Reading alot of posts here about Combat systems seems to give me the impression most game creators aim for a logical and quick system, resolving many things in a few rolls. My question is, Why?

Why do fast combat systems seem more appealing to people? I personally like my system, which creates a long, yet suspenseful battle system, each action of a player taking time to decide.

Fast systems rarely actually seem to make the battle seem realistic, like the fast paced adrenalin rush of real life. Moreover they seem to be like the button smashing in console battle systems, go as fast as you can because even thought won't really give you too much of an advantage. Also, some times it is even simplified down to where players will say a word or two and roll, rather than playing out the situation.

Speed and Spirit, is definantly a very slow system.
There can be anywhere from 2 rolls, to 12 rolls in a single action,
with variable amounts of dice in each roll.

A routine simple battle usually takes 30 minutes to resolve. I've had battles last up to three hours, in a one versus one scenerio.

My players say that they find they like the battle system because they can strive to perfect playing it, and it is slow enough to where they can think very thoroughly.

Unfortunantly,I guess the main drawback is I can really only handle 1-3 players at a time.



But seriously. One to Three rolls to resolve an action doesn't seem like its enough. Is it the time spent looking up values that makes it so desirable? But if you had more rolls, generally that would mean less of them would be augmented, and thus you could memorize things easier.

What are most people's opinions on the topic of which is generally a better system; Slow or Fast?

And why do you prefer such a system? What are the problems to that system, and why are those better than the problems in the opposite system? What can be done to resolve the problems.

((Btw, I'm very biased against the d20 system. Its been overdone, and overplayed. Boring.))

I think the main reason why "fast" resolution systems are preferred is fairly simple, really. It's the input/output time. As other people have recently noted in this thread (http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13826), most people want to declare their action, and get the result. Anything that comes in between is "work". While there is an argument to be made for the suspense of slower systems, most people do think of these things in terms of cause and effect, and don't enjoy the mechanics which take place between the two.

There are a couple systems which manage to make the "work" portion fairly interesting, if you're into conflict resolution (which I am). My two current faves are Dogs in the Vineyard, which has a cool see/raise mechanic where you lay down the dice and describe the action. Each "work" step is directly accompanied by a description of your reaction to a previous action, and your action in turn. The other, The Riddle of Steel, flows quickly but requires thought and risk assessment at every roll of the dice, and vast strategic options. Typically only two rolls are needed to determine the result of a particular exchange in combat (attack and defense) with one more roll if the exchange actually involves damage. Because, however, the "work" of rolling the dice are accompanied with fairly specific descriptions of your actions and risk:reward decisions, it makes the work seem less than it is.

I think the trick is to find the right balance of speed and decision points to keep it suspenseful, but allow you to settle conflicts in a timely manner.

I've noticed many designers here too are looking for more of a "Universal" mechanic, whatever that might be. Thus, instead of having one set of rules governing magic, one combat, and one for making grilled cheese sandwiches, you have a universal mechanic, do that, and presto~
So it can fall into that catagory of "easy play"- the desire for a simple, easy to remember, widely applied mechanic or at least mechanics that are closely related with only minor modifications to the system. "If it takes 1-2 rolls to make a work of art, then it better take 1 to kill someone" isa kind of approach or view~

Course too, several games I'm seeing out of here are highly focused: few "universal" systems do I see anymore (in that they try to cover every concievable outcome). When your system is highly focused on something, especially something other than combat, you'll want those simple die rolls and get away with saying it all falls into one mechanic.
Ultimately, it depends on the focus of the game. These highly focused systems don't WANT combat to be the focus, so making it a simple, quickly resolved roll deters folks from overabusing it. If combat IS the focus of your system, then by all means take an hour to decide the outcome of a mudwrestling tournament- if it satisfies what you want from the system, excellent. If your system is one built for, oh, shoemaking elves, however, then thats a little overkill.

First let me go ahead and link to Mike Holmes Standard Rant #3
I think it has relevance to the topic at hand and is one of my favorite posts.

I think there are a few different issues here when it comes to combat and mechanics. In fact it has a great deal to say about the state of RPG’s in general but that’s for another thread.

First is the issue of Detailed vs. Cumbersome. If combat is the focus of your game then of course there should be a deeper level of detail for the combat elements. With deeper levels of detail comes the inevitable elongation of time constraints. However, it is one thing to have details that have meaning and quite another to have levels of complexity just so you can roll dice. I love dice. No I guess it can be said I have a bit of a fetish for dice. Really. I cannot function in a diceless RPG, it causes me to get the shakes. However, 1 die and 1 die mechanic are more then enough to calm my nerves. That is to say the mechanic you use for crafting should be the same one you use for shooting.

