 5th edition D&D, roughly 4th level characters, 5-7 players.

Bottom line, YMMV, big time.

Yep  YMMV, big time.

Majority of the 4e combats we ran were 30 minutes +/- 5 minutes.  The others were big epic set pieces designed to last a chunk of time.

2-3 depending on the session's or more accurately, the players' goals.

Is that for any particular system or all systems?

Hackmaster 5e has an awesome looking app for combat.  I tried my best to sell HM to our group, bust sadly in the end it didn't go- though it did get us to play AD&D again- TOEE. We did do a few mock combats in HM 5e and they were really fun.

For something like AD&D- which must be stated we ran very much like basic, 4-6 combats could be gotten through in a 3-4 hour block of time.  Mind you these were standard encounters- "You enter a room- 5 orcs are playing cards..." type of stuff.  If it was a large battle, that would take longer.

3rd edition d&d, and moreso 4th edition- God, the combats took forever.  For 4th, a single combat would take at least an hour- most times more.  I know that there's players who will say that they everyone was on their toes and their combats only took 30 minutes- but, shit- that wasn't the case with us.  Everything about 4th was a slog for me...

Sommerjon- for your 4th ed combats- were all the players "johnny on the spot"?  or were me and my friends fucking slugs...    the latter could be so very true here....

Quote from: RunningLaser;884097Hackmaster 5e has an awesome looking app for combat.  I tried my best to sell HM to our group, bust sadly in the end it didn't go- though it did get us to play AD&D again- TOEE. We did do a few mock combats in HM 5e and they were really fun.

Jolly's insanely detailed app has never seen public release (I presume that's what you're referring to), but there is an excellent pdf I use for running combats which makes managing the status of about 16 monsters/NPCs remarkably simple.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;883119I'm looking for data followed by opinions here.

Name some systems. Then, based on your experience, state the maximum number of fights you can 'comfortably' fit into a single reasonable length (4-6 hours) session for the chosen system(s).

Comfortably in this case is defined as not feeling like a slog or chore to the players or the GM.

I'm starting this thread because I feel like the designers of systems that are intended to feature a lot of combat are often extremely optimistic about how fast and frequent fights actually are under their rules. I want to see how others feel about this.

If your RPG game has rules for combat rounds that your group plays by, and you do have combat during a game session, expect the majority of your game session to be a long hard slog with little to no amount of role-playing or anything else getting done.

The answer is 1 here.


Now if you treat combat like any other task in the game, a group can get at least 3 or 4 or however many good combat scenes done in real-time during a game session. And still while role-playing.

The answer is several here.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;884123If your RPG game has rules for combat rounds that your group plays by, and you do have combat during a game session, expect the majority of your game session to be a long hard slog with little to no amount of role-playing or anything else getting done.

The answer is 1 here.


Now if you treat combat like any other task in the game, a group can get at least 3 or 4 or however many good combat scenes done in real-time during a game session. And still while role-playing.

The answer is several here.

Sorry, but that's just flat out wrong. It's entirely possible to have combat rounds, use them, and have extremely fast combat.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;884126Sorry, but that's just flat out wrong. It's entirely possible to have combat rounds, use them, and have extremely fast combat.

I have yet to see it. Is there any RPG session on YouTube where this is true?

Usually 2-3 fights for a 4-5 hour session regardless of the system. I like it gritty. Not too many fights, but the ones that are got to be tense.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;884127I have yet to see it. Is there any RPG session on YouTube where this is true?

I have no idea, as I don't watch RPing sessions on youtube.

But I know from experience that a small fight in AD&D/OD&D/BECMI etc takes a few minutes and a big fight with 20 - 30 combatants a side can easily be resolved in 20 - 30 minutes. The main rule you need for expediting combat is to allow fighters, instead of rolling a number of attacks equal to their level against 1HD creatures, allow them to roll 1dLEVEL kills.

This also assumes you're treating "the melee" as a bunch of people in a general area attacking the closest target at any time (determined randomly, as per the AD&D DMG) and not worrying about precise positioning unless there's a specific need for it.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;884132I have no idea, as I don't watch RPing sessions on youtube.

But I know from experience that a small fight in AD&D/OD&D/BECMI etc takes a few minutes and a big fight with 20 - 30 combatants a side can easily be resolved in 20 - 30 minutes. The main rule you need for expediting combat is to allow fighters, instead of rolling a number of attacks equal to their level against 1HD creatures, allow them to roll 1dLEVEL kills.

This also assumes you're treating "the melee" as a bunch of people in a general area attacking the closest target at any time (determined randomly, as per the AD&D DMG) and not worrying about precise positioning unless there's a specific need for it.

That's still not fast enough. Characters in movies kill a lot more in less time.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;884134That's still not fast enough. Characters in movies kill a lot more in less time.

Characters in movies aren't really fighting. They are following a scripted series of actions and moving at a pace the director wants.

You could do combats really fast this way but there isn't much of game left. The GM simply describes how fast foes die and how much the PCs get hurt while killing them.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;884147Characters in movies aren't really fighting. They are following a scripted series of actions and moving at a pace the director wants.

You could do combats really fast this way but there isn't much of game left. The GM simply describes how fast foes die and how much the PCs get hurt while killing them.

This was part of the logic for mobs and background characters in Metahumans Rising. The rules allow heroes to take a single action and impact multiple low level foes. This was also inspired in part by the Conservation of Ninjutsu.

Quote from: Certified;884193This was part of the logic for mobs and background characters in Metahumans Rising. The rules allow heroes to take a single action and impact multiple low level foes. This was also inspired in part by the Conservation of Ninjutsu.

As middle schoolers, we used to joke that this was what the combat systems of games we turned our noses up were like:
If a monster attacks you, roll to see if it manages to hit. Then roll to see how much it reduces your mountain of hit points, but has no other effect until you run out.
Then roll to attack - roll dice and that's the number of monsters you kill.

More extreme was the "free game"/joke published in Interplay called "One Tub Bilge", a game about a heroic US Navy ship attacked by wicked Communist warships. Every result for the heroes would generally destroy various numbers of enemy warships. Every result for the attackers was either a miss, a near miss, or do "serious damage" which actually had no effect. This seemed a thinly-veiled parody of people who would force outcomes or never let their PCs die.

Now here we are in the 21st Century, and there are published RPGs where PCs explicitly are not allowed to actually die or even fail to eventually achieve whatever the goals of the campaign are, only temporary setbacks. A lot like many computer RPG's, where if you die you just restore a saved game, pretend it didn't happen, and try again from some point along your successful story.

Quote from: Skarg;884200A lot like many computer RPG's, where if you die you just restore a saved game, pretend it didn't happen, and try again from some point along your successful story.

Are you saying the way I played Age of Mythology was badwrongfun? ;)

Quote from: Skarg;884200As middle schoolers, we used to joke that this was what the combat systems of games we turned our noses up were like:
If a monster attacks you, roll to see if it manages to hit. Then roll to see how much it reduces your mountain of hit points, but has no other effect until you run out.
Then roll to attack - roll dice and that's the number of monsters you kill.

More extreme was the "free game"/joke published in Interplay called "One Tub Bilge", a game about a heroic US Navy ship attacked by wicked Communist warships. Every result for the heroes would generally destroy various numbers of enemy warships. Every result for the attackers was either a miss, a near miss, or do "serious damage" which actually had no effect. This seemed a thinly-veiled parody of people who would force outcomes or never let their PCs die.

Now here we are in the 21st Century, and there are published RPGs where PCs explicitly are not allowed to actually die or even fail to eventually achieve whatever the goals of the campaign are, only temporary setbacks. A lot like many computer RPG's, where if you die you just restore a saved game, pretend it didn't happen, and try again from some point along your successful story.

Oddly, Metahumans Rising has a bit of the later as well. The goal was to emulate comic books or comic inspired stories. In superhero comics taking down four or five normal gang members might be a single splash panel. Something to wet your appetite as the reader gets into the meat of a story.

