General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
My online gaming group, Torch of Spirit (Contains all information for the current game I'm co-DMing as well as lots of houserules I'm using or considering for the future. Feel free to check it out.)
Well, to be fair, first edition does not have any combat options beyond "I hit it with my sword/dagger/bohemian earspoon"
To be fair, perhaps thats the way you played 1st edition. I could just as easily say that in 4E you have no options other than carving through mounds of hit points with sword, spell, power, ect. I don't count pushing pieces of plastic around a game board to equal meaningful options.
I mean the topic of combat in the D&D rulebooks, not this thread.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
To be fair, perhaps thats the way you played 1st edition. I could just as easily say that in 4E you have no options other than carving through mounds of hit points with sword, spell, power, ect. I don't count pushing pieces of plastic around a game board to equal meaningful options.
They are meaningful options. In a purely gameplay/tactical sense, 4e (and 3.5 before it, to a lesser degree), players typically have many valid choices to make on their turn, with many variable outcomes. As-written, 1e was not as feature-rich in this regard. Position and movement was much less emphasized, and players typically had fewer viable strategies available.
For you, however, it sounds like this is a feature, i.e., getting the system out of the way to allow for more free-form creativity, which is perfectly valid. The editions are nonetheless distinct in this regard.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
There are lots of great RPGs out there with a less tactical emphasis that will let you focus on the other aspects of roleplaying that you obviously prioritize.
The type of tactics I want in roleplaying game action scenes/encounters are tactics that more or less can simulate the possible tactical decisions/options of the PCs in action rather than metagamey ones. So, I think 4e and 3.5 miniature rules are not very well suited for this preference. The robustness of their tactcs limits itself mostly on a gamey level -tactics are rather similar to chess which is just a tactical game.
I am still undecided whether miniatures would help or mostly hinder a system as I want it.
I am still undecided whether miniatures would help or mostly hinder a system as I want it.
You might want to take a look at Burning Wheel. It uses a scripted, miniature-less combat system that is pretty realistic.
Apologies again to Merric.
__________________ If knowledge of a game's plot would spoil its experience, it isn't a game.
... A player cannot learn of a game's ending without experiencing it, because a game is not a linear object.
—Mike Mearls
Location: “Over the Hills and Far Away” - (TDY in Florida - "Home" is Michigan)
Posts: 1,546
I voted 45 minutes because the option I wanted wasn't available, and it was the closest.
I think combats should only take as long as they NEED to take, no more no less. However, there is an upper limit in time at which you start to lose your audience. Just as in a classes or meetings, the magic number is about 50 minutes. After 50 minutes it's time for a break, which isn't always feasible for a combat scene, therefore I try to get them done within that 50 minute guideline. There is no lower limit, IMO.
I've been in games where combats took much longer, and I hated each one. I use 3.5E, and I attempt to keep combats under 50 minutes even with a system where most people feel it's not possible.
I do this by using an Excel sheet to track initiative. By using the sort function and prerolling initiative (everyone - players and DM alike - 20 each), I can have a random initiative each round of combat. This adds an element of uncertainty to combats and keeps all participants engaged (without having to wait for people to come back to the table) because they don't know when they are going to act.
I also use set defenses/AC for monsters and pre-rolled attacks, cutting down on the amount of rolling needed to be done during combat.
Also, I don't use this all of the time, but if I have players that take too long to decide what they are going to do, I will use a timer (egg timer, chess timer, or just a stopwatch).
I've found that the added benefit of keeping the action going, without having to stop for slow players, distracted players, or players that leave the table for other pursuits, keeps the action flowing and by extension, keeps the level of drama and the story, poignant and flowing.
__________________ Mark "El Mahdi" Armstrong - Semper Operor Verus
". . . after all, that is why we're here. Kill the last bad guy and then there's cake." - Major General Jack O'Neal
"Don't Just Do It, Just Do It Right!"
"Right, without Reason, is unmitigated Foolishness."
"If you make a mistake, Acknowledge It, then make it Right."
I prefer a close relationship between the amount of time a combat is supposed to represent in-game, and the amount of time it takes to resolve mechanically. One of the major immersion-breaking moments in 3rd edition is realizing that a combat which is supposed to be only a few minutes long from your character's point of view could take an hour or more to resolve at the table.
One of the interesting side effects of the much-maligned 1 minute combat round from AD&D was that it could result in combats taking about as much time to resolve mechanically as they took in-game. Five rounds of combat between a few opponents could often be resolved in about 5 minutes.
For a standard encounter, I'd say about 30-45 minutes tops. Enough time to get into it and enjoy some of the tactics without getting bogged down.
Much shorter than that and I'd wonder why I didn't handwave the battle and move on. If it's a foregone conclusion that the PCs are to win the combat, why bother spending the time going through the motions?
"You face off a legion of kobolds. After several minutes of brisk fighting, you chew through the front lines and face off against the royal guard defending the kobold general." And then the encounter picks up from there.