This is one thing in my opinion D&D3.03.5 does right. One D20 to rule them all. It takes care off all roles in the same way. However, when you get to combat, it adds damage and initiative. So same base mechanic for everything you do. Original Runequest is the same; roll %dice for everything. When you get to combat though it adds damage, hit location, and your arm flying off. Again, same base mechanic.

The second point that I feel affects this is the current trend AWAY from combat heavy systems. It has been a mantra for many years that Role Playing is not about combat and same people even deride the early games because of their heritage to tabletop miniature gaming. So there is a, what I consider, a false debate between Traditional and Modern games where IMHO the modern games try to de-emphasize Combat in favor of Conflict. Again an idea for another thread.

Finally and I think most importantly is the idea of Campaign Density. Today, the trend is for Campaigns to be shorter in terms of sessions and in terms of session times. So Players want a great deal to happen in the time that they are playing. If you think about it, lets say 2 game sessions a month of 4 hours each. The game may last no more then 6 game sessions. So you have spent a day's worth of time in the campaign. Even in a game focused on combat I would think that spending more then an hour on a given combat can set a game back. Now I would allow that if you were designing a Skirmish / RPG hybrid (like Inquisitor from Games Workshop) then in essence the session is almost invariably going to be all about combat anyway.

So those are just some thoughts on my impressions of this debate. I think it opens the door to a lot of questions actually, ones that could be interesting to find answers to.

Sean

Hi FzG,

I don't think its worthwhile to poll for opinions, but it is worthwhile to discuss the differences between a fast or slow resolution system(for combat, or anything for that matter).

For many games that you see that resolve the conflict in a few short rolls- the rolling of the dice and handling of the mechanics just aren't that interesting to the designer, nor really to the people who prefer those games. That's not the point of a particular game for these people, combat or otherwise.

For some games, say Riddle of Steel or Burning Wheel, combat resolution is more detailed than the rest, because for these particular games, combat is a bigger focus of play. Then you have games which give you options about how detailed you want to make a given conflict- such as HeroQuest(simple vs. extended contests), The Shadow of Yesterday(Bringing Down the Pain), Trollbabe(1 roll vs. best of 5 rolls), etc.

The benefit to a quick resolution in a few rolls is that scenes resolve quickly, and a lot can happen in a single session. People don't need to take a lot of time learning various sub-rules and strategies. Depending on the system, some people feel they don't get enough input (strategizing) to assist in success/failure.

The benefit to a detailed resolution is that one can throw in a fair amount of crunchy strategy options for those who want it, or take into account the minutae of factors that determine odds. The detriment is that it eats up proportionally a lot more time in play, which might make people limit how much of a particular conflict activity they indulge in (consider the old Decker/Hacker types playing in Shadowrun, when the rest of the group is different archtypes).

It's not just speed, its about the focus of the game, period. If your group likes to have detailed combat, there you go. If you group doesn't, then you need rules that handle it without taking up too much handling time for the group. So neither way is better, just different options for different people.

Chris

I want to toss in some additional considerations. A games focus on combat doesn't necessarily mean that its "crunchy", and vice versa. For an excellent example of a combat-heavy game that's pretty fast, check out Scarlet Wake.

Theres also been some discussion in the Theory forum here about front-loading a highly detailed combat system such that tactical decisions are made during downtime, and actual combat moves quickly along. I'm not sure whether this went anywhere, but its an interesting thought. Is it possible to create a highly detailed system that creates a wide array of strategic and tactical options that actually runs through a combat quickly?

I would argue that Scarlet Wake acheives its speed by removing the crunch from the dice rolling. That is, because of its narrative freedom, you can acheive any level of tactical brilliance you want. The strategy comes in deciding how and when to spend and use metagame resources.

Also, I think this kind of topic technically should be Theory, for future reference.

Sorry I meant to post this in the Theory Section. >< Oops.

Well, I mean...even really detailed systems can go by quickly, rolling 1 dice compared to 3-4 dice isn't really that much of a time difference.

Unfortunantly for me, I've never played a fast paced game. Infact, I've never played ANY other Roleplaying game other than my own (For more than an hour session, hardly enough time to evaluate it). A hindarance, and an advantage at the same time when it comes to making games. No, I've never played D&D, or any other D20 system. Not a single RPG. I've read the rules to about 40'ish RPGs though. I find that a game such as D&D is less detailed than my game, AND slower paced in combat (that was intuition, but a few of my players have also noted the similarity).

I guess the hard part about rules-intensive games is the learning...But yeah, I've never had to learn a game either.

