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

[nedjer]

I'm equally tired of having RPGs, (open-ended, guideline structured, collaborative gaming), re-badged as Napoleonic wargaming with dragons, (closed loop, anal rules and gloves off).

 

[ExploderWizard]

What you describe is one level out from where I'm talking. GURPS Tactics generally are in setting up the fight rather than within the fight itself.

How so? A GURPS fighter has lots of options during the actual fight. All out attack in exchange for giving up defense, chosing a hit location to try and inflict a specific wound, thrust or swing depending upon the desired effect of the attack, etc.

And I dislike this. Because it leads to "Knuckles-23 just got arbitrarily killed. Oh well. Here's Knuckles-24". If I've invested into a character, I don't like them getting wiped out at random. It makes me feel robbed - whereas if I fell because things broke badly despite being significantly in my control I don't mind it. AD&D fights feel too much like Russian Roulette to me.

It completely depends on the style of game you want to run. If you force AD&D characters through a string of set-piece battles then they will most likely die off. One shouldn't get too invested in a character playing in a meatgrinder game in any edition.

 

[invokethehojo]

Also, I find fault with the idea that more tactical options = more time. I see no reason why adding player options suddenly turns what was a originally a 5 minute fighting into an hour long grindfest.

I doesn't have to turn it that way, but I find it often does. I would love to have a group of people that are well versed in the game rules and pay close attention 100% of the time, so when their turn comes up they fire off their actions quickly... but I don't get that. Most groups I play with have 1 or 2 guys like that, and then a few people who, when their turn comes up, go, "ok, what can I do". I would have to venture that most groups are like this.

It's not bad yet, but with a thread title like "Tired of hearing people hate longer battle times in strategic RPGs" I think it's all best if we are careful this doesn't turn into people flaming each other. Especially after the last "Tired of..." thread in Game Theory getting locked.
Let's keep it productive

Sorry about that, I started the thread while at work, so I didn't take the time to edit my thoughts. I would have phrased things better if I had.

The issue here is that people are using excess amounts of grindy monsters, which is a matter of adventure design.

The other monsters I find boring are the ones that require a setup condition to do their thing: most of the time my players never see the end result because the conditions needed for the setup + finisher are complex enough that they never happen. From the players point of view the monster just looks like a bag of hitpoints with little offensive capability except for annoying status effects (which are usually the required setup).

This is what I was getting at. A lot can be said about system design and combat length and rules, and no one can really come to an agreement on those topics, but I do think that an agreement can be made that when a game's rule system evolves, so should it's encounter/adventure design model. I would argue that the "dungeon crawl" (mostly meaning combat after combat) is a sacred cow that is kept around only because it is a comfortable cliche, however it no longer works. Monster design is similar. Designers (from system creators to homebrew adventure writers) need to look at each facet of their creation and justify how it serves to make the whole better. If it doesn't then change it.

[/QUOTE]
Could you sort of break this down better for me? Maybe I'm just stupid today, but you seem to have some things all sorta mixed willy-nilly and it's hard for me to parse them in light of your aggressive post title.[/QUOTE]

My main point, which I didn't phrase very well, is this: I don't believe that, when most people complain about "long combat times" they really dislike combats taking longer because of rules evlolution. I believe that what really bothers them is the fact that most adventures still involve lots of essentially meaningless combats strung together. So the complaint should really be, "as the rules have changed, why haven't gamers changed how they design encounters/adventures to keep up with them". We can't change the rules, but we can change how adventures are written, so if that is indeed the problem, we can fix it, by writing our home adventures differently, or by not buying combat-slog published adventures so publishers have to adapt.

What makes me sad is when an adventure is built as a series of combats. We've seen that a lot recently, and even the review style has changed to fit this paradigm shift in adventure writing.

I find this problem in adventures and in movies. I think large companies view americans and stupid, so they write a few action sequences and then connect those dots with the barest amount of story possible and call it a blockbuster. It may make them money, but I think the argument can be made that adventures and movies both make more money if they are memorable, and while action is cool, a cool story to serve as a motivation for that action is much more memorable in the long run.

 

[jimmifett]

From my experience, it's not the amount of options, it's the players themselves that make combat longer. My wife and I are both done with our turns in under a minute while describing the action we are doing so it's not just a board game. Regardless of class. Maybe 2 minutes the first couple turns with a new character to find their groove. Other ppl slow down the game deciding what to do becuase they weren't paying attention, are indecisive, or something else. I just walked out of a game after waiting 45 minutes in the last encounter for my turn to come around. These are ppl I like playing with, so I was as polite as I could be about it, but I was done. The DM, handed a module at the last minute to fill in for another, tried, but skipped all the RP and wasn't familiar with the combats in the mod. With out the story, it felt like a grind that was stuck. My head was drooping, the soda wasn't helping, i gave up entertaining myself with my phone, I was falling asleep. Next session I DM, i'm bringing a timer. One minute per turn, paused for interrupts, interrupting player gets 30 seconds. I'm taking away hit point tracking from the players, using tent cards with hangovers to indicate health NWN style. I can do math in my head faster than they can use their calculators. Combats do not have to be this long. I play in encounters groups full of 4e newbies that are quick with the rolls and the dialogue.

 

[Talok]

Something that pops up on these boards a lot seems to be the argument, "back in the day we could have 5 fights and plenty of roleplaying in a 4 hour session, now we have time for like a fight or two and we are done." This, to me, is getting very old. Recently we went back and played a session like "back in the day" and I found it boring. Most characters back then didn't use spells, so they didn't have a lot of options in combat, hence combat was short.

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. I do agree that fights take longer than I would love, but it simply isn't possible to have a high level of strategy in combat and not have that combat take a significant amount of time.

