Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TreChriron" data-source="post: 9730649" data-attributes="member: 5046">You don't need to spend a round just to talk. It is suggested you limit the length in "realistic" games. It has never come up at my table. I just let people scream at each other during the frenzy. You don't need to remain in 1-seond rounds for a whole combat. The rules provide advice on how you might "zoom out" when people are repositioning, taking cover, or sneaking away (just like [USER=58416]@Argyle King[/USER] says they are inclined to do). You go back into rounds when you confront one another, or someone takes a shot. It's meant to be a mechanism to order combat, not a precise time-keeping tool.Frankly, you could just run GURPS combat in speed order and not worry about the time a round takes. The benefit of GURPS combat rounds and active defense rolls is keeping people engaged outside their turn. I want the combat to be frantic. I want things to keep moving so people aren't watching others play for too long. I also feel (if you keep it moving at a brisk pace) that it lends to making combat "stressful". I believe the goal of one-second rounds was to keep play frenetic and precise. You could easily steal a page from d20, go to two-second combat rounds, limiting the first action to movement-only, and restricting the order of movement actions. Or go the PF2e route, but with two-second rounds, limiting one to a movement action, taken in any order. It will allow those who are faster to likely close and strike first, but I don't see it being so impactful that it would "break the game." (In the any order option, you might want to have a contest of skills to disengage from an enemy you just attacked.)</blockquote>

Verification