Thanks for the feed back.

Sorry I meant to post this in the Theory Section. >< Oops.

Well, I mean...even really detailed systems can go by quickly, rolling 1 dice compared to 3-4 dice isn't really that much of a time difference.

Unfortunantly for me, I've never played a fast paced game. Infact, I've never played ANY other Roleplaying game other than my own (For more than an hour session, hardly enough time to evaluate it). A hindarance, and an advantage at the same time when it comes to making games. No, I've never played D&D, or any other D20 system. Not a single RPG. I've read the rules to about 40'ish RPGs though. I find that a game such as D&D is less detailed than my game, AND slower paced in combat (that was intuition, but a few of my players have also noted the similarity).

I guess the hard part about rules-intensive games is the learning...But yeah, I've never had to learn a game either.

Thanks for the feed back.

Reward divided by time. That's how fun it is.

The more time involved, the more the reward is reduced.

This is okay if the reward is big enough. The thing is, if the users don't like what your complex system dwells on, then that reward drops and the time factor kills it entirely.

Most complex systems seem to dwell on minutae (sp?). They usually don't go for big and bold, rather, they go for small and subtle.

I think your specialising toward a particular audience with these designs, since the reward over time and minutae are often not satisfactory to most. It's like an exotic dish...some would pay a great deal for its exotic delights, but a great deal of people don't have a taste for it and find it overpriced and repulsive.

Well the thing is, in a detailed system, there is always the choice for simplicity. I said anywhere between 2 to 12 rolls, so of course there is a simple part.

But, a point I guess I didn't display well is detailed systems sometimes make combat go faster. By not relying on one roll so much, then when only a detail changes, one of the few rolls change, while the others stay the same, and the change in that roll are small. So, if a game tries for detail, yet also tries to remain "Simple" it usually tends to over complicate things by making people look at a chart or whatever when the effects of a single roll are altered, while when a few rolls are done, as I said earlier, its easy to memorize the change.

Hi FzG,

Unfortunantly for me, I've never played a fast paced game. Infact, I've never played ANY other Roleplaying game other than my own (For more than an hour session, hardly enough time to evaluate it).

<Warning: Boring Long Post. May give some ideas on Nifty game ideas though>

Hey Chris,

Well, I would, I just never found the time nor the community. Really I'm not looking for ideas on my system, I'm looking for thougts about things that way I can create an illusion of things, such as simplicity or whatever, for players to play with.

Well, I mean...I've read rules and I've played for a couple of hours, a few types of games, and Speed and Spirit isn't the first game I've designed, its the only one heavy in rules, so I mean, I mean its not like I have no idea what other things are like.

Other RPGs I've made (No names, just ideas I took them based off of)

-Commerce Game, where the goal was to create a monopoly, using force, gang connections, drugs, prostitution, or whatever means possible
(Battle was maybe 5% of game time, very narrative, good memories and laughs)

-Dragon Ball Z power level game. Not much to do with Dragon Ball Z, except the fact that everything was based on a Stat of Power level. Basically that was the only similarty. Was played with Cards.
(Battle was 80% of the game, really wasn't so great. Too many flaws.)

-A summoning game, to complete puzzles etc, kind of like a Zelda and Pokemon hybrid.
(Fast pace, Battle was about 20% of the game, fun)

-A game based on Lego pieces. To shoot a bow, you threw lego pieces at them, etc. Damage was based on distance they flew backwards, or if they landed in certain terrain.
(100% Battle. Yet EXTREMELY Fun. I may write up another copy of the game and post it here some time, because its really a break from randomness, and bases the character on your abilities)

-A Game designed to reflet my friends and I's life, if it were more messed up
(50% Battle? No dice, purely Narrative, was humorous...)

-A game designed to be played as a card game RPG Hybrid, that could be bet on, though you still Role Played
(80% Battle, was pretty sweet, kind of unfair though, the fact that some card mechanics just didn't work right)

-An RPG about sports, where you had skill attributes and it was turned based Football, or Basketball, or etc.
(It was kind of like...you were a teenager who went to a school and was super passionate about a sport that the entire society rested on. Sports battling I guess was about 40% of game play)

-A game where everything was made on the Chess board, using chess pieces.
(Not really an RPG; Roles weren't as intense as the other games, =\)

-A game where you played as a video gamer who plays shooter games on his computer.
(Weird and Ironic, alot of it was trying to solve the virus problems with the server and role playing out of the game. Some may say this reminds them of .hack, but I hadn't heard of .hack until like a year later. Fun as hell)

-A game based on Mobile Suits from Gundam wing. Probably rule intense by most peoples standards.
(15% Battle, lots of philosophical crap...it was kind of a mind trip playing, really fun though)

-A game focusing on tournaments and travel, where the arenas were constructed in my friends room, taking everything into account...kind of the the other Lego based game, but with dice and other crap
(75% battle...Cool beans though)

-"Try and Get Laid Game"
(Very explinatory. It was purely narrative, and the players never got laid. But it was funny and ironic)

-Sword of Destiny. A game where the character barely got stronger, but his weaponry was the main focus of increase
(25% battle, a simple 6 sided dice system, pretty easy to play, but still fun..)

