Vampire's new "three-round combat" rule

[Blue]

It seems that this idea of a combat should end at this cinematic point is fire for some games, but games were management of resources is an issue I can't see it being useful. Losing those 4 hp on that last goblin attack may seem meaningless, but those may be the HP that forces the party to decide to pull back and try to recover. Which then gives the goblins time to reinforce, lay new traps, etc. So every HP can have an impact on how the "story" plays out.

I thibnk you're making an assumption the "winning by wiping out the goblins" and "there is a twist and the combat ends" are the same thing.

If your'e fighting goblins and the combat ends with a retreat horn getting blown and they escape - well, the fact that you took less damage BUT they have reinforcements later at balancing points.

 

[Blue]

It strikes me that there is a lot of daylight between "end fights before they get tedious" and "end fights after 3 rounds."

Stop right there. The Vampire mechanic is "keep going if you are having fun". So it's really "stop when it becomes a grind - but go at least three rounds'.

I think that addresses the rest of your points.

 

[Celebrim]

It sounds to me like this goes back to problems with the HP mechanic.

It doesn't really have to. High level GURPS in older editions had a problem where if two experts fought each other, the only blows that would land would be critical hits that bypassed active defenses, and these were only scored on relatively rare rolls. The result would be that you might have round after round where each fighter attempted to land a blow but was reliably parried or dodged. Not only did the round not change anything, but it didn't advance either side toward victory and the winner was determined by one lucky blow.

To fix that math there was a common house rule - later adopted into the core rules - where expert fighters could 'power attack' and exchange chance to hit for reduction in the opponent's active defenses.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It doesn't really have to. High level GURPS in older editions had a problem where if two experts fought each other, the only blows that would land would be critical hits that bypassed active defenses, and these were only scored on relatively rare rolls. The result would be that you might have round after round where each fighter attempted to land a blow but was reliably parried or dodged. Not only did the round not change anything, but it didn't advance either side toward victory and the winner was determined by one lucky blow.

In retrospect, nothing will have changed over the course of the round. But when it comes your turn to make the attack, that can still be pretty exciting; it's almost like a game of Russian Roulette, in a way. It also gives you plenty of chances to carry on witty dialogue with your opponent, and plenty of chances to back out of the duel.

I wouldn't really compare it to the boring certainty of a 70% chance to deal 5% of their HP, with the only excitement coming from a critical hit that instead deals 10% of their HP.

 

[uzirath]

To fix that math there was a common house rule - later adopted into the core rules - where expert fighters could 'power attack' and exchange chance to hit for reduction in the opponent's active defenses.

I don't know the term 'power attack,' but in GURPS 4th edition (the current rules) and the Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying Game, there is a melee attack option called 'Deceptive Attack' that has this mechanic. For every two points you lower your effective skill, you reduce your opponent's defenses by one. There has always always been the ability to feint, too, which can dramatically improve your ability to get past defenses.

But, I agree with your larger point that hit points are not the only mechanic that can cause combat to become repetitive. I enjoy rules that reward creative melee tactics to gain an edge (maneuvering beside or behind an opponent, slamming them with your shield to try and knock them down, grappling to get inside their weapon's reach, attacking their weapon to disarm, etc.).

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I thibnk you're making an assumption the "winning by wiping out the goblins" and "there is a twist and the combat ends" are the same thing.

If your'e fighting goblins and the combat ends with a retreat horn getting blown and they escape - well, the fact that you took less damage BUT they have reinforcements later at balancing points.

Sure.

Personally I use morale mechanics in my games, 5e included, so as the fight goes more and more against said goblins the more morale checks they are making and the more likely it is they break and run.

 

[ParanoydStyle]

The Vampire mechanic is "keep going if you are having fun". So it's really "stop when it becomes a grind - but go at least three rounds'.

I think that addresses the rest of your points.

I don't know about ninjayeti, but that addresses all of my concerns. Initially I thought the "three round combat rule" meant FIGHTS MUST END AFTER THREE ROUNDS which would have been an unspeakably crappy game mechanic (except perhaps in a very niche game designed around a very niche concept that fits that rule).

It's weird yet not unexpected that there's been so much discussion within the D&D frame in this thread about the new Vampire. I have not played a lot of WoD and the WoD that I did play was ages ago when I was a teenager and EVEN THEN as a teenager--the height of the appeal of the Trenchcoat McKatanas style of VtM play--combat was not particularly common. Now, as for D&D...I've heard many a player say that fights virtually never last more than three rounds anyway, and it's not usually said like it's a good thing. It's not that players want longer combats, but in various editions of the game (including, I think, the current one) certain abilities and parameters will never be relevant within that time-space. In 5E, a duration of one minute might as well be a duration of forever because I don't think I've ever seen a ten turn combat (not that I'd necessarily want to). In 3.X frequently various spells or spell-like abilities had a duration of Caster Level rounds. Because combats lasting more than three rounds are almost unheard of, this meant that there was no meaningful difference in duration between a spell cast by a 3rd level character and a spell cast by a 15th level character.

