Hi, I'm a long-time lurker at The Forge, and have seen many great ideas that have got me thinking about my game.

For a long time now I've GMed a rather Gamist and very non-Simulationist campaign in D&D. It doesn't involve much dungeon-hacking, but is a thoroughly old-school campaign.
One thing me and my players don't like, is the combat system. We don't like how long it takes to resolve combat, and the amount of dice-rolling you need. I have a lot of interest in scene-based resolution mechanics, but my players don't like the idea of resolving combat based on one or so die rolls.
I'm trying to work out a way to have combat that keeps the 'feel' of D&D combat, but without the constant die rolls and calculations.

I haven't explained it very well, but does anyone have any ideas for doing this?

-Sir Thomas

Welcome Sir!

There are a lot of games that use a single roll for both hit and damage (basing damage off the margin of success between attacker and victim, plus any bonus damage from weapon type). Going with a single hit/damage roll system would greatly reduce handling time. Using fixed values for initiative (instead of rolling) would also reduce handling (or is it search?) time. If you wanted to maintain a crunchy sort of feel and make initiative a little more dynamic you could assign initiative bonuses/penalties for faster/slower weapons types. Also, designing the character sheet such that there is a place for the player to write in pre-figured combat values also helps.

That's the easy stuff that springs to mind. I'm assuming you don't want to break away from traditional concepts like combat rounds, initiative and hit points. I just got the impression you didn't. Correct me if I'm wrong. It is of course possible I've entirely missed the point.

I agree. Try one of the many systems that resolve a combat round with one roll per combatant.

This reflects my tastes: Take a look at combat in Over the Edge or FATE (which allows one to customize the complication of the resolution of contested rolls).

The problem with scene resolution is that some classes are primarily tactical in nature. The fun part of the Wizard is being able to use a prepared spell at exactly the right time. My advice would be either convert to a system that supports scene resolution better or simply speed up combat.

Perhaps the simplest mechanical way to speed up D&D combat is to double or triple all damage rolls. This also has the effect of making combat more random, but that is not necesarily a bad thing. It makes traps much more deadly, which is fine if you are going for a first edition feel with high PC death rates. Otherwise you might want to restrict the multiplying to actual combat.

Another way is to speed up combat is not to roll damage at all. Always assign max damage as if it had been rolled. Instead of rolling 2d6 for a Great Sword, just have it do 12 points of damage. Very deadly at low levels, so start your characters at least 3rd level. This also reduces the amount of dice rolling in combat.

As GM you can make combat quicker by having most opponents panic, retreat or surrender after losing half their hit points. Maybe force a Will saving throw (or Wisdom check if playing an older edition) to stop/continue fighting.

Good luck.

cruciel wrote: That's the easy stuff that springs to mind. I'm assuming you don't want to break away from traditional concepts like combat rounds, initiative and hit points. I just got the impression you didn't. Correct me if I'm wrong. It is of course possible I've entirely missed the point.

Part of making any combat go smoother, I feel, is preparation. Another part is learning little short cuts. Some of this can involve making the players work: depending on what dice you are using for init, if you still wish to keep that system, you can mark down your NPCs' inits and call down numbers from the fastest to slowest to get everybody in. Try to get a feel for knowing where everybody stands; know your PCs well, and what you can typically expect from them. Working out a simple shorthand to keep track of things can help as well. When I used to help run an on-line game, I found myself often in a position of managing six or seven players and as many or more critters. I've even taken on the insane task of running events with as many as twenty players at once, though it does help that I could C&P things; I'd C&P my players' inits and delete them one by one as they took their turn, or "mark them down" (this system used d100s, and if your init was over 100, you got an extra move at that moment minus 100. If you were so fast you could get a 223, you'd have a move at 123 and 23 as well, though there were special circumstances where it would be otherwise. When I hit such speedy characters, I'd not erase them from the notepad or whatnot I had open but instead drop off a hundred so I could catch them the next time through). Part of this, I suppose, really does depend on the methods you choose to use. A little more damage, perhaps speed up your characters... personally, I don't like rounds, and prefer to go with a rolling init, where you keep counting up from 0, with every action takin a certain amount of base time on top of an amount added by die roll, with some various factors that can bring an action about more or less rapidly. If you go to something like this, be careful to install a minimum speed, or speed, so speed doesn't become TOO great a factor (something I've encountered in too many games).

Breaking from D&D is never a bad thing in my book... if you still like the world but want to change the system, perhaps you need to shift, to blend, to mingle, or to outright transfer to some method that better fits what you desire. If you don't like it... if it doesn't work... fix it. Tweak it. Nobody holds you to the rules, certainly, though by the same way you need to establish equally firm new rules to have a solid framework to continue from.

