How long should a round represent?

[Mengu]

I like to think of it as an abstract slice of camera time to take a turn. In 4e, I've run scenes where a round flexed from 6 seconds in the beginning to 30 seconds toward the middle, and back down to 6 seconds toward the end of the scene. I've also run one scene where rounds were about 1 minute. These were all combat scenes.

It doesn't matter how it's spelled out, 6 seconds, or 10 seconds is fine, with the caveat, DM can adjust as needed for the scene.

 

[Hassassin]

I don't see how abstract time can work since you'll always have a certain maximum movement in a round. You can't just "reskin" 3e/4e rounds to 1 minute or your characters run in slow motion.

So, I prefer 6s but there should also be quite a few actions that span multiple rounds, among them many powerful spells. Getting a compatible system with longer rounds in a supplement would be cool, preferably one that works for mass combat as well.

 

[thewok]

10 rounds per minute is the easiest to convert, as anyone from a country that uses the metric system can tell you.

WotC should make 1 round = 1 .beat of Swatch Internet Time. Sure, one minute 26.4 seconds might be a long round, but it's easy in that one day is 1000 rounds. Imagine the ease of use when doing mass combats for battles that take all day! Or, maybe one round could be one-tenth of a .beat, at 8.64 seconds.

Time is just way too incredibly archaic. I mean, it's almost like it uses base-60, except for hours in a day. We need to switch over to a more consistent, easily divisible time system, and Swatch Internet Time should be the way to go. It would definitely be far easier to work with than the complicated "Imperial" time we use now.

 

[Abraxas]

I prefer a round to be the amount of time it takes for everyone to perform their actions - and the DM decides how long that takes.

 

[GM Dave]

I agree that I have found the 6s round to be too short.

I feel like when I watch all the actions players do and the moving around the board it feels like it is going on under the influence of a haste spell.

I mean, I've seen players in 3e/PF launch 5 or more arrows from a composite longbow in 6s. I've seen characters tumble forward, slash a couple of foes, and then tumble back (sometimes with an additional action or response action on the opponents round).

I know Olympic fencers can have plenty of strikes within a couple of seconds in an exchange. I personally prefer the Hollywood representation of sword fights that allow for plenty of time to movement and some exchanges of swords.

I also like the dramatic view that a wizard is chanting for more than a few seconds to release the forces they have summoned.

Lastly, I find it hard to run situations where a player runs into trouble and calls for help. Using a 6s round, by the time they call for help and the other person could start to organize a relief force the battle is over. Even a long battle of 10 round is over within 1 min.

I voted for the 30s round as I do feel the 1 min round does feel too long. I do though want the feel that players have time to do some moving around, calling for support, or have time to chant out a spell (and be able to have a few seconds to speak a phrase).

BTW: How do you chant a spell and speak some 'free words' to your friends within 6s.

 

[Neonchameleon]

One PDSA cycle. I'm not joking. Apparently most people do move in 5 or 6 second rounds in skirmishes where they have an exchange of blows or take an action, then glance around to see what's going on. This is also my experience in things like reenactment combat.

 

[Harlander]

For those of you unfamiliar with that acronym, it's "Plan-Do-Study-Act", also known as PDCA "Plan-Do-Check-Act", not People's Dispensary for Sick Animals which was the first thing that came to my mind. The time taken to provide medicine for an unwell dog probably isn't a useful measurement in a RPG

Even more apt might be the military phrasing of the concept: OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) cycle. The only trouble is it doesn't define a specific length of time, and a big part of the OODA doctrine as I understand it is to go through the loop faster than your adversary, so they can't react as well.

Interesting stuff, though.

 

[AngryMojo]

I don't bother assigning a specific time length to any given round. Fights and scenes play out as they play out, and after the fight if anybody asks how long it takes I choose a time length based on how long it felt. There's nothing saying you can't abstract the length of a round, I've done it in pretty much every system I've run.

I like the cinematic example [MENTION=65726]Mengu[/MENTION] used, that's pretty much how I work it. As for the movement thing I've always seen baseline landspeeds in RPGs to be pretty abstract to begin with. A 30 ft. walk in a 6 second time is a good baseline for an average human, but that speed varies greatly from person to person. In a race being able to run a six minute mile as opposed to a 6.5 minute mile is a huge difference, but on the battlemat both runners are limited by the same feats/advantages/edges the system allows, and in D&D this typically winds up giving them the same speed. I don't care about the specific number of feet that a given person moves in a round, I care about how quickly they can outpace their foes.

Granted my games have a heavy narrative component to them and I can understand why the simulationists out there like the concrete length of a given combat round. Because this is supposed to be the edition that unites playstyles, how about this for the definition of a round length:

One combat round is an abstract length of time determined by the DM in which a character can perform an allotment of meaningful actions (whatever the action economy is). It is typically about six seconds but may be much longer or shorter if the DM deems it so.

 

[Naszir]

I slightly confused here since the definition of round seems to be shifting.

The way I see it is:

A round is a unit of measure in which all participants have an opportunity to act.

I think in D&D that even though there is a little nod to the fact that everyone is sort of acting at the same time the reality is that everyone gets to take their turn and everyone takes their turn in a certain order. (This is somewhat muddied by Reactions and Immediate Actions).

A turn is each individuals actions. To me 30 seconds sounds about right. (But again this is kind of weird since there is the abstract idea that even though you are going in order that some of the actions of the participants are happening at the same time).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Even more apt might be the military phrasing of the concept: OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) cycle. The only trouble is it doesn't define a specific length of time, and a big part of the OODA doctrine as I understand it is to go through the loop faster than your adversary, so they can't react as well.

Interesting stuff, though.

Hmm... This might lead to an interesting initiative system assuming you have movable initiative tokens.

Your initiative is bounded from 1-20, with getting surprise adding 15 to your initiative roll - initiatives over 20 are taken as surprise rounds (with initiative dropping by 20 for each surprise round - so if you get a total initiative of 43 you get to act twice before the 1-20 scale).

Instead of dropping 20 in initiative each time you act, low level fighters and rogues would drop only 18 or even 15, and high level ones might drop as little as 10 - whereas the high level wizard would still be dropping 18 or 20.

Or would that be too complex. (I'm thinking initiative scales of "Non-combatant" - 25 drop per action, "Average" - 20, "Fast" - 18, "Amazing" - 15, and "Incredible" - 10. And still 6 seconds per round.