I've never planned an encounter to be a guaranteed win for the PCs. I don't see what the point would be. Even a standard, short encounter should be worth running through, and for me and my group, 30-45 minutes seems to be the butter zone.
I voted 45 minutes, but I would have liked to vote for a 30-45 minute range. We've had some zippy encounters in 4e and some that bogged down, but the majority have fallen into this range. Our very last combat was fairly short; we decimated a whole party of orcs in about 20 minutes. I've noticed two factors have contributed to long ecounters: one, our striker, who is admittedly an under-optimized star pact warlock, can't hit anything, and two, truthfully, bad encounter design on the part of the DM (incorporeal wraiths against a 3 man party that has a relatively low DPS due to problems with our striker).
__________________ Veronica: Where's your brother?
Dick: I think he took Ghost World up to his room. They're probably up there making love. Or playing Dungeons and Dragons. Or both, at the same time. They're both, like, 12th-level dorks. I'm just sayin'
I have a sneaking suspicion that this is one area where Wizards misjudged what people wanted with 4e. I enjoy 4e, but combat is taking a little too long for my tastes; about a 45-60 minutes with 5 PCs against a standard group of monsters. I personally would prefer combats in the 30 minute range: some a little more, some a little less.
I may soon go to reducing monster HP and seeing what that does; are the PCs still challenged? Is it fun for us?
A quasi-minion may be a very good idea.
Cheers!
Yep, this is my #1 problem with 4e- combat takes up way too much game time. When a 1st level combat with with a small group of kobolds ended up taking over an hour to play, that's when I knew it wasn't for me.
My point is that D&D is not the game for someone who, as a whole, does not want combats to last longer than 10 (or even 20) minutes.
This is, IME, only true for WotC-D&D. It was not true, IME, of TSR-D&D.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Every PC rolls attacks against a DC for the combat. Failure means they take damage. Once the party has achieved 4-6 "successes," the game moves on.
In 3e, I'd just have one PC roll an attack roll, and, based on that, assign the party damage depending on their level. "He rolled a seven! This combat didn't quite go your way. Everyone take 80 points of damage!"
This is, IME, only true for WotC-D&D. It was not true, IME, of TSR-D&D.
RC
QFT.
WOTC D&D makes the assumption that combat is the primary focus of the game. Complex combat rules help reinforce that idea.
TSR D&D assumes that combat is a part of the game and provides mechanics to resolve it quickly. If more detail (and thus time investment) is desired then it can be added as desired.
Every PC rolls attacks against a DC for the combat. Failure means they take damage. Once the party has achieved 4-6 "successes," the game moves on.
In 3e, I'd just have one PC roll an attack roll, and, based on that, assign the party damage depending on their level. "He rolled a seven! This combat didn't quite go your way. Everyone take 80 points of damage!"
OUCH!!! I pity the fool that encounters anything while slightly wounded or at all if he/she is a magic user
I prefer a close relationship between the amount of time a combat is supposed to represent in-game, and the amount of time it takes to resolve mechanically. One of the major immersion-breaking moments in 3rd edition is realizing that a combat which is supposed to be only a few minutes long from your character's point of view could take an hour or more to resolve at the table.
One of the interesting side effects of the much-maligned 1 minute combat round from AD&D was that it could result in combats taking about as much time to resolve mechanically as they took in-game. Five rounds of combat between a few opponents could often be resolved in about 5 minutes.
That factors into the equation for me as well.
A combat doesn't have to happen in real time, but you should try to keep it as close to real time as you can without making it lame.
A four minute in game time skirmish that takes 50 minutes to real time play makes me groan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribe Ineti
For a standard encounter, I'd say about 30-45 minutes tops. Enough time to get into it and enjoy some of the tactics without getting bogged down.
Much shorter than that and I'd wonder why I didn't handwave the battle and move on. If it's a foregone conclusion that the PCs are to win the combat, why bother spending the time going through the motions?
"You face off a legion of kobolds. After several minutes of brisk fighting, you chew through the front lines and face off against the royal guard defending the kobold general." And then the encounter picks up from there.
I've never planned an encounter to be a guaranteed win for the PCs. I don't see what the point would be. Even a standard, short encounter should be worth running through, and for me and my group, 30-45 minutes seems to be the butter zone.
To me, its fun sometimes for the PCs to be totally in charge of the combat.
If you really fear the enemy, it can be kinda of hard to justify trying out there/fun things in combat.
But if you're pretty sure you're going to win, you can try to drown a kobold in a horse trough or drop a barrel over a thief's head and kick him out the front window of a tavern.
Plus, in certain systems short doesn't mean easy. A gritty fight between a PC and the assassin that crept into his room shouldn't take long, but it should be dangerous for both of them.
__________________ "Well, no, I wasn't actually one of the original members of Pink Floyd." - Giles
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