What I find surprising is that most games have evolved their rules over the years to make combat more strategic (and therefore longer) but have kept the old adventure format where there is one combat strung up after another. If combats take longer but are more fun, that is great, that means we don't need to fight a bunch of mini-resource-dwindling combats to lead up to the combat that will actually be cool, instead we can just have one or two cool combats per session and have the rest of the time be for more RP. But it seems like the published adventures as well as home made ones both still stick to the old format.

So what is it that people don't like here: longer combats, or just too many combats now that they take longer? Do we need to adapt, or does the game need to take a step back in time?

Options are good. Strategic combats are good. They are not so good when they mean it takes an hour and a half to take out 5 measly kobolds like it does in 4E. Of course, the massive hit point bloat of 4E monsters is probably more to blame for this than anything else.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Oh? Let's test that. List all the choices a 1e character has to make during a typical turn. For simplicity's sake, let's use 1st level Fighters.

In 4e, the tactical choices a 1st level Fighter must make are as follows:

Okay, I'll bite.

Moving on your turn?

This is actually a more tactical decision in 1E. You must choose to move ahead of time, you don't have the luxury of simply reacting to your opponent. You also cannot simply move where you wish, as you can't move and attack in the same round (sans charge).

Double moving on your turn?
Are you running?

Double move is already factored into the 1E movement rate. The base speed is 12 which is the the 3e running speed for those without the run feat. It's 3 times that outdoors. If you REALLY need to doubletime it, you can use the fleeing rule which increases movement by a factor of 10.

Where are you moving to? (bearing in mind that every individual square bears tactical significance, something that is not true of most previous editions of the game)[/QUOTE

I don't see how the edition matters in this respect. Any square can be trapped, enspelled, hazardous, etc.

Will your movement provoke opportunity attacks?

Unless you are fleeing, no. I'll grant this might have SOME tactical significance, but it's one I don't miss.

Are you shifting?

This doesn't apply to 1E, so you win this one as well.

Is your movement occurring before or after your standard action, if you are taking one?

Neither. You must make the tactical decision to either attack or move, which makes it a much bigger decision in 1E.

Will you be attacking?
If so, attacking whom? (bearing in mind that your average 4e encounter includes roughly 5 monsters, sometimes more, sometimes less, and you need to consider not only the damage you will be dealing, but additional effects and how your mark will affect things)

Again, this is no different in 1E, other than the aggro mechanic.

With which of your attack powers (of which you will typically have between 4 and 6 to choose between)?

I pity anyone limited by the "powers" on their character sheet regardless of edition.

If this is a Close or Area power, how will you place the area of effect?

This is no different than 4e, with the exception that aoe spells are much more dangerous. Fireballs fill to volume and lightning bolts bounce.

If there is an additional decision to be made as part of your attack power (forced movement, for example), how will you handle that? (again, bearing in mind that each individual square on the battlefield has tactical significance)
If you are not attacking, will you be using your Second Wind?
Will you be taking a minor action?
If so, at what point during your turn will you be using it?
What will your minor action be? A potion? A racial power? Some other action?

In 1e, you are not limited to one action per round. You can drink a potion and still attack. You can do pretty much anything that is not an attack or move in addition to an attack or move. Each action takes time, so you may or may not finish it in one round. You can, for example, drink a potion and still attack.

I'm sure I'm forgetting quite a few.

As am I.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Indeed, you are forgetting a few JRRT. For example, in 1e it is possible for your movement to provoke an attack of opportunity....It is even possible for your attack to do so (as occurs in the DMG example!). What is not possible is to memorize a list so that you know when such attacks may be provoked, requiring you to think tactically about the fictional environment (and the way the table tends to interpret the same) rather than the ruleset.


RC

 

[Lanefan]

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." - Sun-Tzu

This brings up another variable: the time spent pre-planning.

I could be wrong, but from what I can tell old-school combats are seen as shorter largely because the PCs plan ahead of time (either by having a series of SOPs or by planning for each individual fight) and then go in and get on with it; and the pre-planning time isn't being factored in. In other words, we're only comparing the time spent actually rolling dice, which in 3e-4e is much longer without question.

In other words: where once most of the strategizing came before the fight, now it mostly comes within it.

That said, each group and-or DM has a choice: fast and swingy (and thus PC-lethal) or slow and non-swingy (and thus safer for the PCs). 4e has really gone for the non-swingy model; and though there's ways to fix that (Morrus above suggested a few) there also seems to be an unfortunate and growing sentiment that game rules are not to be messed with.

This is no different than 4e, with the exception that aoe spells are much more dangerous. Fireballs fill to volume and lightning bolts bounce.

Keep in mind that the example is talking about 1st-level Fighters. 1e Fighters don't get area-affecting abilities at all and so this doesn't apply; but 4e ones do (or can, I assume), thus the difference.

Lan-"the best strategy always comes down to charge first, ask questions later"-efan

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Keep in mind that the example is talking about 1st-level Fighters. 1e Fighters don't get area-affecting abilities at all and so this doesn't apply; but 4e ones do (or can, I assume), thus the difference.

But he needs to be aware of the abilities, else he's liable to get toasted by the spell lobbing mage! Also, there are aoe abilities available to fighters - necklace of missiles, etc, as well as plain old barrels of oil.

 

[Lanefan]

But he needs to be aware of the abilities, else he's liable to get toasted by the spell lobbing mage! Also, there are aoe abilities available to fighters - necklace of missiles, etc, as well as plain old barrels of oil.

True, I forgot about Molotovs.

But a game where 1st-level Fighters get necklaces of missiles? Sign me up!

Lan-"and then blow me up; those things are dangerous!"-efan