Mobs of background characters allowed us to easily group 3 or more non-central NPCs together, increase the over all challenge as they function as a group, but have the conflict resolve quickly. This significantly cuts down on the die rolls and prep time GMs need. Actually, in the From Myth to Reality episode of Three Rivers Academy I had misplaced some of my notes and ended up having to recreate villains stats on the fly.  We ran two fights, back to back, and the background mobs served as a solid challenge even knocking out one of the heroes.

That brings me to your later comments. Because Metahumans Rising is trying to emulate superhero comics and not what superheroes would look like if they were real, the threat of death is very low. However, it's possible to knock out or otherwise be staggered or stunned instead. The control is put in the players hands, after being hurt, do they want to have the character become knocked out, or fight on and risk possible death. This isn't for any hand holding reason, but more that it is a convention of the genre.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;884147You could do combats really fast this way but there isn't much of game left. The GM simply describes how fast foes die and how much the PCs get hurt while killing them.

My group still used dice for their task checks and damage.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;884134That's still not fast enough. Characters in movies kill a lot more in less time.

Ok, well your original post wasn't saying that you have a preference for super-fast combat resolution, it was making the objectively false assertion that if anyone uses combat rounds they will end up doing nothing but combat for the vast majority of the session.

With 6 players, I am noticing I can only fit in 2 combats in a 4 hour session of Feng Shui 2. Which is less than I would like. I will have to trim down my max number of players when I run one shots.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;884262Ok, well your original post wasn't saying that you have a preference for super-fast combat resolution, it was making the objectively false assertion that if anyone uses combat rounds they will end up doing nothing but combat for the vast majority of the session.

Well, actually, the players might just end up sitting around the table doing much of nothing when it's not their turn. See long-ass boardgames. Any YouTube video with D&D or Pathfinder fight scenes will take up most of their game session time.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;884275Well, actually, the players might just end up sitting around the table doing much of nothing when it's not their turn. See long-ass boardgames. Any YouTube video with D&D or Pathfinder fight scenes will take up most of their game session time.

The players might smear mashed banana on their faces as well. Your point?

If you can't distinguish between Pathfinder and any other game the uses rounds for combat, there is certainly no point trying to have a sensible discussion with you on the topic.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;884279The players might smear mashed banana on their faces as well. Your point?

If you can't distinguish between Pathfinder and any other game the uses rounds for combat, there is certainly no point trying to have a sensible discussion with you on the topic.

Show me a game session where combat is being done quickly. Movie pace. I don't care what the RPG used is. I just mentioned Pathfinder and D&D because this forum is mainly those two games.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;884282Show me a game session where combat is being done quickly. Movie pace. I don't care what the RPG used is. I just mentioned Pathfinder and D&D because this forum is mainly those two games.

Why would I want to spend my time looking for evidence of something that I have never claimed existed, and whose existence or lack thereof has no bearing whatsoever on my point?

You originally made an objectively false statement about the impact that any form of  round-based combat will have on the overall roleplaying experience for anyone who uses it.

I called you on this, and you replied with a statement of personal preference.

I pointed out that your first, objectively false, statement and your later statement of personal preference are completely independent statements, and the latter does not function as a logical defence of the former.

You then informed us all that everyone gets bored and does other things when they try and play Pathinder, and when I pointed out that this statement is completely irrelevant in the context of the discussion, you counter by asking me to prove a point I've never tried to make.

I'm just going to go find some bananas and start mashing them up for some private face smearing.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;884126Sorry, but that's just flat out wrong. It's entirely possible to have combat rounds, use them, and have extremely fast combat.

So you having nothing to show then. Fine.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;884296So you having nothing to show then. Fine.

Correct. I have no examples to show you of combat running as fast as you would like it to. Is there any reason why you expect me to go looking for this mythical ultra-fast combat that you want? Did someone change my sig to "Shawn's Personal YouTube and Google Example Finder" when I wasn't looking?

I gave you the times we spent engaging in combat in my 1E AD&D game. You said you'd prefer combat to be even faster. Fine. Why, exactly, do you think this makes me obligated to find you examples of someone who runs combat faster?

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;884296So you having nothing to show then. Fine.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1e/72/04/1e7204ddc4097e08087d3dd5381215d6.jpg)

Quote from: RunningLaser;884099Sommerjon- for your 4th ed combats- were all the players "johnny on the spot"?  or were me and my friends fucking slugs...    the latter could be so very true here....

Oh we had one guy who never paid attention, at all, ever.  He participated in half of the rounds give or take in a given combat.

Looking back on it now, I think that having new players helped a whole helluvalot.  I started 4e with the 3e group two of us were in which lasted 5-6 sessions at most.  Yes with that group every single combat was a major time sink.  So we quit and started a new group with 5 nearly virgin players(1 was a lapsed gamer).  The new group had no edition baggage.

I think edition baggage is the root cause of most of the issues.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;884282Show me a game session where combat is being done quickly. Movie pace. I don't care what the RPG used is. I just mentioned Pathfinder and D&D because this forum is mainly those two games.

I really get a kick out of "movie pace" being trotted out like some universal formula for blindingly fast. Not all movies are made the same.

I give you the awesome that is Roddy Piper (RIP) vs Keith David in the 1988 John Carpenter classic They Live.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9rrgJXfLns


Holy shit! Six and a half minutes for a simple one on one brawl!!  I can run a B/X combat between 5 players and a half dozen goblins before that video ends. :p

Quote from: Exploderwizard;884597I really get a kick out of "movie pace" being trotted out like some universal formula for blindingly fast. Not all movies are made the same.

I give you the awesome that is Roddy Piper (RIP) vs Keith David in the 1988 John Carpenter classic They Live.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9rrgJXfLns


Holy shit! Six and a half minutes for a simple one on one brawl!!  I can run a B/X combat between 5 players and a half dozen goblins before that video ends. :p

Most individual movie combats run between 3-5 minutes, per 'scene'.  The average movie also has two major fight scenes about 10 minutes top.

Most TV shows that run 22 minutes have 20 minutes of dialogue.

Robin and Marian had a long fight. So did Westworld. Most Tabletop gamers will make such fights even slower. Fight crawling is what most players do.

For most tabletop gamers to fight in real-time, they'd have to use blinding fast fight scenes from movies to game from. If they are focusing on NPCs fighting other NPCs at blinding speed, they're do it wrong.

Since my typical session is 4-5 hours, I'd say two maybe three donnybrooks, with a like number of smaller fights (like whacking the guards, ambushing a patrol).

Rather than wanting my game combat to be movie-like, I find myself being disappointed in movie action scenes, based on what I've learned from gaming fights, and better movies, and books.

For me it absolutely depends on the campaign.  I quite like, for example, Aces & Eight's combat system. It's slow-moving in the sense that a fight can last quite a while in the game and only a few seconds go by in game-time.  That works well in a semi-realistic Wild West game. It's not so great if you were using it in D&D.

5th edition I can fit 3-4 medium sized encounters into a 4-6 hour session comfortably with no one getting bored.

Savage Worlds can do 3-5 comfortably in a session without anyone getting bored. More to the point, Savage Worlds can do a completely gonzo combat scenario with vehicles, multiple allies on the player's side, and scores of villains without anyone getting bored.

I had a Savage Worlds encounter that had 4 PC's and 12 allied NPC's go up against 80 Foes and it only took an hour. Players had an absolute blast since they could see the carnage being wrought, with the environment being blown to pieces as well (This does require miniatures to keep everything straight at this level).

In WoD we're talking about 2 fights that aren't boring for a 4-6 hour session.

Mutants and Masterminds can do about 2-4 depending on how many mooks, team villains, and solo villains are used in the encounter.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;883119I'm looking for data followed by opinions here.

Name some systems. Then, based on your experience, state the maximum number of fights you can 'comfortably' fit into a single reasonable length (4-6 hours) session for the chosen system(s).

Comfortably in this case is defined as not feeling like a slog or chore to the players or the GM.

I'm starting this thread because I feel like the designers of systems that are intended to feature a lot of combat are often extremely optimistic about how fast and frequent fights actually are under their rules. I want to see how others feel about this.