One of the simplest tricks I've seen to speed up D&D combat without changing the system at all is to roll to-hit dice and damage dice in one roll. If you miss, ignore the damage dice. If you hit your damage is already rolled and you can just call it out.

This won't save a lot of time, but it will help a little.

Hi there,

You may have already tried and rejected this idea ... but my suggestion is to check out Tunnels & Trolls. It's incredibly well built for the old-school goals and also for customizing them through a very flexible secondary mechanic.

Best,
Ron

Hallo,

I've been thinking about this problem off and on for a couple of days now trying to come up with something, all I got for my efforts was a list of questions, but depending on your answers things may work out nicely for you.

First do you use random encounters? D&D relys more on random encounters than any other game system I've ever seen. You take a nap for the night and you can be randomly attacked, walk down the road and you could be randomly attacked, do anything anywhere and you can be randomly attacked. Now more often than not random encounters are these little tiny combats that aren't paticularly chalanging to anyone. But here comes the great big problem. So you are a buntch of high level adventures and you get mugged by some orcs. Well one spell could take most of them out, a few of thouse spiffy magical arrows could kill the rest, as well as some of thouse magic items that you only can use once a day. The players have the tools availble to compleatly whipe the floor with your orcs but they can't use them. Why? Because there is an actual game session that you have planned where they are going to need all thouse spells, powers, abilitys, and more in order to survive. So you are stuck fighting at half power against thinga that ordinarly wouldn't even begin to pose a threat to you. Of course fighting at half power makes the combat last three times as long as nessisary...then there is the chance that someone might get hurt. You can't use a valuable healing potion or spell so you have to wait even longer while you rest and heal. Of course resting leads to another random encounter and the cycle goes on.

My recomendation is to just get rid of the random encounters. Or at the very least cut back on them dramaticly. Think about it this way, what dose a random encounter add to your game? Are they really so important that the AD&D experence would be lost without it? If you would like to have things happening to the players have it relate to the story. You could have them be attacked by assasins, thouse goblins could bare the emblem of the person they are after. Combats become more interesting when something related to the story comes out of them.

Alright, there is also another solution other than the just getting rid of random encounters. And this one could be applyed to general enouters. Its the orcs again. There are 8 of them, in a couple of rounds the players kill 4 of them. It is quite obviouse the players are going to win, its obviouse to the players, why not have it be obviouse to the orcs? There is a lot to be said for having creatures throw down thier weapons and giving up. I mean these are rational thinking creatures after all for the most part, and in general they try to give up before being killed. This can cut the combat time down by quite a few rounds. After all animals run away when they are hurt, thinking people surrender, do you honestly think most goblins would fight to the death? I mean how many times have you seen your monster have like 4 hps left and then the players strat missing thier to hit rolls for some reason. To many for my tastes. So the monster gives up. When a surrender/run away situation occures I still award full experence points. This way the players won't feel cheated that the creatures ran away.

This should help cut down on the time you are spending in combat signifigantly.

I like the idea of monsters just giving up after a while but still giving full XPs.

My two cents on random encounters and critters that run away....

Random encounters don't have to be thought of as situations that exist in a vaccuum. They might not be part of the main plot, but they could lead to future storylines, even subplots. And then again they could add a little flavor, make what comes later that much more difficult. I do agree, though, deluging your game with random encounters, checking for them when you walk through a door, somebody wanders off into the woods to drop their trousers for a few moments, can grow monotonous. I think it helps to have somewhat planned random encounters. Myself, I like my games to flow realistically, to seem both planned and spontaneous at once. Since I make up a lot as I go along, I have the second part always, and as for the first... I always have underlying goals, and I seem to subconsciously have a habit of making connections my players see that even I don't. ::chuckles:: Anyhow, though, sometimes random encounters do take on a life of their own, just as a miniscule NPC or critter will (haven't you ever had the bumbling guard who just couldn't keep on his feet to save his life, or the minor foe who somehow proves three times more resilient and dangerous than he was supposed to be?). Try to keep your players and their characters on their toes without overwhelming them... keep them jumping enough to be paranoid and thinking always, but not so much that everything becomes routine.

