WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

And this is where the GM grows a pair and tells them no' date=' finding a different way to make them useful or giving them something else to do in the extra 5 minutes that the other guy is concious.[/quote']

 

What do the players do for the period of time that their characters are KO'd while High Defenses Man is still up and running? Generally, something that takes them out of the game, making it tough to get them back in when the combat is over.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

Some great maps there! But my issues, specifically with flying characters, is the size of the maps...they are not always wide/long enough. OR the characters with loooong range abilities can only maximize their skills when the map is very, very large (nor nonexistant).

 

I fully endorse maps for creating the atmosphere and "setting the stage". But they can also limit things by their sheer mechanical nature.

 

 

 

Gotcha, I can see how that could be a problem When the players have so much movement that the map seems too small.

[Scott Baker]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

This can be a real issue in many groups. Player A envisions his character as "hard to hurt"' date=' and he's not happy with the average 12d6 attack putting 17 STUN through his 25 PD. So he wants to buy his PD up to, say, 35. Now only 7 gets through.[/quote']

 

It's been mentioned by others in different threads, but this sounds like a case where a GM could work with the players to make sure their characters each have their own schtick, and the others don't step on that. Then Hard-to-Hurt Man can have higher defenses (maybe not quite so high). Since that's his schtick, the other characters wouldn't get into the escalation war.

 

Of course this still requires players mature enough to do what's best for the game, as you mentioned. This might just give them their "reason" to make the right decision.

 

Scott Baker

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

It's been mentioned by others in different threads, but this sounds like a case where a GM could work with the players to make sure their characters each have their own schtick, and the others don't step on that. Then Hard-to-Hurt Man can have higher defenses (maybe not quite so high). Since that's his schtick, the other characters wouldn't get into the escalation war.

 

Of course this still requires players mature enough to do what's best for the game, as you mentioned. This might just give them their "reason" to make the right decision.

 

When "doing the right thing" results in having a lot of bored players sitting out significant portions of the game, is it really the right thing? I note you mention "maybe not quite so high", and I certainly agree with characters not stepping on one another's toes. However, being the fastest, the hardest-hitting or the most accurate doesn't seem like such a great schtick when your character spends half of any typical combat KO'd while one or two PC's, whose schtick keeps them in the battle, fight on.

[CourtFool]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

Still no sticky?

[Frenchman]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

What do the players do for the period of time that their characters are KO'd while High Defenses Man is still up and running? Generally' date=' something that takes them out of the game, making it tough to get them back in when the combat is over.[/quote']

 

Only once have I seen that 'period of time' last more than 10 minutes - and I'm being generous there. Besides, it wasn't Hero that we were playing. The two of us went and played Soul Caliber until it was finished.

The only way I can see that 'period of time,' between most of the party being unconcious and the end of the battle, being significant is when the players character's are severely unbalanced, the players themselves are incredibly impatient, the Dice are being really quite wierd, or the GM has designed (intentionally or unitentially) a sceneario which gives a ridiculously huge advantage or disadvantage to one or a few of the players.

[Zephrosyne]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

Well, I ran a Hero System campaign early 2006 and it actually went well for the most part. The one thing that did get to me was the length of combat. There was also a lot of number crunching in terms of keeping up with various modifiers for this and that. The number crunching didn't bother me as much as the book keeping (particularly with adjustment powers). I found myself having to make notations during combat just to be sure I remembered things. After the game was over, I would review the session (both mechanically and story wise) and I was frustrated by the number of things that I did wrong or forgot. I am a meticulous gm by nature so this was a hard pill to swallow.

 

Anyway, after the campaign was over, I decided to run fantasy and I used D&D 3.5 thinking that it would be much faster and easier. Frankly, I found combat to take just as long as it did in Hero System (characters started at 4th level and advanced to 8th). Furthermore, while Hero System fights were long, I wouldn't characterize them as particularly slow. I found D&D to be long and slow. While the rules aren't particularly hard with either game, in D&D I found myself having to stop and look up spell descriptions fairly often. At least with Hero System, every "effect" is built with the same few powers and modifiers. Once you have them committed to memory, you know how they work regardless of how they are being applied. With D&D, the sheer number of spells is impossible to keep up with, especially when you add splat books. You also have feats and special abilities on top of that and I won't even go into prestige classes, which I had the good sense to not allow.