GURPS 1 per session, 2 if the players know the rules, 3 with careful preparation (combat cards, hit point dice etc) -1 if a lot of bells and whistles are used

Buffy/Angel -- In theory 4 or sometimes more

Rolemaster 1, 2 if well prepared and the players are familiar with the rules

D&D 3x and Pathfinder 2 or 3 depending on level and preparation

Older D&D 3 or 4 depending on level and perpetration

Quote from: 5 Stone Games;885830GURPS 1 per session, 2 if the players know the rules, 3 with careful preparation (combat cards, hit point dice etc) -1 if a lot of bells and whistles are used

Buffy/Angel -- In theory 4 or sometimes more

Rolemaster 1, 2 if well prepared and the players are familiar with the rules

D&D 3x and Pathfinder 2 or 3 depending on level and preparation

Older D&D 3 or 4 depending on level and perpetration

It's ironic that GURPS has slow combat, as it is evolved from TFT, which is quite quick and exciting.

For me its just too variable to answer. There are as many battles as there are battles.

That could be 1, 4, none, 20. Depending on the encounter and more importantly the adventure and the PCs determination to get into, or stay out of, combat.

In my first session DMing 5e there were 4 combats. In the second there was 1. In the third and fourth there was no combat at all. In the fifth and sixth there was about five. and so on.

GURPS combat can be fast if the GM masters the rules and makes players say what they do right away. I can run GURPS about as fast as I can run TFT, but I've been running those since 1980.

People who liked TFT mainly for the simplicity, still run TFT, sometimes with some house rules.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;883119I'm looking for data followed by opinions here.

Name some systems. Then, based on your experience, state the maximum number of fights you can 'comfortably' fit into a single reasonable length (4-6 hours) session for the chosen system(s).

Comfortably in this case is defined as not feeling like a slog or chore to the players or the GM.

I'm starting this thread because I feel like the designers of systems that are intended to feature a lot of combat are often extremely optimistic about how fast and frequent fights actually are under their rules. I want to see how others feel about this.

With which group:)?
Seriously, some of my groups would mutiny if there was more than a two fights per session. Others would mutiny if there wasn't more than that;).

So, let's assume hypothetical players which are comfortable with a "kick the door in and start murderising" approach. That means about 2/3 of the time shall be devoted to fighting, IME.

Axiom16 - 3 or 4 at levels 1-5, progressively more with higher levels (more because the attack numbers and the spells starts outpacing the defence and hit points).

Atomic Highway - about 10-12, I believe (not based on experience, but we managed to cram up 2-3 fights in a 6-hour session, and that was us trying not to fight unless we totally outclass the enemies, or are in dire need to do so).

Barbarians of Lemuria - barring extremely bad luck, 5 or 6 would seem like a good number.

ORC (FWTD, Tibet, Hoodoo Blues, In Dark Alleys) - it's easy to fit in up to 10-12 fights, I believe (never tried that). In reality, it ain't gonna happen, because the consequences of fights are as brutal as they should be, and could very well kill you without medical attention. Recuperation is slow.

Pendragon - as many as necessary.

Tenra Bansho Zero - depending on what skills you have, might well be "as many as necessary". Normally, around 5 would start stretching things a bit, IMO.

ORE (Reign and StarORE are what I have experience with) would be "as many as necessary". Most fights end in 3 rounds or less, competent fighters win or lose in less time than incompetent ones.

Witchcraft - depends way too strongly on builds, but I'd expect about 5 or 6 to be possible. I never fought all that much when playing it, because the GM was emphasizing the consequences of violence in a modern setting.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;884282Show me a game session where combat is being done quickly. Movie pace. I don't care what the RPG used is. I just mentioned Pathfinder and D&D because this forum is mainly those two games.

BX, AD&D and 5e D&D move along pretty darn fast.  Dont know about OD&D. 3/PF D&D combat just dragged on and on.

Quote from: Omega;886053BX, AD&D and 5e D&D move along pretty darn fast.

I don't see any video evidence of this in your post ...

:nono:

As with most things, old-school D&D tends to do it at just the exact optimal pace.  There are some justifiable reasons to do things a bit slower or a bit faster than D&D, but usually D&D-speed is the best choice.

Quote from: RPGPundit;886837As with most things, old-school D&D tends to do it at just the exact optimal pace.  There are some justifiable reasons to do things a bit slower or a bit faster than D&D, but usually D&D-speed is the best choice.

Reasons? So you can explain why dealing with a fight in 20 to 40 minutes is best:)?

My players who don't like more than a single fight per session at most will be thrilled to read your reply;).

Quote from: AsenRG;886860Reasons? So you can explain why dealing with a fight in 20 to 40 minutes is best:)?

My players who don't like more than a single fight per session at most will be thrilled to read your reply;).

20 - 40 minutes? More like 5 - 20, assuming a largish group.

As to why it is supposedly best, I'll let Pundit defend that himself because, while it certainly works, I don't regard it as some platonic ideal.

It's all subjective and condition dependent.  The only real rule of thumb I'd look for is if the players are making a Metagame decision to avoid combat because it takes too long in the real world to run.  At that point, your system takes too long for that group or you're playing too late, wrap it up.

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;88686620 - 40 minutes? More like 5 - 20, assuming a largish group.

As to why it is supposedly best, I'll let Pundit defend that himself because, while it certainly works, I don't regard it as some platonic ideal.

:D
I was basing that on Gronan's post.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;883906I run OD&D, and with 4-5 players and a similar number of enemies a single combat turn runs in 2-3 minutes, and at lower levels a combat will last 4-8 combat turns.

When I ran OD&D in NYC I often got 4 or 5 combats into a 2 to 3 hour session.

That's one advantage of the OD&D one minute combat round, abstract everything, all creatures get one attack, all attacks do 1d6; it can run a combat blazingly fast.

It seems I multiplied by the number of players, not by the number of minutes in a round, though:).

Anyway, I'd still like to hear Pundit's reasons why 12-24 minutes per fight, with 4-5fights in a session, would be optimal;).

Personally I prefer fights that last in the single digit of minutes. Only exception is if it's a rather involved system, like TRoS, or Exalted 3, or the like.
Of course, bigger battles just don't count.

Quote from: AsenRG;886860Reasons? So you can explain why dealing with a fight in 20 to 40 minutes is best:)?

My players who don't like more than a single fight per session at most will be thrilled to read your reply;).

I don't think I've ever had a fight last 40 minutes while running Old School D&D.

OD&D is combat heavy. I am comfortable doing 15+ combats per session.

Quote from: RPGPundit;887142I don't think I've ever had a fight last 40 minutes while running Old School D&D.

I amended that to 12-24 minutes, based on Gronan's post. The 20-40 figure was a mistake on my side, I just didn't edit the post because it would have made the subsequent discussion kinda weird:).
And I'd still like an answer. Why do you think this is the perfect length?
Of course, if you have different experience about the time it takes, by all means, share it;)!

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;887159OD&D is combat heavy. I am comfortable doing 15+ combats per session.

I guess you play longer session than Gronan, then?

Quote from: AsenRG;887160I guess you play longer session than Gronan, then?

I play with 8 players. Mob mentality.

One thing to note here is that a system which is designed to be combat-heavy should be capable of featuring many different kinds of meaningful fights, some of which will be extremely quick and others which will be long, epic conflicts.

"Capable", of course, doesn't mean that any individual GM will actually do that, of course. For example, one of the great strengths of pre-4E D&D is that it can easily support a wide range of combat types. This didn't stop the common "wisdom" of 3E encounter design from creating cookie-cutter scenarios.

But if your game is going to be primarily about combat, then the nature of those combats needs to be varied. Otherwise you're going to end up with monotonous pacing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;885168For me it absolutely depends on the campaign.  I quite like, for example, Aces & Eight's combat system. It's slow-moving in the sense that a fight can last quite a while in the game and only a few seconds go by in game-time.  That works well in a semi-realistic Wild West game. It's not so great if you were using it in D&D.

Yeah. The ratio of real time to game time is almost entirely irrelevant to me. I'm far more interested in the experience being created at the table.

