Combat Manouvres

[longcoat000]

Oh, and longcoat, the combat round in D&D has been six seconds since 3.0, not 10--there are 10 rounds in a minute, so 6 seconds per round.  That's actually not so bad if you consider that you can make up to *seven* attacks in that time frame (with two weapons) or sprint 150' with the Run feat.  6 seconds for the 50' yard dash is pretty darn impressive, and keep in mind that a large part of most battles in D&D is taken up with maneuvering, it's not like fighting in a ring where you're already in easy striking distance of your opponent.  I've seen fights where 4 or 5 rounds have passed before anyone actually TRIED to hit anyone.

Yes, but can a good eskrimador run 150' in one second?

Is it sprint 50 yards in six seconds or one second?  Curious minds want to know! 

For inspirational mash-ups, be sure to check out The Final Countdown.  There's something satisfying about watching Tomcats blow Zeros out of the sky...

[JMeganSnow]

Is it sprint 50 yards in six seconds or one second?  Curious minds want to know!

I was responding to Telas' implied implication that one second would be a theoretically appropriate length for a combat round because an eskrimador can make nine attacks in a second--you'd wind up with a movement speed of 5 if you tried to run D&D off that premise.

Currently in D&D, a character with a 30' move and the run feet can sprint 150' in six seconds (fifty yards), which is ambitious but reasonable (quick internet research revealed times of 5.6 and the like, so it's sane), but in that same period you only get a few attacks.

I agree with Telas about treating the game system as analogous to combat rather than representational of combat.  Every RPG combat I've ever seen could be described by flipping a coin--a heavily weighted coin, usually, but from what I can tell the only reason people *don't* do this is sheer love of fiddling.  (I love fiddling, too!)  It's just important to remember that your beloved rules system is no more "realistic" than settling the entire battle on one coin toss.

[VV_GM]

I hate having any RPGs combat system explained using real measurements of time. How long is a combat round? Who cares...

I've started telling my group that the period of time needed to do "X" is "30 to 52 RPG cycles, which is a couple of rounds more or less" or something as equally vague. If I have something like a time bomb in the game I don't say that it has "2 minutes left", and instead say "It will blow up in 5 rounds."

Some players get it right away - the game world has its own unique time system separate from the real world's time system. And lo and behold - the game world's time system happens to be at the real world's beck and call so that we can fly in the game world from L.A. to Tokyo in 30 seconds, or spend an hour on a combat encounter that lasts seconds.

Other players insist that an accurate measurement of time in the game matters. I've yet to have a single example given to me where it actually does. Eventually they come to the same realization when it suddenly clicks - "Oh. It is just a game. We can handle time however we want..."

[JMeganSnow]

I think the only reason why they have a "combat round takes so long" at all is so they have some sort of rationale for how far you can move in a round.  For some reason there's a lot of resistance to saying "it's arbitrary, get over it".

If you look in most rulebooks, the only other place time is mentioned is in overland travel.  I'd like to see a book that says, under time and travel "It takes as long as the GM says it takes."

[VV_GM]

I think the only reason why they have a "combat round takes so long" at all is so they have some sort of rationale for how far you can move in a round.  For some reason there's a lot of resistance to saying "it's arbitrary, get over it".

Yeah, you might be right but even that is poor logic IMO. Your speed, movement, or whatever score takes care of that (in one round you move X, how long a round lasts in time is irrelevant). The time rules also seem to be a way of giving players a reference as to how many actions the character can perform in a round or turn. 6 seconds is plenty of time to throw a punch, but not enough time to throw a punch AND start a car AND phone someone else to warn them AND prepare your MacGuffin of smiting AND light a cigarette to look ultra-macho. For me this is simply a GM call. I think D&D 4e handles this incredibly well with the Standard, Minor, Move, and Free action mechanics.

If you look in most rulebooks, the only other place time is mentioned is in overland travel.  I'd like to see a book that says, under time and travel "It takes as long as the GM says it takes."