I'm pretty sure I gave enough examples, I have about 10 notebooks in my closet of game designs I made. I started when I was about 8, before I played my first RPG, or knew what an RPG was.

Anyways, the reason why I pointed out so many examples was...
1) Shows my backround is kind of varied, yet an obvious tendancy towards HEAVILY battle based games
2) Nostalgia...You know how it is.
3) To say that, even the games with rules go the same pace as long as there is no heavy requirement of looking crap up. I'm a heavy advocate for narratives out of battle, with no out of battle rules other than being able to narrate everything perfectly, and for a very deep battle system. I think it gets the best of both worlds.

I'm tempted to delete this post because I think I'm being redundant. But kind of...my point is..People seem to aim for a "fast" system, when what they want is a rewarding system. I think many RPGs like AD&D have far too many rules influecing things, that could be resolved easier by taking those same rules and instead of like, a linear path of

Rule -> Rule -> Rule -> Result, causing a delay Chain.

most people would rather have a system that is like..

Rule \>
Rule -> -----Result.
Rule/>

Where if they wanted to, could ignore some of the base rules that only are enacted if characters want them to be, and get to the result without effecting other things. But then, it also gives them strategic options and depth that a

Rule -> Result.

system lacks to give them. Simply put, everything in the rules should be neutral in an ideal situation, and then players should be able to alter some pieces by deciding things to give a larger result.

Or, I guess thats what I THINK most players like.

Edit: My goal I guess is kind of to try and dispel the stigma alot of "Rules Heavy" games get for being too "Complicated" and to show that way to get the best of both worlds isn't by either over stacking, or over simplifying, but by having easily identifiable consequences, and by having a system where one change won't effect too many outcomes.

I've been playing RPGs since 1978. i've played with many, many systems. I like combat in games, but don't LOVE it. I also weary quite easily when running combat, being a player, my stamina is much greater. When the story can be furthered by combat, great. If it just feels like a way to kill time, not so great.

What I don't like about combat intensive systems is twofold.

1. I feel limited in my creativity during combat, both in description and in actual options. Because so much is spelled out (Fantasy Hero with hit location...great system... but takes forever!), players tend to stick to what is on their character sheet. Description is left to the die roll of what body part was hit.

2. I WANT my combat to feel frantic. Snap decisions, breathless anticipation, adrenaline pumping for the highest stakes possible. So the quicker the system, the more I can incorporate that. I give 5 secs to a player to make up their mind or they defend. Defending in my games is always a really good option, so it is not like they are getting overly screwed. And they've had the entire time while other players are doing thier actions to think of something to do. My players know this, expect it and pay attention during combats. And I'm not out to screw the players, if a player makes a mistake due to miscommunication, we talk about it and fix it.

My current rule set is Savage Worlds. It is SO quick that I find our group just blowing through combat rounds unbelievably fast. The one problem I keep finding is that is SO quick that description tends to get left by the wayside and sometimes combat just devolves into a lot of dice rolls instead of cool tactics combined with dice rolls. Still, combat is the most fun for me as a GM in a long time. We, as a group, are still adjusting to the speed of the system, coming from very crunchy Champions and Fantasy Hero, Gurps and some experimentation with d20.

So for me, I'm looking for a tone in combat systems. Possibly could be called more cinematic (although I always want death as a tension maker in combat, so that leans towards gritty). But I want my players to feel like they are there as much as possible. Very detailed systems slow things down too much for me. As much as I like the results, I find them too slow in coming.

FzGhoul: I'm having a hard time framing a reply. It would help me greatly if you could reframe your question in terms that are a little less... well... vague.

When you say (paraphrased) "AD&D is a fast system, but it turns out that it's slower than a slow system" I can only look at this and think "He's not using 'fast' and 'slow' in ways that I can get a grip on."

Is it possible to reframe your question in terms from the Provisional Glossary, such as Points of Contact and Step On Up?

For instance, are you saying that Step On Up is assisted by many potential Points of Contact, but that these Points of Contact should be optional so that they are empowering players as tools, rather than restricting them to a fixed structure?