In general, features I want from a combat system:

(1) The average length of time it takes to resolve a player's turn should average less than 1 minute. (Which, in practice, usually means that the mode of a player's turn should be about 30 seconds, because some turns will bog down for one reason or another and drag the average up.)

(2) As a GM, I want to be able to batch my NPCs together so that I can resolve their turns even faster than that. (This can be either mechanical in nature or it can just be a system conducive to simple efficiency hacks like "roll all the goblin's attacks at once".)

(3) There should be mechanics which require or allow off-turn actions for the PCs, but resolving these off-turn actions should require very little or no time. (Traditional D&D saving throws are a very simple example of this. We're aiming for something similar with Momentum in Infinity. These mechanics have the practical effect of keeping players engaged in the action even when it isn't their turn, but if they take too long to resolve then they bog combat down and cancel out their own positive effect.)

(4) A significant combat encounter should usually take no more than 20-30 minutes to resolve in its entirety. (In a typical 4 hour session I expect to run 5-7 major interactions with shorter connective tissue around them. That translates into each major scene being about 30 minutes of content. I should be able to do that comfortably with a typical combat encounter.)

Quote from: AsenRG;886860Reasons? So you can explain why dealing with a fight in 20 to 40 minutes is best:)?

Expanding on my last point: The general rule of thumb that major interactions (like investigating a club or searching a suspect's house or most things I'd define as a node in node-based design (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/7949/roleplaying-games/node-based-scenario-design-part-1-the-plotted-approach)) isn't something that I try to "force" as a GM. It's just kind of the naturalistic pace at which a typical scenario seems to resolve itself.

I want a typical fight in the system I'm using to fill a similar slot of "meaningful interaction". When it doesn't, the pace of the game goes wonky: If everything else still naturally takes about 20-30 minutes, but every time there's a fight it takes 90-120 minutes (as it does with D&D4, for example), the combat is taking up more than its "fair share" of the narrative space. And if you don't adjust your scenarios to account for this, scenarios that should comfortably resolve themselves in an an evening suddenly bloat out into 3 or 4 or 5 sessions -- they become slogs.

Alternatively, if you do adjust the scenario design to fit the bloated combats, you can quickly spot the deleterious effect they're having: If you had a scenario that previously features 4-6 meaty investigation scenes and 1 combat, you now have 1 combat and 2-3 investigation scenes.

You also discover that the ways in which you can use combat have become seriously limited. You can't have a combat-heavy scenario where the PCs fight their way through four or five encounters, because after just two combat encounters the session is over.

You get similar effects with other game structures, like dungeon crawls. I've found that getting through roughly 20 rooms in a dungeon is generally the point where players feel pretty good about what they accomplished in an evening's 'crawl. But you can't get anywhere near that pace if simply combat encounters are taking too long to resolve.

(All of this remains subject to general variability, of course: Sometimes you'll fireball a group of goblins and a combat will take 30 seconds to resolve. Sometimes the PCs will end up in an epic siege against an entire compound of a hundred adversaries and a single running combat encounter will take an entire session or even multiple sessions to resolve. Although, in practice, that "single epic combat encounter" can often be seen as being several different encounters that flow naturally from one to the next across the strategic field of battle.)

BTW Justin, belated congrats on getting the Line Developer gig for Infinity. :hatsoff:

Quote from: CRKrueger;887198BTW Jason, belated congrats on getting the Line Developer gig for Infinity. :hatsoff:

same :hatsoff:

Quote from: Sable Wyvern;886060I don't see any video evidence of this in your post ...

:nono:

Here you go.

Because slings > Crossbows. heh-heh.
https://youtu.be/JVdq1Z5cSvA?t=177 (https://youtu.be/JVdq1Z5cSvA?t=177)

For the curious, that is a slingshot firing a marble into ballistic gel.

Quote from: RPGPundit;886837As with most things, old-school D&D tends to do it the way we became used to doing things, so we internalized that as the only proper way to do it ever after.

There, fixed that.  :hatsoff:

While working on a seperate project I noticed something interesting.

O, BX, AD&D & 2e combats are faster than 3 and up. Using conversion notes for 5e in particular I am seeing that characters of comprable levels in 5e are taking longer to deal with foes of comprable AC to older editions after a certain threshold of AC.

All 5e classes fight at about the same level as an OD&D or BX Cleric an AD&D Thief. Though even then at after a point they overtake 5e. An AD&D fighter will totally steamroller a 5e fighter due to hitting substantially more often and that is not even factoring in gear.

So with later editions combats take longer due to missing more and the varying degrees of HP inflation. It is though not so noticeable till after level 10. Though 5e combats still zoom along nicely.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;887189Expanding on my last point: The general rule of thumb that major interactions (like investigating a club or searching a suspect's house or most things I'd define as a node in node-based design (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/7949/roleplaying-games/node-based-scenario-design-part-1-the-plotted-approach)) isn't something that I try to "force" as a GM. It's just kind of the naturalistic pace at which a typical scenario seems to resolve itself.

I want a typical fight in the system I'm using to fill a similar slot of "meaningful interaction". When it doesn't, the pace of the game goes wonky: If everything else still naturally takes about 20-30 minutes, but every time there's a fight it takes 90-120 minutes (as it does with D&D4, for example), the combat is taking up more than its "fair share" of the narrative space. And if you don't adjust your scenarios to account for this, scenarios that should comfortably resolve themselves in an an evening suddenly bloat out into 3 or 4 or 5 sessions -- they become slogs.

Alternatively, if you do adjust the scenario design to fit the bloated combats, you can quickly spot the deleterious effect they're having: If you had a scenario that previously features 4-6 meaty investigation scenes and 1 combat, you now have 1 combat and 2-3 investigation scenes.

You also discover that the ways in which you can use combat have become seriously limited. You can't have a combat-heavy scenario where the PCs fight their way through four or five encounters, because after just two combat encounters the session is over.

You get similar effects with other game structures, like dungeon crawls. I've found that getting through roughly 20 rooms in a dungeon is generally the point where players feel pretty good about what they accomplished in an evening's 'crawl. But you can't get anywhere near that pace if simply combat encounters are taking too long to resolve.

(All of this remains subject to general variability, of course: Sometimes you'll fireball a group of goblins and a combat will take 30 seconds to resolve. Sometimes the PCs will end up in an epic siege against an entire compound of a hundred adversaries and a single running combat encounter will take an entire session or even multiple sessions to resolve. Although, in practice, that "single epic combat encounter" can often be seen as being several different encounters that flow naturally from one to the next across the strategic field of battle.)

Fine, that is a good argument against fights taking longer than 12-24 minutes (I really need to edit that post). However, there can easily be made a similar argument that most fights (and in most styles of play) should take less than that, preferably half or less the time you need for a typical "node". In essence, they aren't nodes, they're intersections in the connections between nodes.
High-lethality systems are best for that, as a rule, though there are other solutions as well:).

And of course, in some genres or styles of play you just need fights that are as long as a full node, or longer. A duel in a swaschbuckling story can well be the most important part of it, and in fact, the whole campaign so far might have been a means to arrange the duel you wanted. Many players would see a short fight to be a waste in that case.
(Personally, I'd see it as a sign I'm doing everything right - but it is a popular opinion).

Oh, and congratulations "on getting the Line Developer gig for Infinity", which I only learned by CRKrueger's post;).

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;887159OD&D is combat heavy. I am comfortable doing 15+ combats per session.

With how many different sets of PCs? ;)

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;887159OD&D is combat heavy. I am comfortable doing 15+ combats per session.

OD&D is not combat heavy. You can actually get much further by avoiding combats. Chainmail on the other hand...

I think even 20 minutes is high for the average old-school D&D fight.  Sure, you can have fights that last that long, or even longer, if you have a ton of PCs, NPCs, and opponents all using complex tactics.  I have had some fights go kind of long when you have, for example, PCs engaged in tactically defensive combat, like holing themselves up in a tighly-packed formation in a hallway to fight a large number of lower-level humanoids.  Or if they're fighting a couple of big monsters with special immunities, or stuff like that.

