Long Combats are Bad

[LostSoul]

LostSoul: How quick is your system? It looks promising as a mid-weight system (between the heavy weight approach of standard 4e resolution and a light system like the one I was proposing). But I don't have a sense of how long it takes a group of 5 or 6 PCs to take on a normal encounter using that system--10 minutes? Half an hour?

I was planning on timing it but alas. The last combat we ran was a pretty major one, with 3 PCs + 2 Henchman + 4 Hirelings vs. 3 Human Berserkers + 2 Guard Drakes. I think it took 20-30 minutes? Maybe longer.

The one before that took about 45 minutes - 2 PCs + 1 Henchman + 4 Hirelings vs. 4 human crossbowmen, 4 human bandits, 2 human guards, 1 human noble, 1 half-elf bandit captain.

It's not as fast as I would have liked, but most of the time spent is on the "describe your actions" phase and I'm okay with that since it focuses on the game world. We still have to get familiar with the system, iron out problems, etc. Playtesting stage!

One other design goal was to have high-level PCs blow through low-level combats in a few minutes. If you look at the numbers a 7+ level PC can one-shot-kill monsters of levels 1 through 3. That means I can have a low-level encounter with some goblins and not have to worry about it taking too long. (Well, I'm hoping that's what it means!)

I'm also planning on using the same system for scaled-up conflicts - where there are dozens of creatures on the field. I have some minor modifications to that, but I've not tested it out. Maybe soon, if the PCs amass a small company-sized army to take out a gnoll lair (of 50-60 gnolls).

 

[Lanefan]

Lanefan: You're totally right on general principle, but the gaming group I play with has different players attending each session, as well as sometimes having long gaps between sessions.

Non-repeating different players? In that case yes, continuity goes out the window: I can't imagine trying to run an ongoing campaign like that.

But if it's the same ones cycling in and out - e.g. you have 8 continuing players in your game of which a random 5 might attend any given session - then you can still have continuity. Just make sure the non-attending players know up front that their PCs *will* be in the party and are at the mercy of the players who do show up, then let the attending players take them over for that session to run along with their own; and carry on with the adventure.

And if the players balk, it's down to them to show up for the game.

Lan-"we call them QPCs, or Quasi-Player Characters"-efan

 

[Umbran]

Because fights and related resource management are the keystone to the the D&D ruleset.

Again, resource management.

So, let me get this straight -

You have an encounter you *know* will be boring, but takes some resources. You have two basic choices here: you can look for a new mechanic that allows you to keep the uninteresting encounter, or you could replace the encounter with something interesting that also uses resources.

Do you see why I find the "resource management" argument to be weak? Sure, resource management is part of the game, but last time I checked, you don't have to be uninteresting to use resources!

Wading through dozens of mooks before getting to the BBEG might not be as entertaining as the BBEG battle, but at the design level the mooks still have a job to do: tenderize the PCs so they're nice and chewy when they get to the BBEG.

If all the mooks are there to do is tenderize the PCs relative to the BBEG, then you can achieve the same result by using a tougher BBEG. The mooks can be used to serve two masters at once, but not if you're only viewing them as a resource-suck.

Also, there's the realism aspect to consider. Sure, some BBEGs are loners or only have a very few companions - most dragons, for instance, are like this - but if you're a BBEG planning to take over the world (in any genre) you're first going to surround yourself with an army of mooks as a defense.

Two words: Tucker's Kobolds.

You speak as if mooks need to be presented in plain "slog through a sea of us manner". Arrange those mooks in interesting, dynamic terrain, surrounding another tactical objective other than the mooks themselves, and suddenly the mooks aren't just a softening agent.

 

[Asmor]

I've been meaning to make a system like this for a while, so thanks for the impetus to do so.

Here's my solution. Skirmishes.

It's kind of inspired by skill challenges. The idea is to give a small taste of combat, with some small amount of tactical decision making, and ultimately to leave the players with a bit fewer healing surges.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You have an encounter you *know* will be boring, but takes some resources. You have two basic choices here: you can look for a new mechanic that allows you to keep the uninteresting encounter, or you could replace the encounter with something interesting that also uses resources.

Do you see why I find the "resource management" argument to be weak? Sure, resource management is part of the game, but last time I checked, you don't have to be uninteresting to use resources!

I'm currently mucking about trying to figure out the place of "normal" combats in FFZ. I don't want to have dull "process" combats, but, in the genre, I need to have more than JUST boss combats. Normal monsters have a place, but FFZ has no effective "resource management" minigame, because there's nothing the party can't get back with the right items/job abilities. The normal combats need to have some effect on the party, but I'm not sure what.

Right now I'm sitting at "normal combats determine how hard the boss is," but I'm kind of struggling wrapping my brain around how, mechanically and story-wise, that happens.

 

[Reynard]

First, to answer Umbran: It isn't that we know Fight X is going to be boring, it's that we know that some fights end up not being worth their time investment in fun -- that isn't to say they are completely boring, but rather that they'd be more fun if they we shorter. More importantly, we often don't know which fights those will be. Although many folks in this thread are advocating truncating the minion battles and doing the boss battles full on, I don't -- not least because sometimes there isn't a "boss battle" in the first place. If the PCs are hexploring or dungeon delving, their battles aren't going to be part of a narrativist rising action -- they are going to be encounters, random and otherwise, that are part of the setting. The idea of the "adventure" as a "plot" with a "villain" is only one way to play, and not one I am particularly fond of using all the time.