My goal I guess is kind of to try and dispel the stigma alot of "Rules Heavy" games get for being too "Complicated"

Sorry, pretty much ignore my statements, I kind of centered things in my own mind.

I guess my main statement is:

Many game makers want a Combat system that is both
1) Indepth
2) Plays "Fast"

And alot of the time, people argue that you can't have both...(I disagree)

But, I guess what would you rather have:
A very indepth, rules upon rules, scrutinizing strategies,
OR
A few quick simple rolls, a quick outcome.

No matter what you do, to get that combination you're going to have to sacrifice a little bit of both to meet in the middle.
From just ponderage, I'd say a possible system that uses a d% and some probability variables could achieve the desired results- player declares they're aiming center mass, they're standing on a hill top, aiming at a stationary guard wearing plate armor over his chest and back.
Account for: Skill (base chance to strike in ideal conditions), distance (how much the arrow could possibly deviate), what the armor is going to (odds are deflect or penetrate. If it dents his armor, he's not going to take "damage"). Such a system might also want to stay away from "damage" (noted by the dented armor example) and go with "Wound Descriptors"- someone throws a punch at you, you might get "Black Eye, penalty to sight based actions for 2 days" or if you blocked a suffifciantly strong punch "Bruised Forearm, sensitive to pressure for 2 days". Account for worse and worse wounds, you'll have some that result in a lingering death or some (like the arrow shot) which kill instantly. If you know the Head, Neck, and Heart to be basic "Instant Kill", you can get away with a one roll combat system thats both quick and generally realistic:
- Player aims for the Guard's Neck, which is unprotected.
* Elevated Height = Bonus to roll
* High Skill = High starting %
* unprotected = no penalty for armor
* difficult target (neck) = penalty
* distance to target = penaly
Roll less than the final number to strike. Obviously, with the neck target, you miss the roll you blow the shot, but if you were aiming center mass, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a Target/Bullseye system: come so close and you won't hit center mass, but you could graze the shoulder~ Get folks familiar with the system and they'll start calling it out themselves: "Okay, I'm X feet high, but X feet away...the guard isn't wearing a neck guard, but its a difficult shot...but I'm skilled enough..."

I'd say a major weakness of many combat systems is the need for a vitality score of some kind without any particular reason. You're not going to spend two hours (real or game time) hacking away at each other. Normally, its going to be one hit decides the outcome, its just who can land the blow. Thus, it'd make more sense to make actually striking a little more difficult, but allow 1-hit kills to be the norm. As was said in another discussion on Armor, most armor is made to DEFLECT the blow, so reducing the number of blows that actually connect would a little more realistically reflect the actual use of Armorments and such.

In reading this thread, I still don't quite see what you are looking for, unless you are just trying a survey.

You might want to read this older thread on speed of play.

One point I tried to raise in that thread, that also applies here is that "fast" or "slow" are subjective perceptions of each individual player. What the player is really thinking when he thinks about the speed of a system is more like one of the following:

- Combat in this system takes too long so I don't get a chance to do the other things I want to do.

- Combat in this system takes too long so we only clear out one or two rooms of the dungeon in a game session.

- Combat in this system is too deadly, combat only lasts one or two rounds so I don't have a chance to react to an initial poor roll or decision ("oops, we shouldn't have gone through this door" or "oops, I didn't notice the archer in the tree").

- I like this system because I have a chance to apply strategy to maximize my combat performance in a complex battle, yet we still have time to do other things in a game session.

I personally like tactical, wargamelike combat systems so I want some detail and I want to use a hex map. I'm willing to spend two hours to resolve an important combat. Other people want some detail, but don't want to spend that much time on a combat, they may choose to forgo the hex map and some of the tactical options. Then there are the folks that are more concerned with the implications of combat, and are satisfied with a single roll resolution system.

Frank

One reason that I enjoy faster combat systems more is not only because of the shorter duration of the battles, but because what the faster system lacks in substance it makes up for in flavor. You see, a battle takes place in a short amount of time, and people really don't have enough time to think about all their combat options. People will either choose the one that will do the most damage to their opponent(s), the one that is most convenient, or the one that will most likely keep them alive (or possibly others I haven't thought of). Anyway, this random factor is greatly diminished in a slower system because the players have a much greater amount of time to think things out, thus creating a more scripted feeling to the battle, which can be seen in movies and the like (which is good if that's what you're going for). If you want things to look cool and cinematic, then you might want to look at a slower system. If you want more random action that seems more realistic, then a faster system may be something to think about.

zephyr_cirrus wrote: If you want things to look cool and cinematic, then you might want to look at a slower system.