But generally speaking, it doesn't go that long.

I suspect a lot of people who think old-school D&D combat is really lengthy just haven't played a lot of old-school D&D.  I further wonder if a lot of those who think old-school D&D combat is really lengthy weren't making use of morale rules...  in 3e and later, combat can take a really long time because the rules are more complex, characters are more buffed up (and monsters in turn more resistant) due to survivability-inflation, and because there are no morale rules so a lot of GMs will have every fucking monster group fighting to the last creature.

In our 3e games, it was largely dependant on character level. Assuming a 10th level party vs. a session of level appropriate ECLs, about 10 in a 4-6 hr session.

In our 4e games, regardless of level, it took approx. 40 min per battle. So in a 4-6 hr session your looking about about 8 battles.

In the few 5e ones we ran, we'd get in about 12 or more in a 4-6 hr session.

Unfortunately for us our sessions are about 3 hours max.

Quote from: RPGPundit;887999I think even 20 minutes is high for the average old-school D&D fight.  Sure, you can have fights that last that long, or even longer, if you have a ton of PCs, NPCs, and opponents all using complex tactics.  I have had some fights go kind of long when you have, for example, PCs engaged in tactically defensive combat, like holing themselves up in a tighly-packed formation in a hallway to fight a large number of lower-level humanoids.  Or if they're fighting a couple of big monsters with special immunities, or stuff like that.

Yeah, the long combats in my AD&D game tended to be ones with a lot of tactical lulls, like cautious PCs being unwilling to just charge through a doorway to engage anything and everything that might be waiting in the shadowy depths beyond; instead spending time exchanging the odd volley while making plans, confirming the rear and flanks were protected, trying to gather intelligence on the number, type and position of enemy forces etc ... In a particular case I'm thinking of, a group actually detached from the main party (who remained to hold the doorway), went to a previously explored area of the dungeon, and came back with a door that they pulled down so as to use it as a mobile riot shield when they finally pushed forward into the room -- somehow managing to do so without encountering any wandering monsters.

Of course, while they're doing this, the enemy is also repositioning, calling up reinforcements and, if given enough time, sending reserves around to try and flank the intruders.

Quote from: Omega;887382OD&D is not combat heavy. You can actually get much further by avoiding combats. Chainmail on the other hand...

I refute this notion. Most of the key elements of the rules are geared towards combat. It is a "Fantastic Medieval Wargame" after all -- and its deadliness often goes both ways. To your "avoiding combats" there's the flip-side of "picking your battles". Sometimes you retreat, sometimes you crush.

And OD&D lets me play with 8 players or more rather easily and still have lightning-fast combats.

Quote from: RPGPundit;887999I think even 20 minutes is high for the average old-school D&D fight.  Sure, you can have fights that last that long, or even longer, if you have a ton of PCs, NPCs, and opponents all using complex tactics.  I have had some fights go kind of long when you have, for example, PCs engaged in tactically defensive combat, like holing themselves up in a tighly-packed formation in a hallway to fight a large number of lower-level humanoids.  Or if they're fighting a couple of big monsters with special immunities, or stuff like that.

But generally speaking, it doesn't go that long.

Even a fight against kobolds can go for 8 rounds if both sides keep missing and/or rolling low damage, IME.
And WTF are your kobolds doing if they aren't using defensive tactical approaches? Getting slaughtered?

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;888029I refute this notion. Most of the key elements of the rules are geared towards combat. It is a "Fantastic Medieval Wargame" after all -- and its deadliness often goes both ways. To your "avoiding combats" there's the flip-side of "picking your battles". Sometimes you retreat, sometimes you crush.

And OD&D lets me play with 8 players or more rather easily and still have lightning-fast combats.

You kinda fail miserably at refuting then.

You trotted out the old "The rules are all about combat! Thus the game is all about combat!" gag.

Try again please.

For me, I didn't see many long combats until 3E. Prior to that most of the battles in my D&D sessions were handled without miniatures and moved quickly. If we did use miniatures (usually because of the size of the battle or because the players at the table preferred them), that usually slowed things down a bit because there was more of a pause with each action as players decided tactics. But 3E is where I really saw combat eat up play time almost every session. Part of that was the mechanics were more grid and tactic oriented, but I also think that is what a lot of people wanted at the time.

Since D&D 2e to 5e, I've had 5 minute combats to couple hour combats in all editions.  There are several factors involved, a lot of which is 'Players kabitzing and having fun'.

Quote from: Omega;888098You trotted out the old "The rules are all about combat! Thus the game is all about combat!" gag.

Not a gag. Also, never did I say that the game is all about combat. But it clearly is geared towards combat, if you like it or not. I grant you that you often get further by circumventing open conflict, but unloading a huge stone boulder unto a pack of goblins won't garantuee that all of them will be dead afterwards.

That being said, even if you take a more conservative number than mine, say 5 battles per game, that's still combat heavy. Try doing 5 in 5E and tell me that evening wasn't combat heavy.

And I'm not even dismissing the fact, that many 0e sessions don't have a single combat, but don't tell me that it isn't a key component of the game, that's silly.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;888029I refute this notion. Most of the key elements of the rules are geared towards combat.

OD&D is probably the only edition of the game where that's definitively untrue. The combat rules only take up 10 pages out of 110 (and that's counting 6 pages dedicated to the rules for mass combat, aerial combat, and naval combat). Of the other 4 pages, one of them is notably dedicated to "Avoiding Monsters".

By contrast, the rules for running baronies are 5 pages long.

Even if we buy into the concept that rules are a perfect reflection of gameplay, OD&D's combat rules are heavily dominated by rules for avoiding combat (which was Omega's claim) and there are several non-combat topics which get more rules than the core combat system.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;888273OD&D is probably the only edition of the game where that's definitively untrue. The combat rules only take up 10 pages out of 110 (and that's counting 6 pages dedicated to the rules for mass combat, aerial combat, and naval combat). Of the other 4 pages, one of them is notably dedicated to "Avoiding Monsters".

By contrast, the rules for running baronies are 5 pages long.

Even if we buy into the concept that rules are a perfect reflection of gameplay, OD&D's combat rules are heavily dominated by rules for avoiding combat (which was Omega's claim) and there are several non-combat topics which get more rules than the core combat system.

True, but many of the other rules elements are tied to combat. Lots of pages are spells (of which not a small number are conflict-related) and monsters  (many of which you probably wouldn't consider the talkative types). Half of the experience system is for killing stuff, the other half is basically a reward for exploration (which I think is the second vital part of 0e).

You do avoid combat a lot in OD&D, but that doesn't discard it from being a key component of the game. I would even argue, that it makes the case for it.

You can say that about any RPG in existence.  Even an RPG that only has one single resolution mechanic is still "all about combat" because when you do combat, you'd use that mechanic.

It's a distinction that has literally zero meaning.

You could make a rulesystem where the combat system is "Heads or Tails", the exploration rules use GIS software, and the social intrigue rules use Jenga towers, dart boards and an abacus, but if the players decide to do things in a more direct manner, then they're going to be flipping quarters all night long.

Look at 0-2 D&D...
People buy shit - we got prices.
People kill shit - we got combat rules.
There's Gods and you can be one - got it.
There's magic - done.
There's dinosaurs - ditto.
People build shit and run countries - ok got that covered.
People fuck - no, we'll leave that one for FATAL

What did you expect to happen?
There's probably horse races - ok, you got us. (well 2e covered chases)

Quote from: CRKrueger;888288You can say that about any RPG in existence.  Even an RPG that only has one single resolution mechanic is still "all about combat" because when you do combat, you'd use that mechanic.

It's a distinction that has literally zero meaning.

You are arguing from the assumptions, that I am saying OD&D is primarily about combat and nothing happens in the game, beside what is written in the rules.

Like I said: combat is a key component of the game; it's not all that there is to it, but it's pretty important. It is in 0E's DNA. Historically, beginning from its wargaming roots, how the game was and is still being played, how the rules are written, the dungeon milieu, etc.

