My problem with six-second rounds

[blargney the second]

I have a problem with six-second rounds: they always make me feel like I'm running the game too slowly. I know I'm not the fastest DM on the market, but even if a round took less than a minute to accomplish everybody's actions, it would still feel like there was a huge discrepancy between elapsed game time and real time.

My secondary problem with the six-second round is that it subtly discourages dialogue in the middle of combat. Everybody at the table knows how long six seconds lasts, and how much conversation you can fit in there. So I've found in several groups that people keep the banter down in order to maintain a sense of temporal verisimilitude.

In terms of potential solutions, would anything break massively if I changed a round to 10 to 15 seconds?

 

[Henry]

I really can't see a difference, except for spell durations; as long as the players are aware of this and are all OK with it, it shouldn't be a problem otherwise.

 

[IamTheTest]

This is why I like my villians to have at least one level in bard. Bardic Music or Monolouge?

 

[Scribble]

well... some stuff might seem like it's taking outrageously long to do. Something that took 6 seconds now takes effectively 10 seconds etc. Not that it's a huge deal, but it kind of seems like while you've solved the talking in battle problem, you've opened up time issues for other things.

And like Henry said, now a spell that might last 10 rounds ony lasts 6...

 

[buzz]

I have a problem with six-second rounds: they always make me feel like I'm running the game too slowly. I know I'm not the fastest DM on the market, but even if a round took less than a minute to accomplish everybody's actions, it would still feel like there was a huge discrepancy between elapsed game time and real time.

Do you mean that if it takes you, say, 5-10 minutes to go through a round of combat at the table, it makes it feel slow because of the amount of in-game time the round represents?

Hmm... Can't say this has ever bothered me. The only time I care about slowness is when my players are taking too long to decide what theck they're gonna do.

My secondary problem with the six-second round is that it subtly discourages dialogue in the middle of combat. Everybody at the table knows how long six seconds lasts, and how much conversation you can fit in there. So I've found in several groups that people keep the banter down in order to maintain a sense of temporal verisimilitude.

In-game banter or table banter? If we're talking (about talking) in-game, it's a Free Action, so how much chatter the characters can engage in is entirely up to you, the DM. If you want to let them banter, let them banter. That'll have a lot less impact on the game than changing the duration of rounds, IMO. With spell effects, that could have significant impact, especially outside of combat.

Temporal verisimilitude is overrated, especially in D&D combat.

 

[Barak]

I don't see how even spell durations would be affected.

Spells with round/level durations would obviously last just as long, combat-wise, although a bit longer time-wise, but that hardly matters. And the next shortest duration, minute/level would still last longer than all combats. All other spell durations are much longer than any combats anyway, so it wouldn't matter.

 

[Henry]

And the next shortest duration, minute/level would still last longer than all combats. All other spell durations are much longer than any combats anyway, so it wouldn't matter.

Spell cast by a 10th level caster that's 1 minute per level: that's 100 rounds of combat. If monsters in a dungeon complex you're attacking is repelling your attacks in waves, that's 100 rounds of combat.

At 10 seconds per round, that's now 60 rounds - 40% less usage, overall!

Admittedly, it won't matter in most scenarios, where most people cast bull's strength, etc. once per combat, but when you run at 6 rounds a minute, reinforcements arriving in waves become even more plausible; sounds of battle in a complex, the reinforcements come running... they'll arrive in a minute's or two minutes' time, no?

Further, the distance you can move is altered, to 60 ft. in 10 seconds' time. However, this corresponds EXACTLY to the old AD&D movement system of 120 yards in one minutes' time.

Again, not problem-free, but the problems are minor ones. Note Castles and Crusades is already on a 10-second round scheme, with one "turn" equalling a minute, or 6 rounds.

 

[blargney the second]

Note Castles and Crusades is already on a 10-second round scheme, with one "turn" equalling a minute, or 6 rounds.

Works for me!

Btw buzz, I meant in-game banter is subtly discouraged. *Nothing* discourages OOC banter.

 

[DonTadow]

I use ciniematic pauses, which means the pcs can give dialogue in the middle of battle no matter how long it may be. They may even get a bonus for it. Once again I distrubute the advice, make it fun, even if it doesnt make sense... thats the way it works in the movies.

 

[jmucchiello]

You're thinking about D&D too much. That way generally leads to madness. There is no game system where a few minutes of combat takes just a few minutes. Be glad you aren't playing GURPS where the combat time unit is 1 second. My favorite RPG time unit comes from Marvel SuperHeroes. A round of combat equals one comic book panel. If it can be done in one comic panel, it can be done in one round of combat. Simple and very abstract. And I'd also say more "realistic". Once adrenaline starts pumping, you won't know if combat lasted 30 seconds or 50 seconds.