 

I did not use a map in Hero System although I did in D&D (you pretty much have to). This did not help matters. I have players (and myself) counting squares and finding ways to make that fireball hit every possible target without hitting their allies, maneuvering back and forth to flank opponents for a bonus to hit/sneak attack, negotiating around threatened squares/attacks of opportunity, and other things of that nature. D&D felt more like a tactical wargame than a roleplaying game. I am not faulting the players (or myself) for doing it that is how the game is played. However, counting squares forwards, backwards, and diagonally, did slow thing down a lot in my opinion.

 

Now, I am not saying that one game is better than the other. I think that both are fine games in very different ways. My point was that Hero System wasn't quite as daunting as it seemed and was more rewarding for my effort once I experienced something else. I just think that it takes more time to get used to. Also, I will say that it is not a game that I would recommend for a lazy gm because I do believe that there is a bit of heavy lifting that isn't required with most other rule sets. Sorry for the bit of thread deviation but I was rather germane to my point.

[Spence]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

Sorry for the bit of thread deviation but I was rather germane to my point.

 

I wouldn't call it a deviation since in pretty much states the reality. That being combat isn't really any longer than any other game that has a detailed system. At one time Hero was much more complicated than everything else, but while Hero has mellowed with age, D&D (and others) have grown up and become much much more detailed and as such slower.

 

I do find it interesting, and this is not a knock or jab , but the vast majority of people who say their game of D&D runs faster do it at the expense of simply dropping a complete and core portion of the rules. The Prestige classes. I can remember when the "cool neat idea" was being pitched, PC's were one of the "great new concepts" and my copies of the books (3.0 not 3.5) all treat them as a core concept. Now I admit they are modularized well enough it is very easy to drop them (and many people do). I think the main thing is the contrast. A person who argues that Hero is "too complicated and too slow" generally cites endless points that boil down to "I am using many many additional and optional rules and it makes Hero slower" while simultaneously saying "when I play D&D 3.5 I leave out major portions of the game because everything is an option and I don't like them".

 

As I said, I am not intending to single you out as if I think something is wrong. I am just pointing out what I think is a trend. For myself if I step back and look at it, Hero is much faster than D&D. The why is I really really dislike the way D&D is designed these days, which means I have no really motivation to become familiar with the rules to the extent needed to run a reasonably fast game. I think Hero is the best system ever designed and have a really good grasp of the rules, and therefore sessions seem to fly.

 

In the end Hero is a very flexible game that has a fast combat resolution that will slow as you add more options to the mix. D&D is a game system that built up a rep as being fast back when it was super simplified, but has now expanded to add the level of detail expected in a mature gaming system. This expansion has done what all such moves do, added detail adds complication which adds time.

 

For both systems eliminating the use of maps speeds play up dramatically, but at the expense of gutting the combat rules. This is neither good or bad. But it is a truth. So on and so on………

 

 

 

Hmmm………. I know longer know where I am going with this so I will shut up now……

[tesuji]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

I do find it interesting, and this is not a knock or jab , but the vast majority of people who say their game of D&D runs faster do it at the expense of simply dropping a complete and core portion of the rules. The Prestige classes. I can remember when the "cool neat idea" was being pitched, PC's were one of the "great new concepts" and my copies of the books (3.0 not 3.5) all treat them as a core concept. Now I admit they are modularized well enough it is very easy to drop them (and many people do). I think the main thing is the contrast. A person who argues that Hero is "too complicated and too slow" generally cites endless points that boil down to "I am using many many additional and optional rules and it makes Hero slower" while simultaneously saying "when I play D&D 3.5 I leave out major portions of the game because everything is an option and I don't like them".

 

this sounds very off to me... as in an apples and oranges comparison.

 

Do you believe prestige classes SLOW DOWN PLAY in DND?

 

I don't but I could be wrong. They certainly complicate the overall chargen and while i have seen plenty of people talk about dropping PRCs for balance or for simplicifying the game overall, i have never heard anyone say "to speed up combats" as their reason for doing so.

 

I think the dropping of PrCs is what i would term a setting choice or a campaign dial, something done as defining the world the characters are in, along the same lines as saying "this is a scifi game, no magic" in HERO.

 

To me there is little IN PLAy difference between a character without PrCs and one with. Their is a BIG difference in terms of overall game management, especially if you allow many PrCs, but thats again not a PLAy issue.

 

Comparing this to dropping actual IN PLAY affecting stuff seems like an odd comparison, beyond the superficial compariosn of "both are talking about dropping stuff".

 

Simply put, I have no qualsm about saying in DND "no PRCs". I would have little sympathy for players who did not like that campaign setting.

