Combat timer

Andy Day · June 28, 2013, 09:29:47 PM

So, I'm a big board gamer. And I also fancy myself an armature designer.

So when I am laying in bed sleeplessly pondering games, I focus on making a game that is quick. I like battles that wrap up fast. In many board games, this is handled by putting a timer on the game. Make it last 9 or 10 or 20 rounds or whatever. At the end, win or lose, fight is over. Thoughts? Good/bad idea?

Piestrio · June 28, 2013, 09:30:50 PM

Quote from: Andy Day;666609So, I'm a big board gamer. And I also fancy myself an armature designer.

So when I am laying in bed sleeplessly pondering games, I focus on making a game that is quick. I like battles that wrap up fast. In many board games, this is handled by putting a timer on the game. Make it last 9 or 10 or 20 rounds or whatever. At the end, win or lose, fight is over. Thoughts? Good/bad idea?

Do you mean limiting the number of rounds possible or the time per round?

Catelf · June 28, 2013, 10:38:58 PM

I'm peraonally for limiting the time per round for Each Player, but Limiting the amounts of Rounds for a full Fight is better to handle through a kind of collective Morale/Will/Fear check, counting any health losses as an increased difficulty for the check.

Kuroth · June 29, 2013, 12:28:05 AM

One can make individual to individual combat more abstract, whether Chainmail to Everway. High abstraction can reduce combat down to very few resolution steps, if one wishes

A common way to limit the length of combat is to include some type of exhaustion rule. For example, in first edition Traveller a character may perform a total number of combat blows or swings equal to the character's Endurance characteristic. Blows or swings beyond the Endurance value are Weakened blows or swings, with specific negative modifiers per weapon. This rule rarely arises as an active rule in the fast pace of Traveller combat, but, when it does, it is a very strong incentive to...RUN AWAY...RUN AWAY...

Kuroth · June 29, 2013, 12:36:11 AM

Introducing an actual tick-tick clock for play action statements is not completely unknown in role-play games. If you don't talk fast, your turn is gone. So, sure, get a chess timer, and try it out. If the players run out of their alloted total declaration time for a combat encounter, their characters are exhausted from running around panicking or just plan winded. One may even require the referee to be at the mercy of the clock. Be sure to crank it up to nightmare on occasion, with very little time for declaration.

Andy Day · June 29, 2013, 05:31:49 PM

Quote from: Piestrio;666612Do you mean limiting the number of rounds possible or the time per round?

Specifically I meant limiting the number of rounds. Many board games use an artificial round count. But using a more natural one based on fatigue or terror might also work. I've also considered a version of combat where damage is guaranteed to be dealt to at least 1 side every round, which would eliminate the "Wiff factor" and put a timer on encounters.

Piestrio · June 29, 2013, 05:35:11 PM

Quote from: Andy Day;666804Specifically I meant limiting the number of rounds. Many board games use an artificial round count. But using a more natural one based on fatigue or terror might also work. I've also considered a version of combat where damage is guaranteed to be dealt to at least 1 side every round, which would eliminate the "Wiff factor" and put a timer on encounters.

In GURPS I've often severely upped the fatigue cost for melee combat. It does tend to give a "soft limit" to combats. I would not like a hard cap but increasing penalties for pushing past a "soft limit" is reasonable and adds an element of resource management that might not have been there before.

As far as "damage every round" I'd just make "fighting" an opposed roll and have the loser take damage.

Andy Day · June 29, 2013, 11:45:12 PM

Quote from: Piestrio;666805In GURPS I've often severely upped the fatigue cost for melee combat. It does tend to give a "soft limit" to combats. I would not like a hard cap but increasing penalties for pushing past a "soft limit" is reasonable and adds an element of resource management that might not have been there before.

As far as "damage every round" I'd just make "fighting" an opposed roll and have the loser take damage.

That's precisely the technique, actually. Somebody always wins an opposed roll. Save on a tie.

Kuroth · June 30, 2013, 12:24:04 AM

What, you are not going to try timed gaming? Think of the peer pressure that would build up among players! ha It would be fun to see.

So, you are thinking of going with the arm wrestling type of solution. Straight forward.

Opaopajr · June 30, 2013, 12:59:02 AM

Could import a fatigue system that every round above the first cumulatively increases atk by one and lowers saves by one. Should speed up several combats, though it would be gamed if used constantly. Might be useful as a terrain penalty, like fighting in miasma, prolonged kiting tactics, or fighting that interrupts one's rest.

Spinachcat · June 30, 2013, 02:42:22 AM

Bleeding & Morale.

If everyone wounded takes additional damage each round from their wounds, then combats will go much faster.

I am a big fan of morale rules. Most people (and sentient monsters) do not want to die and when wounded, outnumbered or outclassed will seek to flee to fight another day.

So if you want faster combats, bleed them out and make them panic. That diminishes the slugfests, but in a "realistic" manner.

Andy Day · June 30, 2013, 10:40:32 AM

Quote from: Spinachcat;666901Bleeding & Morale.

If everyone wounded takes additional damage each round from their wounds, then combats will go much faster.

I am a big fan of morale rules. Most people (and sentient monsters) do not want to die and when wounded, outnumbered or outclassed will seek to flee to fight another day.

So if you want faster combats, bleed them out and make them panic. That diminishes the slugfests, but in a "realistic" manner.

Moral is an interesting idea, though not thematically appropriate in a lot of cases. Especially since many players resent having their character played for them.

Bleeding seems like a bad idea, rewarding the player who hits first. Again, not thematically appropriate for a lot of games.

RandallS · June 30, 2013, 11:55:01 AM

Quote from: Andy Day;666980Moral is an interesting idea, though not thematically appropriate in a lot of cases. Especially since many players resent having their character played for them.

I've used morale rules since I started playing. NPCs and monsters have to make morale checks. PCs are normally under the control of their player -- which includes deciding when top break off combat and run, although certain magical effects can override this (e.g. a fear spell).

Opaopajr · June 30, 2013, 03:00:05 PM

Morale checks were explicitly not used upon PCs when mentioned in D&D corebook. Perhaps other games thought it was a good idea, though you'd think sanity or humanity mechanics covered that terrain.

RPGPundit · July 01, 2013, 06:11:22 PM

I've never had a problem with this sort of thing, not in D&D anyways.