For critters that run away... well, I never assigned XP based on killing critters anyhow. A win is a win in my book, and survival is survival. Now, some wins are only partial if you had to capture a certain person or you lost the guy with the clue that really would have helped... but you did survive. You did defeat your foes, to an extent. Creatures do run. Mindless foes that always fight to the death are dead dull boring, and unrealistic besides. IF the wyvern decides it's getting a real shellacing and this prey just isn't worth the pain and danger it is clearly facing, have not the characters achieved a victory? Not all gains should be measured in death; this sort of situation I feel encourages hack-n-slash. Why talk your way past or sneak or trick your foes when there is absolutely no benefit in it? Of course, there are other benefits... like stealth, not using precious resources, so on. This is really a judgement call on the part of the GM. As some might tell if they've read my posts, I tend to be in favor of tailoring the results to the needs of the situation. Do try to consider the flight portion of fight or flight more often, however, as it adds another dimension of realism to the game, not to mention keeping enemies and dangers alive to return...

This answer's not exactly scene-based resolution: in fact, it's not at all.

Still, I think you should check out The Burning Wheel. It's $15, so it won't hit your wallet too hard. It has scripted combat - combat is planned out before actually running it, and then played through, speeding up the scene without sacrificing a bit of tactical elements. Even if you want to keep playing D&D, I think you could adapt this system well to give a quicker, more scene-based game while keeping things like timing and tactics involved.

Personally, I am against anything being fully scripted, plotted out. Why? Because this doesn't take into account two of the greatest chaos factors that exist:

1) The dice (or whatever other random factor there is out there).

2) Even more powerful usually... the players.

The fact is, a bad night for your players, a good night for your critters, could turn things entirely on its ear. Further, players often display the unique ability to do precisely what you don't expect of them, which can often include finding rather creative ways to dispatch your creations (I should know, I'm rather notorious myself for my innovative methods of circumventing foes and making use of odd items and spells). Scripts don't help, also, if your players decide to take a different route than you had plotted out... one that potentially takes them well out of the way, perhaps entirely out of the way, of your carefully-layed scenarios. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with some rigorous planning... just be prepared to improvise but fast when, as inevitably they do, things go awry.

I figure the basic reason D&D combat gets dull is because of it's take turns standing still and being hit mechanic. In effect no matter how good you are you still get lots of damage inflicted on you. This means that hp totals have to be boosted to make this possible. As a result the fights get longer, and more boring, as you painstakingly wear down the megabeast.

So, my suggested fix is this. Make it so only one combatant (the winning one) gets to deal damage in any given combat round. Since the winning party only deals damage, the hp totals can be lower, and the combat's quicker.

Mr Jack wrote: I figure the basic reason D&D combat gets dull is because of it's take turns standing still and being hit mechanic. In effect no matter how good you are you still get lots of damage inflicted on you. This means that hp totals have to be boosted to make this possible. As a result the fights get longer, and more boring, as you painstakingly wear down the megabeast.

So, my suggested fix is this. Make it so only one combatant (the winning one) gets to deal damage in any given combat round. Since the winning party only deals damage, the hp totals can be lower, and the combat's quicker.

Not necessarily the "speediest." Just the "winner." You could suck at speed, but still "win."

Hello,

Windthin, you're misinterpreting Clinton's description of the Burning Wheel's "scripting" mechanic. It doesn't operate as a pre-planned set of events for a scene or scenario; it's a framework of moves during combat that can be pre-empted or changed during resolution. Despite the name, it ends up being profoundly un-scripted in application.

Everyone, to see some older discussion of issues raised in this thread, see The four steps of action and Task vs. conflict and scene vs. action. Both of them were posted in response to my essay "GNS and related matters of role-playing," so if you haven't checked that out yet, it might interest you too.

Best,
Ron

I think that The Riddle of Steel might be up your alley. It has lot's of nifty tactical play, but combats are still resolved in short order. Basically it makes combat, shorter, more realisitic and more dramatic all at once.

Look for it in the forum on the Indie Games page here on the Forge.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I think that The Riddle of Steel might be up your alley. It has lot's of nifty tactical play, but combats are still resolved in short order. Basically it makes combat, shorter, more realisitic and more dramatic all at once.

Windthin wrote: This is an interesting suggestion, but how would you suggest determining who? Furthermore, how do you apply this to a combat with many participants on both sides? If this becomes a matter of survival of the speediest... well, this would be the most extreme example I've seen. Also, where do non-damage-inducing actions fall into place? Do you assume they happen unhindered? This idea, I feel, needs a little more fleshing if it is to work. You might really want to go to a rolling init, constantly moving, and forego rounds altogether then.

Sir Thomas wrote: I was under the impression that TRoS' combat was quite complex. Is that incorrect?

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

Windthin, you're misinterpreting Clinton's description of the Burning Wheel's "scripting" mechanic. It doesn't operate as a pre-planned set of events for a scene or scenario; it's a framework of moves during combat that can be pre-empted or changed during resolution. Despite the name, it ends up being profoundly un-scripted in application.