I would have some qualms about deciding to change how speed works in hero or changing how held actions work in hero or even at being draconian about things like "dont count hexes" and "eggtimering" movement and would have sympathies for players who had problems with such decisions.

 

and i dont feel those are contradictory sentiments. One is setting definition and out of play management while the other is IN PLAYcutbacks.

 

now oif one were to compare it to dropping AoOs... thats another story. :-)

[Spence]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

this sounds very off to me... as in an apples and oranges comparison.

 

Do you believe prestige classes SLOW DOWN PLAY in DND?

 

I don't but I could be wrong. They certainly complicate the overall chargen and while i have seen plenty of people talk about dropping PRCs for balance or for simplicifying the game overall, i have never heard anyone say "to speed up combats" as their reason for doing so.

 

I think the dropping of PrCs is what i would term a setting choice or a campaign dial, something done as defining the world the characters are in, along the same lines as saying "this is a scifi game, no magic" in HERO.

 

To me there is little IN PLAy difference between a character without PrCs and one with. Their is a BIG difference in terms of overall game management, especially if you allow many PrCs, but thats again not a PLAy issue.

 

Comparing this to dropping actual IN PLAY affecting stuff seems like an odd comparison, beyond the superficial compariosn of "both are talking about dropping stuff".

 

Simply put, I have no qualsm about saying in DND "no PRCs". I would have little sympathy for players who did not like that campaign setting.

I would have some qualms about deciding to change how speed works in hero or changing how held actions work in hero or even at being draconian about things like "dont count hexes" and "eggtimering" movement and would have sympathies for players who had problems with such decisions.

 

and i dont feel those are contradictory sentiments. One is setting definition and out of play management while the other is IN PLAYcutbacks.

 

now oif one were to compare it to dropping AoOs... thats another story. :-)

 

There are actually several threads that cite not allowing PRC's as part of their way of streamlining the game. Plus the AoO's you mentioned. The time savings are generally not because the combat rules are that much slower, but that the players or DM usually winds up spending forever flipping through the books.

 

Like I said above, I am not saying one thing is wrong or right. I am saying that it is all subjective. Almost all of the "Hero is slow crowd" have consistently said the need to count up all the mods and decide on the maneuvers kills game speed. And they are correct if you use 10 books worth of options (yes I am exaggerating). In the core rules there are only 10 basic maneuvers (I just went and counted on the official character sheet). If you use just them, playing the game in the default basic mode, it runs along at a fast clip. But the more you toss in the more decisions need to be made, which slows the game down.

 

Identical to using PRC’s, if you do not use them you do not have to deal with the options. If you do then the game will slow. Even if you, the DM, are an expert, the player still needs to make decisions and Player A may be completely familiar with his PC’s abilities, but when they impact Player B, Player B is going to want to know why his favorite whatsit was just negated by Player A. And they will either have to look it up, have the DM look it up, or have the DM make a judgment. One of the reasons I don’t play it is I have watched games swirl in arguments that go on for hours because Book #1 makes a statement that is directly contradictory to Book #2’s statement.

 

Once again it is not the system as much as the DM/GM and his/her control of their game. Ditto with Hero.

 

I just find it funny that as I read through the threads both sides tend to cherry pick their arguments (and that includes me).

 

I know and fully recognize that one of the reasons any game I am in that utilizes D&D 3.5 is crappy, clunky and slow is because I have an irrational knee-jerk venomous hatred of the system. Which is why I no longer will sit down at a game of it. I don’t feel I should suffer through it or, maybe more importantly, ruin someone else’s fun with my sour presence .

[Zorak1003]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

I think declaration phase then action phase does inherently slow things down, but I LIKE that fast characters know what slower characters are planning. I do impose a time limit on declaration, and encourage people to pass and hold their phase if they really don't know what to do.

 

Counting damage dice is also a big thing, and I have recently eliminated that by basing damage on the to-hit roll. If you roll exactly what you need to hit, it's as if you rolled all ones- If you hit by 3, you rolled all 3s, etc. (Hits by more than 6 are considered all 6s)

 

The drawback is that you need to get an above average roll against someone who is your equal in combat to do significant damage. The jury is still out on this, though it does reflect martial artists well.

 

Alternately, one could say you roll all 1s if you roll the number needed to hit, and all 3.5 or 4 if you hit by any number but 6, all 6s if you hit by 6 or more.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

I think declaration phase then action phase does inherently slow things down' date=' but I LIKE that fast characters know what slower characters are planning.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I wouldn't consider a system where better combat order grants precognitive abilities as to decisions of other characters.

