Tired of hearing people hate on longer battle times in strategic RPG's

[giant.robot]

I'm not interested in their opinion of how tactically rich it is. I'm looking for an actual illustration of the ways in which GURPS combat includes tactical thought and a level of decision-making on the same scale as 4e. People can claim anything, and (more importantly) they can also have no idea what tactical depth is. I am genuinely interested in finding out about a system that provides the same level of tactical depth and breadth as 4e while making combats significantly faster.

To expand on my previous GURPS example without just telling you to learn the GURPS combat rules.

Two melee fighters are squared off. Both have broadswords and a chain mail hauberk which protects the torso and groin. One has a thrusting broadsword which does impaling damage rather than thrust damage but both have cutting damage.

Neither character has armor on their limbs or head which make these targets for their opponents. A perfectly valid tactic is to cripple a limb of an opponents, if they can't come after you or attack they're not much of a threat so one of the fighters might try aiming for the opponents limbs. The fighter with the thrusting broadsword with it's impaling damage has a multiplier applied if he can get a solid impaling attack in. Instead of a precisely aimed shot at the vitals or a limb he's fine with a normal attack to the torso.

So one fighter wants to cripple a limb while the other wants to leverage his weapon's capability for a kill shot. While using a feint the limb crippler is particularly successful and decides the next round to do an all out attack because he gets a hefty bonus. The limb crippling is now the old plan and a double attack (to the torso) is the new plan. The impaler decides to pull an all out defense since he fell for the feint.

Now round 2 begins and the limb crippler makes his all out attack doing a double attack. Pressing his luck he does another feint and a cutting attack. He wins the feint again and the impaler now has a stiff penalty on his defense which is partially offset by his all out defense. Unfortunately he doesn't successfully defend and now takes 2d6 damage with his chain mail reducing that by 4 points, unfortunately the cutting damage that makes it past the armor's DR is multiplied by 1.5.

That's an average of 5 damage and the impaler is at half his total HP and this counts as a major wound. He has to roll against his HT score, a failure means he's stunned and takes a -4 penalty to his active defenses and has to pick the Do Nothing action on his next turn and roll against HT again to see if he saves from being stunned. Keep in mind this is only the second round of combat and this guy is a sitting duck. Each fighter had lots of tactical options during the fight and I only outlined a few of them. Each had to adjust their tactics based on the outcome of a single round of combat.

GURPS combat is deadly and often doesn't last too long in terms of the number of rounds but as I've said before there's tons of options. In 4E there's no real mechanics for crippling an opponents limb or just going for a head shot. You hope for your 5% chance to score a critical hit which gets hand waved as "a strong blow to the head". In GURPS you can just make a called shot on someone's neck and go all Highlander on them. Cutting damage is doubled on a neck attack and it's rarely armored.

 

[invokethehojo]

To expand on my previous GURPS example without just telling you to learn the GURPS combat rules.

Two melee fighters are squared off. Both have broadswords and a chain mail hauberk which protects the torso and groin. One has a thrusting broadsword which does impaling damage rather than thrust damage but both have cutting damage.

Neither character has armor on their limbs or head which make these targets for their opponents. A perfectly valid tactic is to cripple a limb of an opponents, if they can't come after you or attack they're not much of a threat so one of the fighters might try aiming for the opponents limbs. The fighter with the thrusting broadsword with it's impaling damage has a multiplier applied if he can get a solid impaling attack in. Instead of a precisely aimed shot at the vitals or a limb he's fine with a normal attack to the torso.

So one fighter wants to cripple a limb while the other wants to leverage his weapon's capability for a kill shot. While using a feint the limb crippler is particularly successful and decides the next round to do an all out attack because he gets a hefty bonus. The limb crippling is now the old plan and a double attack (to the torso) is the new plan. The impaler decides to pull an all out defense since he fell for the feint.

Now round 2 begins and the limb crippler makes his all out attack doing a double attack. Pressing his luck he does another feint and a cutting attack. He wins the feint again and the impaler now has a stiff penalty on his defense which is partially offset by his all out defense. Unfortunately he doesn't successfully defend and now takes 2d6 damage with his chain mail reducing that by 4 points, unfortunately the cutting damage that makes it past the armor's DR is multiplied by 1.5.

That's an average of 5 damage and the impaler is at half his total HP and this counts as a major wound. He has to roll against his HT score, a failure means he's stunned and takes a -4 penalty to his active defenses and has to pick the Do Nothing action on his next turn and roll against HT again to see if he saves from being stunned. Keep in mind this is only the second round of combat and this guy is a sitting duck. Each fighter had lots of tactical options during the fight and I only outlined a few of them. Each had to adjust their tactics based on the outcome of a single round of combat.

