Longer Rounds? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Longer Rounds? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
rydi123
10-04-06, 07:39 PM i have been toying with the idea of increasing the time a round takes. after the last game i ran in which 2 minutes of game time passed in 7 hours of real time, i found myself disturbed by the disparity, and by the number of incredible things that happened in such a short timespan.

so, anyone else think that lengthening the round would be a good idea? and if so, by what amount?

i believe a round is roughly 6 seconds, so i would say that an increase of anywhere from 10sec to 1min would be better.
Ranger REG
10-04-06, 07:56 PM i have been toying with the idea of increasing the time a round takes. after the last game i ran in which 2 minutes of game time passed in 7 hours of real time, i found myself disturbed by the disparity, and by the number of incredible things that happened in such a short timespan.
I'm not. But then I played D&D long before any CRPG came out (even then I played mostly text-based games from ZORK maker, Infocom).

There are ways to speed up everybody's turns during the combat rounds. The PHB and DMG offer some good suggestions.

If you want to increase the time increment of combat rounds, you may have to adjust all other time-related elements, including the reload actions of certain ranged weapons.
Telhuine
10-06-06, 07:42 PM i have been toying with the idea of increasing the time a round takes. after the last game i ran in which 2 minutes of game time passed in 7 hours of real time, i found myself disturbed by the disparity, and by the number of incredible things that happened in such a short timespan.

so, anyone else think that lengthening the round would be a good idea? and if so, by what amount?

i believe a round is roughly 6 seconds, so i would say that an increase of anywhere from 10sec to 1min would be better.

Are you going to be increasing the number of actions one can do in that time as well? This could be detrimental to your PCs, as if they are fighting a mob, they will be getting many more attacks than your group.

Conceivably, they could wipe you out quickly. If you change the round length to 1 minute, that will allow someone to have 10 standard actions and 10 move actions at one time. Even 10 seconds would allow someone an extra attack action, which could turn the tide against your PCs quickly. Granted, it could turn the tide in the PCs favor also, but against mobs, the odds are in the mob's favor.

A better solution might be to set a time limit in which the players can act. For example, you give them 20 or 30 seconds in which to decide what their actions will be that round. With 4 people and the bad guys going, that should give them a couple of minutes with which to figure out what they will do.
rydi123
10-06-06, 10:05 PM Are you going to be increasing the number of actions one can do in that time as well? This could be detrimental to your PCs, as if they are fighting a mob, they will be getting many more attacks than your group.

Conceivably, they could wipe you out quickly. If you change the round length to 1 minute, that will allow someone to have 10 standard actions and 10 move actions at one time. Even 10 seconds would allow someone an extra attack action, which could turn the tide against your PCs quickly. Granted, it could turn the tide in the PCs favor also, but against mobs, the odds are in the mob's favor.

A better solution might be to set a time limit in which the players can act. For example, you give them 20 or 30 seconds in which to decide what their actions will be that round. With 4 people and the bad guys going, that should give them a couple of minutes with which to figure out what they will do.

i was thinking more along the lines of the 2nd ed system. if i remember right, the rounds were a minute long, and they represented you dodging, parrying, etc, and the attack roll was a condensed representation of that. as you got to higher levels, you got more openings to act. in the current system, it isn't condensed really. so you get to do an incredible amount in a tiny amount of time, and at high levels it is really just beyond belief how fast a character can clear a battlefield of troops.

so, i guess the answer to your question is no. everyone would still have the same number of actions and everything, it would just be in a different time frame. just not sure what that time frame should be.

I'm not. But then I played D&D long before any CRPG came out (even then I played mostly text-based games from ZORK maker, Infocom).

There are ways to speed up everybody's turns during the combat rounds. The PHB and DMG offer some good suggestions.

