Speed of Combat

[daxos232]

I've mentioned before on some previous posts that I have a group that does not like MRQ2's/Legend's RAW combat. They find it to be too slow, taking all those CA one at a time, going around the table several times in a round. We use a house ruled system based of of BRP's Classic Fantasy.

I however really like MRQ2/Legend's RAW combat. I understand the idea that it is one of the best ways to simulate the ever changing situations in the field of combat.

I've already tried tokens and such to keep track of CA (they didn't like it). However I thought that maybe if I could speed up the players themselves into making decisions faster, it would add speed and a sense of fear/excitement to combat.

I was thinking of a stop watch or something similar. Maybe 5 or 10-12 secs for your CA. If you don't give me answer, the player loses his turn. Can't decide to evade or parry? Well that sword coming at you just split you from collar bone to crotch.

I know this idea may fail, I'm alright with using the system we have right now, it works and I will be content because we still enjoy it. I know this idea may also be extremely messy, loud, frantic, and difficult. Practice may remove the messy and difficult part. What do you think, or what does your group do to make combat exciting/fast?

 

[Dan True]

I don't think combat is that slow, but I could see myself introducing a stopwatch if my players repeadetly dangled around.
I use the CA tokens, miniatures on the map and a quick-ruling-when-in-doubt paradigm to try to stop things from slowing down. I think it has a good pace, and haven't heard complaints from players. We had a time when decisions could take a reaaally long time, but it was mostly because everyone had to advice each other constantly, ruining their ability to make up their mind.

But, if the RAW combat system is too slow for you, perhaps you need to find out if it is because you have extremely high demands for speed (what other systems have you used - was speed a problem there or not?) or because you yourself complicates things?

- Dan

 

[Lemnoc]

You reveal a mechanic that allows players to react to the actions of other players earlier in the combat round as they wait their turn, something that is not the case in real combats (when you're very focused on that dangerous sword swinging right in front of you, and not so much on what your partners are doing in their melees) and that does not actually simulate what strike ranks are supposed to simulate—that characters slower on the uptake take their actions after more advantaged characters with more on the ball. Ideally, poor fighters should not be able to advantage themselves in response to the actions of better fighters.

In games where a single initiative roll determines which side goes first, you less frequently have players who say, “Since I saw A’s attack roll succeed, and B’s attack on me has missed, I’m going to do *this.*” Instead, players generally commit to an abstracted strategy for the duration of the combat round.

So a solution might be to have players commit to their actions at the opening of the round, and announce their strategies as to what each will attempt to do at the start of that round. They can then modify/adapt these actions slightly as you move to each player in turn, but they cannot completely alter or abandon their planned actions based on "how things go" without forfeiting a CA or two, or perhaps the entire round. In one sense, that simulates what would really occur on a battlefield, where combatants who dither or change tactics in mid-stride tend to bumble around a lot and are less effective than committed fighters. Ditherers tend to die, too.

That might speed things up a little. It offers another advantage in that the combatants you’re running as GM might perform a bit more consistently, too, as they are committing to actions they can see forming and arranging as players commit to their plans.

 

[sdavies2720]

We never had patience for statements of intent. We tend to use a 'did you notice' roll when players want to take advantage of information to change their actions.

If you are using statements of intent, one cool modification that I've always wanted to try: Have players state what their characters are doing from least intelligent (character) to most. That way players of the more intelligent characters get the advantage of knowing what everyone else plans to do. Players of less intelligent characters are acting blind.

Steve

 

[DamonJynx]

We had 5 encounters (3 combats, 1 puzzle and 1 involving a pair of nested traps) in one 4hr game session last week. Believe me, I was GM'ing, there was a lot of off-topic talk happening. I reckon we may have been able to squeeze in another one or two if everyone had remained focused.

Do you think that combat is actually too slow, or is it your players perceptions that it's too slow? We find combats take a little bit less real-time than D&D 3.5 encounters - 20-30 minutes depending on the complexity. It's just that instead of it taking 3-5 rounds (in D&D) to defeat the 'monsters', it now only takes one or two in Legend.

Please describe a typical combat in you campaign, i.e. how many players? how many adversaries? does the terrain provide any side an advantage? are there any other things the PC's have to take into consideration? the environment for example. It's a little hard to offer constructive advice when we're unaware of the particular situations.

 

[Lemnoc]

We never had patience for statements of intent.

This is an interesting discussion, as it calls into question what a Combat Round is. It seems to me a CR is an articulation of WHAT is wanted/expected to happen in the next several minutes, while CAs and SRs narrate HOW such an expectations actually unfold. Without that, every player's attack/response devolves into, essentially, a combat round, where they're responding not only to the foe in front of them but what every other player has done with their attack/response. The CR just becomes a placeholder to make sure no one gets skipped in the attack/parry glory.