0e characters mostly explore, parley, and fight. If they are wise and lucky, they might live long enough to build a stronghold (which, in your view, apparently won't get them into any fights).

Most wargames I've encountered have actual rules for combat resolution that are 1 - 2 pages tops. But guess what you do most of the time in the wargames? So the argument "It's only 10 pages out of 106, it's not about fighting" doesn't really hold water in practice.

For me, it's about that many fights as it's necessary. We can always stop in middle of the fight and pick it up next session - I dislike that, but I'm not going to plan my combats according to OOC reason of time schedule.

Quote from: AsenRG;888036Even a fight against kobolds can go for 8 rounds if both sides keep missing and/or rolling low damage, IME.

And?  What's 8 rounds?  In old D&D editions, in an average group, there's a good chance that's going to be less than 10 minutes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;888976And?  What's 8 rounds?  In old D&D editions, in an average group, there's a good chance that's going to be less than 10 minutes.

Assuming you've memorized the entire system from cover to cover, yeah.  Most people haven't.  So 8 rounds can last anywhere from 10 to 60 minutes, depending on familiarity.

You're making some awfully big assumptions there, Chief.

Depends on how much you bog down in say AD&D's combat system extras and optionals. If you just go at it straightup then even unfamilliar its going to warp along pretty fast. At low levels you do not need alot of kobolds to hold up a group for 8 rounds under the right circumstances.

Even to a first level group they are pretty flimsy with 1/2 HD and a THAC0 of 2-step 20. 1st level characters are hitting the kobolds AC 7 on a 13 for fighter types and a 14 for everyone else.

I could see a situation where the party had bottlenecked say 4 kobolds at a doorway and their well armoured fighter is holding the line. Assuming say Banded + shield then thats AC 3 and the kobolds are needing a 18 or better to hit the fighter. The combat like that could easily go about 8 rounds as the fighter is likely to miss a little more than every other attack.

Its going to boil down to roll initiative, roll attacks, maybe roll morale but this assumes either morale isnt in use or they make each save. Whole things probably done in 8 minutes.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;888985Assuming you've memorized the entire system from cover to cover, yeah.  Most people haven't.  So 8 rounds can last anywhere from 10 to 60 minutes, depending on familiarity.

You're making some awfully big assumptions there, Chief.

There's hardly anything to the system. If no one in the group has much RPing experience and the GM doesn't know the system all that well, it will be slow. Otherwise, it shouldn't take anywhere near 60 minutes for a normal fight against a gang of kobolds.

* Check for surprise. No one is surprised.
* Roll initiative.
* PCs win. Two archers roll attacks, one hits, determines who they hit, rolls damage. The front rank readies vs charge.
*Kobolds advance to contact.

Time to conduct first turn: 90 seconds

* Roll initiative.
* Kobolds win. 6 kobolds attack and determine their targets, 2 hit, roll damage.
* PC front line fights, determine targets, 2 hit, roll damage.
* PC archers change weapons and advance into melee.

Time to conduct second turn: Maybe 2 minutes

A few rounds of that and one side is going to be defeated or withdrawing.

The system is simple. Even if you add a number of the bells and whistles that apply in specific circumstances, most of them aren't going to make much difference to the speed the game plays at (weapon length applies to charges, weapon speed pretty much only matters when you're attempting to melee someone who is casting). At most, a few early combats might bog down with people confirming how stuff works, but most people should pick it up rapidly.

The unarmed combat rules will definitely slow the game down if everyone isn't familiar with them. Weapon vs AC can also slow things down a little if there are a wide range of armour types as possible targets. I can't think of anything else that would result in slow play in a straight-up fight.

Are people in this thread serious when they talk about single, standard combat encounters taking three hours to resolve? Not the important, climactic, complex combats, but simple, run of the mill fights?

I am lucky if I get four hours to run a full session. I don't want to waste it on a single fight.

The last time I played Rifts it was because we got into a fight where each single combat round took over 45 minutes between each of my characters two attacks in that round to resolve. I timed it. Then a long wait for the next round to start. The exact opposite of exciting and engaging.

My last game session had two players, neither of whom were combat builds. we had probably 4-5 fights, from ambush the guards to large melee, plus a lot of exploration and other non-combat stuff and fit the whole into four hours.

And I have to agree that old school D&D combat is blazingly fast. As for the assumption that the players know the rules, I have found that by the second or third round of the first combat even neophyte players pretty well have it down. Roll to hit, roll damage, there isn't much more to the mechanics than that.

Quote from: DavetheLost;889006Are people in this thread serious when they talk about single, standard combat encounters taking three hours to resolve? Not the important, climactic, complex combats, but simple, run of the mill fights?

I doubt it, unless the group is all learning the rules and talking about even step of the way in some detailed combat system.

QuoteI am lucky if I get four hours to run a full session. I don't want to waste it on a single fight.

With a good combat system, a 3-hour combat can/should be pretty interesting. Seems like there are both systems and players who relate to combat as mainly a way to see what the result of a fight is (so it's good if it's fast and easy), while other systems and players relate to combat as the meat (or at least, a major food group) of gameplay, interesting in itself (so it's good if it is involved, and not awful if it takes a chunk of time).

A three hour combat with a tactically engaging system and an expectation that the bulk of the session will be devoted to playing out the fight could be a lot of fun.

I remember one old scenario that was a bar room brawl with some thirty characters in it, each with their own motivations. It provided several hours of pretty much nothing but fight for a very large group. Fun, but I wouldn't want a steady diet of that.

Quote from: DavetheLost;889006Are people in this thread serious when they talk about single, standard combat encounters taking three hours to resolve? Not the important, climactic, complex combats, but simple, run of the mill fights?

I can see it happening in the occasional large battle. But from accounts here and elsewhere players and especially non-novices keep mentioning, and not in a good way, battles in 3 and 4e taking really long times. Before 3e about the only time youd hear of battles taking a long time was when there were army level massed battles going on or combats with really formidible opponents with alot of HP.

Quote from: DavetheLost;889006Are people in this thread serious when they talk about single, standard combat encounters taking three hours to resolve? Not the important, climactic, complex combats, but simple, run of the mill fights?

Deadly serious. There are no "run of the mill" fights in my 4e experience, you just don't bother unless it's a proper setup, because it takes that long to handle the basic processing of a fight.

EDIT: I should add my group aren't newbies or indecisive or anything. Same people managed a 100-participant skirmish in ACKS in 90 minutes. It's the system.

Quote from: RPGPundit;888976And?  What's 8 rounds?  In old D&D editions, in an average group, there's a good chance that's going to be less than 10 minutes.

Well, Gronan puts it at roughly 3 minutes per round. If your group is faster than his group, I'd suggest you fight him SCA style over which one is more typical of old-school groups:)!

Me, I simply haven't measured the time per round, but my bet would be at Gronan's group being more typical;).

For the short real time AD&D combat against the Kobolds, we're assuming no one is using the grappling rules, right?

Quote from: DavetheLost;889006Are people in this thread serious when they talk about single, standard combat encounters taking three hours to resolve? Not the important, climactic, complex combats, but simple, run of the mill fights?

You wish they were joking:D!
Now, some systems do indeed work so only for the important fights. Others can get a basic fight done in a much shorter time, and only fight long with important NPCs.
Still, there are also those that don't make a distinction, and every fight is a drag-out affair!

Quote from: DavetheLost;889019A three hour combat with a tactically engaging system and an expectation that the bulk of the session will be devoted to playing out the fight could be a lot of fun.

I remember one old scenario that was a bar room brawl with some thirty characters in it, each with their own motivations. It provided several hours of pretty much nothing but fight for a very large group. Fun, but I wouldn't want a steady diet of that.

Well, nobody's saying it should be the meat in your diet:).

Quote from: Bren;889356For the short real time AD&D combat against the Kobolds, we're assuming no one is using the grappling rules, right?

Obviously yes;).

Quote from: AsenRG;889353Well, Gronan puts it at roughly 3 minutes per round. If your group is faster than his group, I'd suggest you fight him SCA style over which one is more typical of old-school groups:)!