No matter when a more streamlined or abstract combat system might be used, the bugbear does seem to be keeping the resource management impact roughly equivalent with a full on battle, including the possibility of expending more or fewer resources than intended or expected. Perhaps something like this (and I am going to use Pathfinder as an example, but that doesn't mean you couldn't do something similar in 4E or whatever):

Each player, in turn, spends a "resource" in order to make a Combat roll. The resource is based on both the character and the chosen tactic. A wizard might expend a fireball while a fighter time expends hit points. Once the expense is made, the character rolls and either chalks up a "victory point" or suffers a Loss (probably hit points, but the exact circumstances might change this). Characters can forgo their own Combat rolls to support other PCs or mitigate Losses (like a Cleric expending a healing spell). Once enough Victory points are gathered, the battle is won. This should allow for some variable tactics on the players' part, but shouldn't take nearly as long as turn by turn, square by square combat.

 

[Reynard]

As an aside, I had an interesting thing happen at my game related to too long combats:

The PCs encountered an elasmosaurus in a watery cave (from the Kingmaker module Varnhold Vanishing) and once combat was joined it the party set up their tactics in such a way as to turn the thing into a giant sack of hit points that did not threaten them at all. I told them so and suggested we just fast forward to two or three rounds it would take to kill the thing. Strangely, they kept on going step by step, round by round: the necromancer wanted the hit points from a Vampiric Touch spell and other players just followed on with normal attack and damage rolls. Now, even though it was kind of a drag, an interesting thing emerged from that situation: I tend to ham it up as a GM, even with a mindless monster as it gets whittled down then tries to escape and is finally killed while squeezing through an escape tunnel. The druid player, who is relatively new to the game and role-playing in particular, ended up quite cross with another PC (played by her real life boyfriend) for murdering the thing when it just wanted to escape. And they ended up blocking one of their own avenues of exit should they need it.

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

Reynard--even in a sandbox/hexploration game, I can usually tell what the "bigger" fights are. My rule of thumb would be: if the fight is one where the PCs are low on resources, or is a fight with a monster/set of monsters that are tougher than average, or is with a monster that the PCs have deliberately targeted, or is with the chieftain of a group of monsters, that's a big fight, and worth playing out in detail. If it's with weak monsters, relative to the norm for the area/for what the PCs are taking on, and the PCs are high on resources, that's a good candidate for a faster, streamlined approach. Ultimately, switching back and forth between combat resolution systems is inherently based on judgments about pacing, drama, and story, whether the story is a carefully plotted in advance or whether it's emergent from how the PCs interact with the setting. "This is a fun time for a full fight" necessarily involves metagame considerations. But it can still be done in a sandbox/simulationist/exploration game.

Could you say more about why you would choose to fastforward through a big tough fight but focus on a less dangerous fight? Typically, that seems like it would be a mistake to me, although I could see focusing on a particularly interesting small fight. You mentioned an analogy to the sequence in the Mines of Moria, but (leaving aside the fact that a book/movie isn't the same as an RPG), I would analyze that in terms of who the PCs are. The protagonists (i.e. the PCs) in the Lord of the Rings are the members of the Fellowship of the Ring, and maybe even just the hobbits. The reason that the Tomb of Balin is a focus of attention is because the hobbits are in the thick of it. The reason that the fight with the Balrog is scary but short is because two major mythic forces are battling while the protagonists try to escape.

 

[Afrodyte]

I can see where the OP is coming from. As a player, I often hate combat because more time is being spent with refereeing than with the PCs doing cool stuff. This is even the case for a skirmish or major combat. So when I GM, there are a few things I do to make it more interesting.

First, I hand the reins over to players when they roll successfully. They describe how their hit and damage rolls manifest in the game. This makes things a lot of fun for them.

Second, I encourage creativity by not penalizing it. In fact, I often reward it. The old knee to the groin, especially when the target doesn't see it coming, doesn't just result in a measly 2 points of damage, but perhaps a daze or stun as well.

Third, I make all encounters abstract and base it off the skill challenge system. I've done some heavy tweaking to 4e to allow for greater flexibility.

All in all, my goal as a GM is not to beat the players (their characters are a different story), but to make life more interesting (in the "May you live in interesting times" sort of way).

 

[Lanefan]

As an aside, I had an interesting thing happen at my game related to too long combats:

The PCs encountered an elasmosaurus in a watery cave (from the Kingmaker module Varnhold Vanishing) and once combat was joined it the party set up their tactics in such a way as to turn the thing into a giant sack of hit points that did not threaten them at all. I told them so and suggested we just fast forward to two or three rounds it would take to kill the thing. Strangely, they kept on going step by step, round by round: the necromancer wanted the hit points from a Vampiric Touch spell and other players just followed on with normal attack and damage rolls.

Reading this, it also just occurred to me that playing out the fight - any fight - becomes more relevant if you have a fumble system where weapons and gear can potentially get broken or destroyed.

Now, even though it was kind of a drag, an interesting thing emerged from that situation: I tend to ham it up as a GM, even with a mindless monster as it gets whittled down then tries to escape and is finally killed while squeezing through an escape tunnel. The druid player, who is relatively new to the game and role-playing in particular, ended up quite cross with another PC (played by her real life boyfriend) for murdering the thing when it just wanted to escape. And they ended up blocking one of their own avenues of exit should they need it.

Nicely done all round!

Lan-"as easy as shooting fish in a barrel"-efan