GURPS combat is deadly and often doesn't last too long in terms of the number of rounds but as I've said before there's tons of options. In 4E there's no real mechanics for crippling an opponents limb or just going for a head shot. You hope for your 5% chance to score a critical hit which gets hand waved as "a strong blow to the head". In GURPS you can just make a called shot on someone's neck and go all Highlander on them. Cutting damage is doubled on a neck attack and it's rarely armored.

Since this thread is headed off topic anyway why not just go all the way. I have always wanted to play GURPS, but when I read the PDF a few years ago I decided that it wouldn't be worth it unless I had someone who knew the game well to teach me. Just the sheer number of options in the main book for making a character was staggering, and after hearing your description of combat... how do you do it? I mean it sounds awesome, very realistic, which is something I like, but until you are a seasoned veteran with all those rules memorized how is the game manageable or fun? The fact that combat will only last a few round might make it easier, but I just see each persons turn devolving into a nightmare of page flipping and error checking and "How does that work?" questions.

 

[giant.robot]

Since this thread is headed off topic anyway why not just go all the way. I have always wanted to play GURPS, but when I read the PDF a few years ago I decided that it wouldn't be worth it unless I had someone who knew the game well to teach me. Just the sheer number of options in the main book for making a character was staggering, and after hearing your description of combat... how do you do it? I mean it sounds awesome, very realistic, which is something I like, but until you are a seasoned veteran with all those rules memorized how is the game manageable or fun? The fact that combat will only last a few round might make it easier, but I just see each persons turn devolving into a nightmare of page flipping and error checking and "How does that work?" questions.

GURPS can take a bit of work getting into because it's not a particular setting of themed game but instead a toolkit for running games. So you've got a ton if options but not all of them are germane to all games you might want to play. The Magery advantage might not be accessible in your gritty noir mystery or space opera game.

To get into it I think the best strategy is get a couple of people that are interested in playing and go through and collaboratively build your characters. Have everyone come up with their character concepts and then scour the advantages/disadvantages and skills tables for named elements that match the concept. You've got a point budget so taking a disadvantage can free up some points to take a few extra skills or an advantage.

This process will eat a game session but once you've got a character written the actual mechanics of the game are simple. Things I described in the above combat are just details contained in tables. They're not much more complicated than 4E's combat conditions (combat advantage, status effects, etc) and become something you internalize when you use them. You will likely spend the first few sessions flipping through the rulebooks, I like the PDFs for this reason, but you'd have to do that with just about any new RPG.

The sheer number of traits in GURPS can be really daunting and the Basic Set does a poor job helping you pick appropriate ones. I think the opinion of the GURPS writers is there's no "wrong" way to play so as long as the people in your group don't have a problem with your character there's no "wrong" way to build one. They also have a lot of supplements available (if you want a dungeon fantasy game there's a series of supplements helpfully titled Dungeon Fantasy) with templates that can help you build a character. Your GURPS game doesn't have to look like anyone else's game so it's ok if your character are overpowered compared to the ones in my game.

Sorry for the derail mods, we can split this tangent off into a new thread if people want to keep talking about it.

 

[Mark CMG]

Tired of hearing people hate on longer battle times in strategic RPG's


Something that pops up on these boards a lot seems to be the argument, "back in the day (. . .)

I like options in combat, and I like playing martial characters that fight in a strategic way, so I like the modern RPG's that do this. (. . .)

What I find surprising is that most games have evolved their rules over the years to make combat more strategic (and therefore longer) (. . .)

Lengthy combats that are exciting are not a problem for me. It really isn't important to me how I spend my gaming time as long as I'm enjoying myself, and I enjoy myself a lot in combat encounters.

This is really a playstyle thing. Some groups are not tactical, and combats advance the plot (and tend to be very sparse to boot) while on the other end of the spectrum, people like intricate, tactical combats.

Both are good way to play and have strengths and such.

But yes, this is a common facet of edition warring.

Sure you can keep all the options while reducing combat time.

The complaint is not the length of combat - it's the grindyness of it. (. . .)

Sone of us prefer them shorter, especially those of us who only get to game 3-4 hours per week. We'd like to get some decent plot development and roleplaying in, as well as a fight or two, but uf the fights are taking two hours each that becomes much harder.

See: GURPS.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay v3 would beg to differ.

I disagree. I ran a homebrewed system last weekend with an encounter with 10 kobolds against (IIRC) 6 pcs. It was tactical and very fast- the whole thing was over in less than half an hour, maybe closer to 10 minutes.

I'm finding it interesting that so many people are disagreeing with the notion that more strategy = longer combats. This should follow logically: the more decisions there are (. . .)

Responding to this with "I disagree, GURPS/WHFRPG/my homebrew system includes tons of strategy without increasing the time combat takes," makes me very skeptical, and leads me to ask, "How, exactly?"