Me, I simply haven't measured the time per round, but my bet would be at Gronan's group being more typical;).

Cant resist those little digs every thread can you?

Heres what he said.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;883906I run OD&D, and with 4-5 players and a similar number of enemies a single combat turn runs in 2-3 minutes, and at lower levels a combat will last 4-8 combat turns.

When I ran OD&D in NYC I often got 4 or 5 combats into a 2 to 3 hour session.

That's one advantage of the OD&D one minute combat round, abstract everything, all creatures get one attack, all attacks do 1d6; it can run a combat blazingly fast.

Quote from: Bren;889356For the short real time AD&D combat against the Kobolds, we're assuming no one is using the grappling rules, right?

as a guy who has never played AD&D how bad are the grappling rule or is this more of a what the heck dose this mean sort of thing

Quote from: kosmos1214;889389as a guy who has never played AD&D how bad are the grappling rule or is this more of a what the heck dose this mean sort of thing

Infamously bad.


Not that D&D is unique in this respect.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;888276True, but many of the other rules elements are tied to combat. Lots of pages are spells (of which not a small number are conflict-related) and monsters  (many of which you probably wouldn't consider the talkative types). Half of the experience system is for killing stuff, the other half is basically a reward for exploration (which I think is the second vital part of 0e).

If you're playing RAW, then every monster encounter in OD&D should be preceded by a reaction check.

Also, the vast majority of the OD&D spell list has no combat applicability. And of those that do have combat applicability, virtually all of them also have significant non-combat applicability.

There are plenty of editions of D&D where it's true that most of the rules are about combat. It's just not true that OD&D is one of them.

Quote from: kosmos1214;889389as a guy who has never played AD&D how bad are the grappling rule or is this more of a what the heck dose this mean sort of thing

To put the awfulness of AD&D's grappling rules it in perspective, the grappling rules in 3E were a completely successful attempt at improving them in every possible way.

(The biggest problem with the 3E grappling rules was that they improved the system just enough so that people would actually try to use them instead of ignoring them.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;889417If you're playing RAW, then every monster encounter in OD&D should be preceded by a reaction check.

Also, the vast majority of the OD&D spell list has no combat applicability. And of those that do have combat applicability, virtually all of them also have significant non-combat applicability.

There are plenty of editions of D&D where it's true that most of the rules are about combat. It's just not true that OD&D is one of them.

A reaction check which often results in hostility. Also, don't forget:

QuoteMonsters will automatically attack and/or pursue any characters they "see", with the exception of those monsters which are intelligent enough to avoid an obviously superior force.

So most monsters will attack anyway.

I don't even know if I would agree that a vast majority of spells is not combat related. If combat is just rolling the dice and seeing what happens, then maybe yes; even though I would still say it is a vague quantification. Many of the spells actually work quite well inside combat, even if they don't do any damage--at least not actively.

So I guess we will have to agree to disagree here. Combat, for me, obviously is a very important part of 0e. And it just so happens that it is fucking fun, a real thrill-ride. More so even, than in the way too rigorous later editions.

Look at your session reports for Caverns of Thracia. You don't call that combat heavy? C'mon. Doesn't mean it's not also heavy on exploration, but give me a break.

That being said, really diggin' what you do, Justin.

Quote from: kosmos1214;889389as a guy who has never played AD&D how bad are the grappling rule or is this more of a what the heck dose this mean sort of thing

A bit convoluted at first glance. Its percentile based and has the following procedures.

Cant grapple if holding anything.
Initiative is based on factors. Surprise>Charging>Higher DEX>Higher roll.
Damage done is 25% real and 75% temporary.
Unconscious at 0.
1: Attackers physical non magic item AC x10 to get the base. EG: rings and bracers do not count. Magic bonuses on armour does not count. This gets you the base %.

2: Modify that as follows.
+ attackers DEX.
+10-30% depending on how heavy the opponents armour is. Leather or padded is +10. Banded, Plate, and Splint is +30 for example.
-10% per 3" opponents movement faster
+20% if opponent Slowed or Stunned.
-20% if opponent hasted.

So my Magic user with a DEX of 14 has a base of 114%. But VS a hasted unarmoured opponent its down to 96%, IE: A 4% chance to fail to grapple. But if that hasted opponent were in Plate Id be at 124% chance to hit.

Once you connect you determine the type of hold with a percentile roll.
Base is attackers DEX + STR + 1 per 10% exceptional STR.
Modified by things like differences in weight and height and opponents DEX, STR, and heavy armour.

So my MU with said DEX 14 and a STR of 11 has a roll modifier of +24.
The higher the roll the better the grapple damage. So I will get at least an Arm Lock which is 1+STR bonus damage. In my case, that is 1.

So say I get my grapple then roll a 56. Thats an 80 with no other mods. Which is a headlock. 5 grapple damage. Against a guy in plate with a helmet and shield it would have been a hand lock for 2.

Actually pretty simple and not much different from some other RPGs core to hit modifier systems. Figure your base and make a little table for opponent AC and then apply the remaining mods if any.

Pummeling uses a simmilar system in AD&D. Not sure what 2e used?

Quote from: kosmos1214;889389as a guy who has never played AD&D how bad are the grappling rule or is this more of a what the heck dose this mean sort of thing

Terribad. Most games have atrocious grappling rules.

The rules for ACKS are actually pretty good - and easily plugged into anything D&D-like:

QuoteWRESTLING
Instead of making a melee attack, a combatant may attempt to wrestle with his opponent. To wrestle an opponent, a combatant must succeed on a melee attack throw with a -4 penalty. The opponent must then make a saving throw versus Paralysis. If the combatant is significantly larger than the opponent (an ogre wrestling a man, for instance) the opponent suffers a -4 penalty on his saving throw. If the opponent succeeds on his saving throw, he has shrugged off the combatant. If he fails, he has been grabbed in a wrestling hold. A combatant who has grabbed an opponent may perform a brawl, force back, disarm, or knock down action each round without having to make an attack throw so long as the hold continues (the opponent still receives a saving throw). A knock down or force back will end the hold, unless the wrestling combatant chooses to move with his held opponent. Other combatants are at +4 on attack throws against the held opponent, and thieves may backstab him. The held opponent may make another saving throw versus Paralysis each round to attempt to escape the hold.

quotes in spoiler

Spoiler

Quote from: Omega;889503A bit convoluted at first glance. Its percentile based and has the following procedures.

Cant grapple if holding anything.
Initiative is based on factors. Surprise>Charging>Higher DEX>Higher roll.
Damage done is 25% real and 75% temporary.
Unconscious at 0.
1: Attackers physical non magic item AC x10 to get the base. EG: rings and bracers do not count. Magic bonuses on armour does not count. This gets you the base %.

2: Modify that as follows.
+ attackers DEX.
+10-30% depending on how heavy the opponents armour is. Leather or padded is +10. Banded, Plate, and Splint is +30 for example.
-10% per 3" opponents movement faster
+20% if opponent Slowed or Stunned.
-20% if opponent hasted.

So my Magic user with a DEX of 14 has a base of 114%. But VS a hasted unarmoured opponent its down to 96%, IE: A 4% chance to fail to grapple. But if that hasted opponent were in Plate Id be at 124% chance to hit.

Once you connect you determine the type of hold with a percentile roll.
Base is attackers DEX + STR + 1 per 10% exceptional STR.
Modified by things like differences in weight and height and opponents DEX, STR, and heavy armour.

So my MU with said DEX 14 and a STR of 11 has a roll modifier of +24.
The higher the roll the better the grapple damage. So I will get at least an Arm Lock which is 1+STR bonus damage. In my case, that is 1.

So say I get my grapple then roll a 56. Thats an 80 with no other mods. Which is a headlock. 5 grapple damage. Against a guy in plate with a helmet and shield it would have been a hand lock for 2.

Actually pretty simple and not much different from some other RPGs core to hit modifier systems. Figure your base and make a little table for opponent AC and then apply the remaining mods if any.

Pummeling uses a simmilar system in AD&D. Not sure what 2e used?