Because I have Legendary Resistance 3/Day, I will choose to succeed my Wisdom save against launching into my rant on how painfully idiotic the 3-6 second combat turn is right here and now. I will say that I have come to the conclusion that the combat turn should really be, at a minimum, 10 seconds, for a ratio of six turns to one minute, but I won't justify that assertion because I think then I'd fall into the rant I said I was avoiding.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say I want longer combats (in rounds) in my D&D, but I do know that the most fun D&D combats I've run have all been the ones that ran well over three rounds. That said I'm broadly in favor of the thinking on this new Vampire rule, but in the D&D context I don't think it needs a rule as such. If after three rounds the party is getting its ass kicked, the logical thing for the party to do is to run away. If after three rounds the enemies are getting their asses kicked, the logical thing for the DM to do is to have them runaway or surrender, assuming they're not mindless--even the dumbest orcs, goblins, bugbears, troglodytes, whatever, are smart enough to realize that hey, 12 seconds ago there were ten of us and now there are three of us, let's GTFO (this is also why I've never felt a need for morale mechanics; a glance at the board state is usually enough to let me tell when the enemies would lose morale and retreat). If after three rounds the fight is undecided then play on, play on, play on!

Oh, and the last thing I wanted to say is...while I definitely understand, as a game designer, the desire to make fights resolve faster, I think there's an external limit on what you can accomplish with the actual system and mechanics. No matter how much you simplify and streamline, you are still going to run into the fact that many players are very slow. If your game has meaningful choices for PCs to make in combat--and honestly a game that doesn't probably shouldn't even have combat--a certain portion of players are going to fall into analysis paralysis and slow things way down, no matter how many times the DM has asked them to PLEASE have their decision ready when their turn comes up. A certain portion of players will struggle with the mechanics of any game system that is remotely new to them, and that too slows things down. A certain portion of players will have two, or three, or five, or ten, or fifteen questions about the battle situation--at least half of which you have already told them the answer to, they just weren't paying attention. And finally some players are just jerks and slow down combat with dumb arguments. I don't think there's anything to be done about any of this, I just don't think combat in an RPG is ever going to run at anything close to the ideal speed it would run at in a perfect world (which I'd say is probably 1-2 minutes of real time to each full combat turn) unless the players have been selectively curated. My only real point with all of this is that there is only so much MECHANICS can do to "make combat fast".

Those are my random thoughts.

 

[Riley37]

unless the players have been selectively curated. My only real point with all of this is that there is only so much MECHANICS can do to "make combat fast".

Player curation has given me excellent results. When I run a convention game, "Please be ready with your action" is an early recourse, and "Apparently you spent those six seconds pondering your options. Next player, what's your action?" is not far behind.

Chess can move quickly or slowly. In one variant, each player gets a time cap, not per move, but for the whole game; you move, you hit the button, that stops your timer and starts the opponent's timer. If you checkmate the opponent OR if your opponent's timer runs out, you win.

 

[Riley37]

In retrospect, nothing will have changed over the course of the round.

That's true in a duel, when there's no one and nothing else involved. If those two experts are blocking each other's blows, clang clang clang, in a burning building, then perhaps the roll which ends the fight is the DM roll on round 5 determining that the second story collapses into flaming rubble. Or perhaps Horatio held off the Etruscan vanguard, long enough for other Romans to ignite the bridge, denying the Etruscan army entry into Rome; the collapse of the bridge into flaming rubble ends Horatio's life and also meets his victory condition.

 

[5ekyu]

For a game like D&D a ten round fight can take an awful lot of time in real life. If the DM spend 120 seconds on his turn and the other players each take 60 seconds on theirs then a ten round fight will last 80 minutes of real time. (I don't think giving players 60 seconds to figure out what they want to do during their turn, roll their dice, and figure out the outcome is unreasonable.) There are plenty of people who could spend hours just fighting one encounter in D&D and have a great time and more power to them. After about thirty minutes I keep hoping combat comes to an end.





Maybe you're just really good at designing encounters but after a while I find they can get tedious. As you said, it's much harder to keep things interesting in the player's imagination than it is for the cinema.



I think we have different ideas of what railroading is. In the context of an RPG, I think of railroading as forcing the PCs to perform certain actions. The three round rule isn't an absolute as the players can continue the encounter as they like. And even if it ends after three rounds if the players are victorious they've achieved whatever goal they set out to achieve.



They get grindy if you spend a lot of time on them too.

"Maybe you're just really good at designing encounters but after a while I find they can get tedious. As you said, it's much harder to keep things interesting in the player's imagination than it is for the cinema. "

So, here is what I wonder...

I am a GM who uses what 5e calls extended conflicts a lot. Have for decades thru lots of systems.

It is rare for a combat to go more than say 3-5 rounds without a significant change coming into play.

So, really, the fight at round 4 say is really not the same fight you were in at round two just dragging on. By round seven or nine, it is another thing again.

Obviously this is not for every fight, but mostly for those that are meant to be challenging not just quick skirmishes to serve other narrative goals.

That, to me, is what the heart of the V5 3 round fight take is about... taking moment to assess and change the stakes or the event.

Now, in my experience a "character turn" in VtM takes longer than D&D to execute because of the nature of their dice pool, more resisted actions, more creative actions etc. So, I dont equate three rounds in one to three rounds in the other.

But the idea strikes mtpe much the same, a notion that if you haven't resolved it after three, take stock, continue if it's fun and engaging, but if not do a major change that makes things reach a conclusion.

Not really all that different from "you hear sirens" in a vigilante game or "an explosion rocks the bridge" in others.

But I think if perhaps they had expressed it not so much as a "fights over" or " sudden death- one round for all the marbles" but as a "hey, narrator, throw a monkey into that wrench..." either in favor of the PCs or against them (same logic, who won the first three rounds) or against both... it might have a better feel to some.

Either way, it certainly pushes a "favors the bold" playstyle" for the action scenes.