To expand on (. . .) previous GURPS example without just telling you to learn the GURPS combat rules.

Two melee fighters (. . .)

Neither character has armor on their (. . .)

So one fighter wants (. . .)

Now round 2 begins and (. . .)

That's an average of (. . .) Each fighter had lots of tactical options during the fight and I only outlined a few of them. Each had to adjust their tactics based on the outcome of a single round of combat.

GURPS combat is deadly and often doesn't last too long in terms of the number of rounds but as I've said before there's tons of options. In 4E there's no real mechanics for crippling an opponents limb or just going for a head shot. You hope for your 5% chance to score a critical hit which gets hand waved as "a strong blow to the head". In GURPS you can just make a called shot on someone's neck and go all Highlander on them. Cutting damage is doubled on a neck attack and it's rarely armored.

Since this thread is headed off topic anyway why not just go all the way. I have always wanted to play GURPS, but when I read the PDF a few years ago I decided that it wouldn't be worth it unless I had someone who knew the game well to teach me. Just the sheer number of options in the main book for making a character was staggering, and after hearing your description of combat... how do you do it? I mean it sounds awesome, very realistic, which is something I like, but until you are a seasoned veteran with all those rules memorized how is the game manageable or fun? The fact that combat will only last a few round might make it easier, but I just see each persons turn devolving into a nightmare of page flipping and error checking and "How does that work?" questions.

Tired of hearing people hate on longer battle times in strategic RPG's

(. . .)

What I find surprising is that most games have evolved their rules over the years to make combat more strategic (and therefore longer) (. . .)

The thread seems to have stayed on target but is discussing an older FRPG with complex tactical combat that doesn't take long to play out for someone who knows the rules. But now you are putting the "hate on" it by saying that it sounds too complex and would take a long time (despite the relatively few number of combat rounds) because those who don't know the rules would need to learn them or look them up during the game. It's as if it is okay for a simple-but-appears-complex system that someone understands to have built in grindyness that takes a long time to play but not okay for a complex-but-simple-once-someone-learns-it system to only be long in play until it is played a few times and learned.

GURPS can take a bit of work getting into (. . .)

Sorry for the derail mods, we can split this tangent off into a new thread if people want to keep talking about it.

Unless the OP was only concerned with what people thought about a single (implied) system, I don't see how the thread has derailed in the slightest.

I will further add that the primary elements that set systems apart from one another in terms of complexity during play and/or length of time to play and/or length of time to adjudicate/implement game rules during play fall into several categories: ease of interface (character sheet/table tools [props]), rules mastery [and expected level of same], and commitment/time of players [GM-inclusive]. The lest two are related in some ways but bear enough discreet differences to warrant separate notation. So, I would suggest that the differences in the systems being discussed vary primarily due to design elements. I think modern RPGs have come a long way in terms of layout and presentation but that it is the design goals that result in the phenomenon of "grindyness" that so many seem to dislike.

 

[WizarDru]

My experiences, FWIW, entail from Basic to AD&D to GURPS (for 15 years!) to 3E to 4E as my primary systems. A common thread has existed through all of them: combats generally take the amount of time they take based as much on the players as the options available.

In A&D, there apparently were tons of options. I say 'apparently' because my groups never used many of these rules that apparently were in the game. That melee facing stuff listed up on page 2/3? I vaguely remember seeing it somewhere (the DMG, maybe?) but we never did that. We still enjoyed rich tactical options, though...because there were few rules we did use, the DMs usually improvised when necessary. Sure, you straight up stabbed a dude in every edition and certainly in Basic and AD&D...but you also sometimes tried to trip him, knock his sword away or activate the pearl that turned you into a half-demon and dived head-first onto the back of a rampaging purple worm and drove your bloodthirsty intelligent sword under it's plating in hopes of killing it.

...or maybe that last one was just me. Moving on.

My point is that IME, the length of combats was at least partially dictated by circumstances of the combat, player knowledge of the rules and then finally rules complexity, but that increased specifically detailed tactical options did not, in and off themselves, necessarily breed longer or slower combats.

The longest combat I've ever played in my entire gaming life was the climactic battle at the end of the Forge of Fury. The party entered the dragon's lair and then proceeded to engage him...FOR EIGHT HOURS. It was our first dragon combat under 3E (Sunless Citadel's pathetic pet dragon didn't count, IMHO). Was it long? No doubt. But players still remember it as Epic and Engaging and not a little bit Legendary. It's length had more to do with each person parsing his options Very Very Carefully and checking rules, deciding what to do and discussing how to coordinate with each other.

A couple of years later, we ran a combat where the players (now Epic) engaged an entire Githyanki Invasion Force numbering in the hundreds, including astral marauders, gish, dragon knights and undead abominations sent by Vlakith herself...and it only took about two and half hours. Because by that time we'd been playing 3E for nearly five years and everyone was very comfortable with the rules and their roles, despite having far more tactical options in their hands.