 

I do impose a time limit on declaration' date=' and encourage people to pass and hold their phase if they really don't know what to do.[/quote']

 

Problem solved - I'll just declare "holding my phase" every time and declare when my DEX comes up.

 

Counting damage dice is also a big thing' date=' and I have recently eliminated that by basing damage on the to-hit roll. If you roll exactly what you need to hit, it's as if you rolled all ones- If you hit by 3, you rolled all 3s, etc. (Hits by more than 6 are considered all 6s)[/quote']

 

What's that? Buy up my DEX, OCV nad DV as high as possible, since that's better defense than defenses and better offense than attack dice? Got it! Tack on my precognition powers due to going first, and high DEX is clearly the concept of choice. Poor Brick, with his low CV, always does 1 point per die (especially since the target knows the Brick is targetting him since he had to declare that, so he can dodge) and always takes 6 points per die from everyone else.

 

If I wanted to cut down on dice, I'd be more inclined to impose a Standard Effect rule on all but a few dice rolled, and a standard stun multiple on KA's. The huge volatility created by your approach, coupled with the enormous increase to the value of CV, would shift the game too much for my liking.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I wouldn't consider a system where better combat order grants precognitive abilities as to decisions of other characters.

A lot of systems do this. It's not meant to be precognition so much as quicker reflexes - you can tell if someone is going to punch you, shoot you, run away, whatever, and you can react to their intention before they complete the action.

 

Problem solved - I'll just declare "holding my phase" every time and declare when my DEX comes up.

 

Which is essentially what the slowest guy goes first system does. Everyone is assumed to hold their phase long enough to react to the slow guys' intentions.

 

Although you do have a point about how this added to the damage-based-on-attack-roll system would lead to incredible DEX inflation.

[Zorak1003]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I wouldn't consider a system where better combat order grants precognitive abilities as to decisions of other characters.

 

 

Address that to the game designers, not me. I don't see it as "precognition" that faster characters- FASTER CHARACTERS, get it?- Can respond to what they can SEE someone else is doing.

 

 

Problem solved - I'll just declare "holding my phase" every time and declare when my DEX comes up.

 

 

 

What's that? Buy up my DEX, OCV nad DV as high as possible, since that's better defense than defenses and better offense than attack dice? Got it! Tack on my precognition powers due to going first, and high DEX is clearly the concept of choice. Poor Brick, with his low CV, always does 1 point per die (especially since the target knows the Brick is targetting him since he had to declare that, so he can dodge) and always takes 6 points per die from everyone else.

 

quote]

 

There's also a 14- to-hit maximum on normal rolls (AofE's and strikes against characters at reduced DCV can be 18-), you bring higher rolls down by increasing damage, +1 per -2 to-hit. And can you justify all your power gaming? The "poor brick" apparently can't...

[Doc Democracy]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

What's that? Buy up my DEX' date=' OCV nad DV as high as possible, since that's better defense than defenses and better offense than attack dice? Got it! Tack on my precognition powers due to going first, and high DEX is clearly the concept of choice. Poor Brick, with his low CV, always does 1 point per die (especially since the target knows the Brick is targetting him since he had to declare that, so he can dodge) and always takes 6 points per die from everyone else.[/quote']

 

As you know, I have looked at something similar in my games, though I extended the to hit range. If you are throwing significant DCs of damage then even a low roll can be effective against someone with low defences - I didn't do it like Zorak - but the principle was the same.

 

I think in such a game that there needs to be a carefully worked out rule of X which means that if you do splurge on dex then you will be light in offence and defence. That way you can work to balance the issue and will mean that you get real differences in the way different builds work and fight. I think that the current system pulls people into the brick way of fighting too much - hence the real need to ensure everyone has good enough defences (combat luck is a system workaround to ensure that certain styles do not feel too vulnerable in a fight - I know that the Hero philosophy dictates that it doesn't matter how you get an effect but that doesn't wash with newbies).

 

My problem is that I haven't played the system (varying damage by dice - been playing Hero since 81) enough to get a good evaluation of where I need to set the rule of X. I'm not likely to either - I think while I will stay with Hero for fantasy and most especially pulp I will move to a more narrative system like HeroQuest for supers....

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: WHY is combat so slow and what have you done about it?

 

Address that to the game designers' date=' not me. I don't see it as "precognition" that faster characters- FASTER CHARACTERS, get it?- Can respond to what they can SEE someone else is doing. [/quote']

 

First off, I don't buy the argument that having a lower DEX means the character telegraphs his moves. The guy with the lower DEX (say 11) throws a punch on his DEX, so he hasn't committed to that punch at DEX 21 for the higher DEX character to be aware of it.