Some indy games have rules that do say similar things, but I am now going to include that line verbatim in my RPG with your permission.

[JMeganSnow]

Loll, knock yourself out.

[DarthKrzysztof]

This was one of the things I liked about the old Marvel Super Heroes RPG. A round was nebulously defined as "as much action as fits into one panel of a comic book."

[phindar]

This reminds me of a line by Babylon 5 creator Michael J. Iwon'ttrytospellit, to the frequent questions by fans as to the capabilities of the spacecraft in his world:

"All ships move at the speed of plot."

[Kinslayer]

I was responding to Telas' implied implication that one second would be a theoretically appropriate length for a combat round because an eskrimador can make nine attacks in a second--you'd wind up with a movement speed of 5 if you tried to run D&D off that premise.

One-second combat rounds and a speed of 5 or so?  That's no longer D&D, that's Gurps.

[longcoat000]

Am I the only one who noticed that the Bab5 creator and Ms. Snow (who happen to share the same stance on time in a same) happen to have the same initials? 

The things that strike you as funny at three in the morning...Stupid insomnia...

Anywho, kinda back to the OP: shield bashing isn't really counted as effective in D&D because it's assumed that the combatants are doing it as part of their standard attack pattern, which is also where the 3.X rules start screwing up.  Combat in D&d is supposed to be abstract (as demonstrated by HP), but attack options are defined more and more precisely, which removes a level of abstraction from the game.  Stuff like shield bashing, tripping, sundering, and the occasional boot to the head were flavorful descriptions that players and DMs used to describe what was going on.  But somewhere, this flavor was subsumed with a desire to chart out the exact bonuses and penalties incurred as a result of flavor text, and the whole game became a contest in finding the perfect chain-spike-trip combo that made combat into a boring, multi-hour grind instead of a fun romp.  My solution to making shield-bashing more effective would be to toss most of the combat rules and describe what's going on based on the to-hit and damage roll.

Oh, another fun comic that makes me want to game is Empowered.  It's for mature readers, but it's a hilarious take on superheroes.

[JMeganSnow]

Dude, you're ruining my disguise!!!

 

[Rophan]

...the whole game became a contest in finding the perfect chain-spike-trip combo that made combat into a boring, multi-hour grind instead of a fun romp.  My solution to making shield-bashing more effective would be to toss most of the combat rules and describe what's going on based on the to-hit and damage roll.

I've started doing things this way, I think.  Following the D&D pattern I tried to make up detailed swashbuckling rules, but when we got down to playing all the rules went out the window, and it turned into "if you can describe it and it sounds cool, you can do it.  There have been some wildly bizarre things happening in combat, that are way out of bounds rules-wise, but since we started doing it, combat has become much more entertaining.

[Telas]

I think this is a phase that all gamers have to go through - overdoing the complexity of the rules.  Rules are fun, so more rules must be more fun, right?  WRONG.

Don't worry, the next phase is falling in love with indie games, and analyzing the fun right out of the mechanics.

[JMeganSnow]

But then you find yourself falling in love with mechanics all over again and viewing the systems you know less as suboptimal builds and more as works in progress.  It's like some kind of Zen.

[longcoat000]

Don't worry, the next phase is falling in love with indie games, and analyzing the fun right out of the mechanics.

And after that, you come full circle back to "old skool" gaming and realize that all of those old systems were actually pretty fun and robust, but you didn't have the experience to truely appreciate them until now...

[VV_GM]

I find myself in a "The game doesn't matter. Just the group." phase now. If we enjoy playing a bad system I don't care. Likewise, a great system that we aren't having fun with should be ditched. My passion for mechanics and tinkering I take care of through game design nowadays, and I leave the systems that I buy alone until the group decides that a house rule is needed. I now realize that playing, GMing, and game design are three very distinct hobbies that are complimentary to each other.