This was true for my groups and I for AD&D and 3E, it was true for us for GURPS and it remains true for 4E. Increased options can certainly slow a game down, especially if a player is unfamiliar with the rules or choices...but it isn't necessarily a given or a 1:1 correlation, IMHO.

 

[Lordhawkins9]

I guess I'm in the same boat with those that don't think 4E is more tactical.

A 4E mid-level fighter might have 10+ different powers available in an encounter, but it's basically 10+ different ways to do the same thing...damage + (move opponent or keep opponent locked up).

Older version, that fighter decides to attack (damage), Bull Rush (move opponent), or Grapple (keep opponent locked up).

The only real difference is the 4E player takes time looking at each and every power trying to decide which to use, while the other player looks at the battlefield and decides what NEEDS to be done.

Just because you use a power that pushes an opponent back 1 square doesn't make it a tactical move.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Just because you use a power that pushes an opponent back 1 square doesn't make it a tactical move.

Inasumuch as 1 square of movement doesn't make much of a difference, I'd agree with you.

But when forcing your opponent to move 1 square can make it so he can no longer reach an ally, or perfectly positions him for an ally's area attack, etc., then it would be a tactical move.

 

[giant.robot]

Inasumuch as 1 square of movement doesn't make much of a difference, I'd agree with you.

But when forcing your opponent to move 1 square can make it so he can no longer reach an ally, or perfectly positions him for an ally's area attack, etc., then it would be a tactical move.

From last night's Encounters game with my Hunter. Our Fighter with his Defender Aura activated had positioned himself so all of the enemies were clustered around him. He was taking a pounding but his position allowed the rest of us to make our attacks with impunity. One of the dwarf vengeance spirits finally hit him with an attack that knocked him back a square.

Unfortunately this reposition meant the Fighter's 1 square aura no longer affected any of the monsters. The position of our Fighter was supremely important tactically since the area of effect of the aura informed our actions. Getting enemies back into the Fighter's aura was my top concern so I used Clever Shot to slide the enemies until the Fighter could move back into place.

 

[Dannager]

A 4E mid-level fighter might have 10+ different powers available in an encounter, but it's basically 10+ different ways to do the same thing...damage + (move opponent or keep opponent locked up).

Or provide a bonus to allies, or heal himself, or provide himself with temporary hit points, or give himself a damaging aura, or shift across the battlefield, or...

Yeah, no, the whole "Yeah, but fighter powers are all the same," argument doesn't really hold water now, and never really did.

Older version, that fighter decides to attack (damage), Bull Rush (move opponent), or Grapple (keep opponent locked up).

Yep, attack, bull rush, sunder, trip, grapple, and realistically only one or two of those, since he needs specific training to do anything effectively aside from just attacking.

Not exactly a tactical powerhouse.

The only real difference is the 4E player takes time looking at each and every power trying to decide which to use, while the other player looks at the battlefield and decides what NEEDS to be done.

A smart 4e player is looking at each of his powers and deciding which to use while he sizes up the battlefield and decides what needs to be done. Tactics in 4e don't neglect the battlefield. In fact, they emphasize it.

Just because you use a power that pushes an opponent back 1 square doesn't make it a tactical move.

It doesn't mean it isn't, either. Just like everything.

 

[Victim]

I guess I'm in the same boat with those that don't think 4E is more tactical.

A 4E mid-level fighter might have 10+ different powers available in an encounter, but it's basically 10+ different ways to do the same thing...damage + (move opponent or keep opponent locked up).

Older version, that fighter decides to attack (damage), Bull Rush (move opponent), or Grapple (keep opponent locked up).

The only real difference is the 4E player takes time looking at each and every power trying to decide which to use, while the other player looks at the battlefield and decides what NEEDS to be done.

Just because you use a power that pushes an opponent back 1 square doesn't make it a tactical move.

At least in our group's experiences, Fighters tended to be on the receiving end of bullrush, grapple, and sunder more often than they could effectively use those combat options.

As has been mentioned, it took some special feats not to completely suck at those strategies. And, even then, the stat mods on monsters along with size modifiers tended place PCs using those maneuvers at a disadvantage without extreme specialization. Finally, those maneuvers took the place of other attacks, so the opportunity cost was significant.

That's why Tripping was one of the best special maneuvers. It was relatively low risk, fewer modifiers applied so +4 from Improved Trip was a much bigger relative advantage on the opposed roll, and it could actually improve overall damage. You give up one attack to trip, and then the tripper personally can get back 2 attacks - one from improved trip, one from an AoO when they stand - as well as possibly improving other attacks in a full attack via the plus 4 prone bonus AND granting allies attacks. It's an annoying condition AND damage at the same time.