 

Second, if I went with your interpretation, the result would be inconsistent - it doesn't mean that "faster characters" always get this advantage. If our Dex 21 and Dex 11 examples have SPD 4 and SPD 3, respectively, the faster character moves in phase 3, and doesn't know what the slower character is going to do in phase 4. In fact, the slower character could hold his phase in phase 4, then act before the "faster" character in phase 6, forcing the faster character to declare his action first.

 

This structure pushes combat into discrete blocks of time (whether rounds or phases). Most game systems chunk up combat time into discrete chunks where a series of actions are performed, a time period (phase, turn round, whatever) ends and a new one begins. In the combat being simulated, however, there is no discrete, perceivable "end of one time period; beginning of another" - combat is a series of actions from start to end to the characters' perception.

 

Can a faster character wait to see what action a slower character will take, then try to interrupt it? Sure. That's called "holding your phase". But it's not something the "faster character" gets on an automatic recurring basis. It's something the character who is next to move can do if he delays his actions. The slower character can take advantage of this while the faster character is recovering from his last action.

 

I'll just declare "holding my phase" every time and declare when my DEX comes up.

 

Not sure why you quoted my quote above. My read of your comments was that "I'll hold my phase" was a legitimate declaration. That being the case, why should anyone declare anything different? Under the model suggested, this simply becomes the choice of "feint, bob and weave so he can't figure out my next action".

 

What's that? Buy up my DEX' date=' OCV and DCV as high as possible, since that's better defense than defenses and better offense than attack dice? Got it! Tack on my precognition powers due to going first, and high DEX is clearly the concept of choice. Poor Brick, with his low CV, always does 1 point per die (especially since the target knows the Brick is targetting him since he had to declare that, so he can dodge) and always takes 6 points per die from everyone else.[/quote']

 

There's also a 14- to-hit maximum on normal rolls (AofE's and strikes against characters at reduced DCV can be 18-)' date=' you bring higher rolls down by increasing damage, +1 per -2 to-hit. And can you justify all your power gaming? The "poor brick" apparently can't...[/quote']

 

I'm not sure where this 14- maximum is coming from. If I can move my hit from 4 per die to 6 per die by hitting by 2, why would I ever want to take a -2 penalty for +1 damage?

 

I don't necessarily see "power gaming" here, I see a model that rewards archetypes (like speedsters and martial artists) who have high OCV and high DCV, and penalizes archetypes which have lower OCV and DCV, offset by, perhaps, higher defenses and damage classes. Let's assume we'll have a big, tough character who does 14d6 damage and has defenses of 30, and a quick, lower damage, lower defense character who will do 10d6 damage and have defenses of 15. That's a pretty wide discrepancy. Tough paid 20 points for the extra 5d6 damage, and 30 for the extra 15/15 defenses (more if some is resistant, but let's keep it simple).

 

With that extra 50 points, our hypothetical quick character can buy 10 levels with his favored power suite. Assume he puts 5 each in OCV and DCV. Under the regular game, Quick hits on a 16- (virtually every time), but will only get 5 STUN past Tough's defenses on a typical hit. Tough needs to roll a 6- to hit (just under a 1 in 10 chance), but will average 34 Stun past Quick's defenses - one hit will likely end the battle, as Quick will be Stunned and reduced to half DCV.

 

Who has the advantage? Probably the quick guy, but Tough will get lots of chances to take him out.

 

Now let's apply the "each 1 I hit by moves my per die damage up 1" structure.

 

Quick hits on a 16-. He'll roll 10.5 or less on average, so his average hit will do 60 Stun, or 30 past Tough's defenses. Tough still hits only on a 6-, but now his average hit will do 14, and glance off Quick. He has a less than 5% chance of inflicting any damage, and that will be 13 through Quick's defenses if he rolls a 5 (2.78% chance), 27 if he rolls a 4 (1.39% chance) and 41 if he rolls a 4 (0.46% chance). So Tough has a less than 5% chance of doing any damage at all, where Quick will get 30 through on over half his attacks.

 

That doesn't seem near so balanced. Why? Because any system which bases both chance of hitting and damage inflicted primarily on OCV/DCV will favour high OCV/DCV and not favour poor OCV/DCV.

 

Is it really Powergaming for players to decide they'd like to play viable characters under the system you put in place? Chooosing to avoid the slow, but powerful, archetype in your system is about as much "powergaming" as choosing to spend less than 90% of my points on knowledge skills in a standard game.