Quote from: Kiero;889511Terribad. Most games have atrocious grappling rules.

The rules for ACKS are actually pretty good - and easily plugged into anything D&D-like:

ok so basically its considerably more work then necessary
 
also thous rules from acks look really nice

Quote from: kosmos1214;889658ok so basically its considerably more work then necessary
 
also thous rules from acks look really nice

No more complex than determining to-hit, bonuses and penalties for normal combat. The main thing is to note down your base score and armour adjustments. And just worry about the modifiers. If any. As I noted. Once you know your base chance the rest is easy. Front load that at chargen. What I did. Sd in the above example. My base is 114%. Against light armour it is 124, medium is 134, and heavy is 144. After that its just determining. "Who is faster? Is anyone slowed, stunned or hasted?" Grapple type modifier works much the same. Frontload your base and just worry about the modifiers which are also not that many.

The main drawback is it, and pummeling, is its own little mini-game instead of using the existing rules somehow. Its also not exactly well explained some elements.

Other systems intigrate it into the core combat. 5e for example.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;888985Assuming you've memorized the entire system from cover to cover, yeah.  Most people haven't.  So 8 rounds can last anywhere from 10 to 60 minutes, depending on familiarity.

You're making some awfully big assumptions there, Chief.

I was figuring a GM with fairly good knowledge of the rules, and players with fairly good knowledge of their PC's abilities, it's true.
But that's a 'control' variable you have to assume; because any system will be slower if you have people who don't know the system.

Quote from: RPGPundit;890232I was figuring a GM with fairly good knowledge of the rules, and players with fairly good knowledge of their PC's abilities, it's true.
But that's a 'control' variable you have to assume; because any system will be slower if you have people who don't know the system.

Which is my point.  Doesn't matter what's the system, it's the players (which I include the GM as) that makes the game fast or slow.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;890242Which is my point.  Doesn't matter what's the system, it's the players (which I include the GM as) that makes the game fast or slow.

Not really; they can certainly make it faster (if they've memorised the rules) or slower (if they don't know it and have to be constantly reminded), but that doesn't change the fact that different systems have different processing times. All the players do is augment that time, they don't make it go away.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;890242Which is my point.  Doesn't matter what's the system, it's the players (which I include the GM as) that makes the game fast or slow.

Man, people (including me) were sincerely surprised when someone mentioned that his group ends a typical D&D4e combat in merely 45 minutes, and that's the lowest limit I've heard of;).

Quote from: Kiero;890265Not really; they can certainly make it faster (if they've memorised the rules) or slower (if they don't know it and have to be constantly reminded), but that doesn't change the fact that different systems have different processing times. All the players do is augment that time, they don't make it go away.

I'd say the people still make a huge difference, especially if the GM does many things  in his head, requiring no conversation. I can run GURPS at the speed of the description of what players say they do plus what I say happens, plus a few dice rolls and notes and counter movements. Others learning the game will stop to discuss rules & options, look stuff up, think about what to do, find stuff on character sheets, etc.

Quote from: Omega;889756No more complex than determining to-hit, bonuses and penalties for normal combat. The main thing is to note down your base score and armour adjustments. And just worry about the modifiers. If any. As I noted. Once you know your base chance the rest is easy. Front load that at chargen. What I did. Sd in the above example. My base is 114%. Against light armour it is 124, medium is 134, and heavy is 144. After that its just determining. "Who is faster? Is anyone slowed, stunned or hasted?" Grapple type modifier works much the same. Frontload your base and just worry about the modifiers which are also not that many.

The main drawback is it, and pummeling, is its own little mini-game instead of using the existing rules somehow. Its also not exactly well explained some elements.

Other systems intigrate it into the core combat. 5e for example.

light bulb above head turns on !!!!!!!!


oh i get it now only one quick question did the game at least point out to front load the math ???

Quote from: kosmos1214;890381light bulb above head turns on !!!!!!!!


oh i get it now only one quick question did the game at least point out to front load the math ???

Not that I recall. But that was semi-covered with combat in general where it used to suggest jotting down your to hit requirements for your current level to save having to look it up every time.

Same with spells and such. We noted this stuff down rather than leaf through the books every time.

Think at least one character sheet they put out had a space for noting your grapple and pummel.

We went into it assuming that you noted stuff down to save time and book flipping. Local group I picked up seems to have followed that too. Two of the players note down alot of things.

Quote from: Omega;890389Not that I recall. But that was semi-covered with combat in general where it used to suggest jotting down your to hit requirements for your current level to save having to look it up every time.

Same with spells and such. We noted this stuff down rather than leaf through the books every time.

Think at least one character sheet they put out had a space for noting your grapple and pummel.

We went into it assuming that you noted stuff down to save time and book flipping. Local group I picked up seems to have followed that too. Two of the players note down alot of things.

ah ok i was woundering only because its the kind of thing my group would have missed to do if they dident point it out or have a space for it on the sheet.

As to writing down spells thats a new one on me (though it makes sense) in truth at the time i memorised the spell lists and even had the dm look at me once or twice to ask how a spell worked

OD&D tells you to note down relevant things on the back of the sheet and a glance at one of TSR's AD&D character sheets shows that yes there is a space specifically on the sheet for noting down your pummeling and grappeling scores. So while the book may not say flat out "frontload this" in the grappel section (it may say so elsewhere). The character sheet does.

The OD&D sheet also had a space for noting down your current to-hit vs various ACs. BX tells you to write down everything and the example of a hand written character sheet shows not only the to-hits noted but also the saves and other info.

Quote from: Omega;890840The OD&D sheet also had a space for noting down your current to-hit vs various ACs.

What sheet was that? The only sheets I used back then were blank pieces of paper - mostly the reverse side of computer paper printouts (http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/532625) and 3-ring, ruled school notebook paper.

One of the early character sheet packs. Which one have no clue. Though could be mixing it up with the BX one which had a space for to-hit notation.

ah thanks

I once averaged 4 different combats in one 4 hour time slot of Earthdawn at Gencon. Earthdawn though averages 3 hours for most fights, so it was usually 1-2 in an 8 hour session.

DnD can have a lot of fights at low levels, usually 1 an hour, but at Level 20-30 in DnD 3.x we were averaging 1 fight per an eight hour session. Which killed two campaigns, the DM just couldn't take the fight lengths any more and called it off.

Savage Worlds can easily do two fights in a 4 hour session + other activity. I easily had 4 different ones in a 4 hour session of my current game, Necessary Evil.

These fight times are why we are using Savage Worlds these days over other systems, just much faster combat times and a more robust toolbox for noncombat activity. When we were young teenagers and 20 somethings, a 6-8 hour session was the norm and now its 4-6 hours at max. And at 6 hours people get cranky, damn middle-aged-ness. So Savage Worlds gets the nod for having tactical combat but less widgets and dials than DnD and Earthdawn to deal with.

What makes fights go long is generally dealing with the system (GM turns) and then length of player turns. The GM can only control his side of the game, the other part is player control. So if the GM's turn lasts 5 minutes even with multiple characters to control, but every player's turn lasts 5 minutes and there are 7 players, that becomes a 40 minute round. So to get combat flowing, you need players to reduce their turn length. If player turns only last a minute and the GM's is 5 minutes (This may seem long, but the GM has to control all the enemies and sometimes the NPC allies too in games that aren't Savage Worlds), its a 12 minute round length for 7 players for example. You can get 5 rounds of combat done in a hour that way. But this requires players to think about what they are going to do before their Initiative phase comes up. In game, this rarely ever happens. So game speed is all about GM and player turn speed when it comes to combat.  

As a Gm I've reduced my turn speed by having NPC cards made up and sleeved. So I have all my stats in front of me with their Action Cards on top, makes it easy to run their turns without having to flip through the book to their stats. You can also use bookkeeping cards or strips of cardstock or index cards with status names and conditions on top that you can place next to minis on the board to mark status and their effects so you don't need to keep track of what status is on what NPC and what they do. Every little time saving measure you can implement can speed up combat time and keep the game's pace flowing more smoothly.