Not saying that's a bad thing or wrong, but the RAW do seem to want to place some kind of structure over "the next few minutes" and "the group's actions as a whole" that make up a Combat Round. Hence the rules on Movement, etc.

In OD&D style of play, that usually amounted to something as informal as Player A starting a spell, Player B charging on the foe, Player C sneaking around for an attack on the rear. Then: "How'd that work out for ya?"

We tend to use a 'did you notice' roll when players want to take advantage of information to change their actions.

Makes sense; but not as a means of speeding or streamlining game play.

...players state what their characters are doing from least intelligent (character) to most...

LOL.

 

[daxos232]

Alright, well the first thing I would like to say is thanks for all the posts. I'm getting a lot of different views that can help with perspective.

Do you think that combat is actually too slow, or is it your players perceptions that it's too slow? We find combats take a little bit less real-time than D&D 3.5 encounters - 20-30 minutes depending on the complexity. It's just that instead of it taking 3-5 rounds (in D&D) to defeat the 'monsters', it now only takes one or two in Legend.

Its my players that think combat is too slow. They don't like that feeling of taking 1 CA and then it goes over to the next person. In hindsight, I think this was before we understood in the rules that you can move AND make an attack if you haven't used up your movement. As for the speed I don't think it took us more than 15 -20 minutes but I may be wrong, its been a while since we have played. I can't remember how many rounds.

Please describe a typical combat in you campaign, i.e. how many players? how many adversaries? does the terrain provide any side an advantage? are there any other things the PC's have to take into consideration? the environment for example. It's a little hard to offer constructive advice when we're unaware of the particular situations.

Yeah I'm sorry I can't remember exact details. I remember that they ambushed some orcs (3 or 4) in the woods. They had the advantage of surprise by climbing a ways up some trees and shooting at them with arrows, but they were poorly skilled and the dense foliage didn't help either. Then they climbed down and ran about doing some mop up action. That took a bit.

Then they fought some in dungeon corridors and rooms. The number of combatants was roughly the same. The enemies used overturned tables/furniture for cover, trips, etc.

I really liked Lemnoc's idea, that could be interesting but I wouldn't know how to implement it effectively. After reading these posts, I don't think I have enough evidence to warrant my original post. I can remember vague details and what my players talked about with me but I can't give you guys the number of rounds etc etc.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

If you are using statements of intent, one cool modification that I've always wanted to try: Have players state what their characters are doing from least intelligent (character) to most. That way players of the more intelligent characters get the advantage of knowing what everyone else plans to do. Players of less intelligent characters are acting blind.
Steve

I've seen somewhere, but I forget which game, where statement of intent goes from lowest initiative to highest, but resolution goes from highest to lowest, so the fastest guy knows what the slowest guy will do, and can still act before him...

 

[Da Boss]

We have not had a problem with the system being too slow:

Usually we don't bother with a statement of intent - but you just say what you want to do on your CA.

The only thing that is slow is looking at Combat Maneuveres, especially when you are trying not to use the same one all the time. When we first started we had top stop quite often to work out things where the game did not work but now its mostly all good.

 

[DamonJynx]

I've seen somewhere, but I forget which game, where statement of intent goes from lowest initiative to highest, but resolution goes from highest to lowest, so the fastest guy knows what the slowest guy will do, and can still act before him...

Is that not BRP? Sounds like it, or possibly one of the variant rules.

 

[DamonJynx]

We have not had a problem with the system being too slow:

Usually we don't bother with a statement of intent - but you just say what you want to do on your CA.

The only thing that is slow is looking at Combat Maneuveres, especially when you are trying not to use the same one all the time. When we first started we had top stop quite often to work out things where the game did not work but now its mostly all good.

Couldn't agree more. Now that we're used to the system and rules I think it plays pretty well.

 

[danskmacabre]

I run Pathfinder regularly on Saturday nights and Elric/Legend every other Thursday. I use combat trackers for both Pathfinder and Elric/Legend and find that on the average Elric combats are faster.
However I would qualify this with the party in Pathfinder is about 11th level, so lots of special abilities, spells, complex monsters to track.

I think comparing say 1st level Pathfinder characters in a combat vs starting Elric characters, I reckon the Pathfinder combat would be a bit faster.
But really there's not much in it once you're comfortable with how combat works in either system.

I DO think that combat in Pathfinder is more complicated to learn though compared to Legend and I prefer the feel of the combat in Legend.

 

[PhilHibbs]

I've seen somewhere, but I forget which game, where statement of intent goes from lowest initiative to highest, but resolution goes from highest to lowest, so the fastest guy knows what the slowest guy will do, and can still act before him...

L5R does that.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I've seen somewhere, but I forget which game, where statement of intent goes from lowest initiative to highest, but resolution goes from highest to lowest, so the fastest guy knows what the slowest guy will do, and can still act before him...

L5R does that.

That's probably the one!