If you want to increase the time increment of combat rounds, you may have to adjust all other time-related elements, including the reload actions of certain ranged weapons

yeah, i plan to limit the time it takes people to decide what they are doing in a given round, and i plan on avoiding some of the really big battles except on special occassions. so it should be a bit better/smoother from now on.

but i still think that i would like to adjust the round time. i dont think it will really affect much else if i do so. i might have to adjust spell times a little, and maybe reload times on a few weapons (though not that many really), but overall i don't see much of a difference to the majority of the system.

though i do think that i could start implementing fatigue checks after really long fights if i make the rounds longer. which i see as a good thing, as it adds sort of a novelesque feel, and lets the higher con characters shine a bit (fatigue? Bah! I'm a dwarf!).
Illithid_Tentacles
10-07-06, 12:31 PM i was thinking more along the lines of the 2nd ed system. if i remember right, the rounds were a minute long,

No, in 2e, turns were a minute long, and just the in-game name for 10 rounds. Rounds were still 6 seconds.
rydi123
10-07-06, 12:42 PM well then i just suck. :)

still, i do like the idea.
Ranger REG
10-07-06, 09:34 PM No, in 2e, turns were a minute long, and just the in-game name for 10 rounds. Rounds were still 6 seconds.
:ahem: Ahem. :ahem:

In 2e, A round is a minute long. Ten rounds equals one turn, ergo 10 minutes. I checked the source (my copy of the 2e PHB).

:teach:
Alac Luin
10-07-06, 10:58 PM The issue with the minute long round is things become more "unbelieveable".
I remember running combats 3 low level charicters vs. one goblin.
Due to bad rolls on each side, this combat lasted 15 minutes game time, I ended it with an arrow sent from the heavens.

Even with one minute rounds, the time disparity still exists unless you take drastic messures.
I knew of a DM that used a 1 minute egg timer (hourglass type) to get rid of this. If time ran out on the time, the round was over, better luck next round.

Point is, it would just be better to keep the 6 sec round and limit the time each player has to make thier move.
Edymnion
10-08-06, 12:34 AM As someone that has had some measure of experience in real world medieval combat (not much, just some sparring with some SCA buddies really), I can tell you, both from my own experience and the stories from the guys that do it a lot more than myself, that any combat that goes more than a few minutes is unbelievably long. The shear amount of physical exertion required to do real combat (even with padded weapons) is extreme, and even those in the best of shape will quickly tire. Those ten minute sword fights you see in movies are just that, movies. They are drawn out to eat up screen time and make things look cool, it doesn't happen that way in real combat. Mainly this is because that after a minute or two, you are so exausted that keeping up a good defense is almost impossible.

You never try to draw out a real fight, you always try to kill or disable the opponent as soon as possible. All this clanking your swords together for ten or fifteen minutes is pure hollywood. Real life medieval combat is more like a shootout or the power rangers fighting the mooks. A few blocks, a few parries, and then a solid hit or two and the other guy goes down. Its quick, its brutal, and it has no style.

Choreography never enters into the picture, fighting fancy doesn't work. You are savage, you are brutal, you do whatever it takes to kill the other guy before he kills you.

And just for the record, I remember watching one of the historical recreation things on History Channel about vikings, and one thing stood out to me as a D&D player. They had somebody they had been training for a day or two to use a viking hand axe against someone with a shield. They had a counter up on the screen for time and hits (not glances, but good solid hits). In ten seconds, the axe weilder got 8 hits. Again, not glances, but "chunks of wood flew out of the shield" hits.

Getting four hits in 6 seconds is *NOT* unreasonable for someone specifically trained in using their weapon, especially seeing as how someone that had never touched one of those axes in their life was getting over 4 attacks per round with one after just a couple day's training.
rydi123
10-08-06, 05:20 PM As someone that has had some measure of experience in real world medieval combat (not much, just some sparring with some SCA buddies really), I can tell you, both from my own experience and the stories from the guys that do it a lot more than myself, that any combat that goes more than a few minutes is unbelievably long. The shear amount of physical exertion required to do real combat (even with padded weapons) is extreme, and even those in the best of shape will quickly tire. Those ten minute sword fights you see in movies are just that, movies. They are drawn out to eat up screen time and make things look cool, it doesn't happen that way in real combat. Mainly this is because that after a minute or two, you are so exausted that keeping up a good defense is almost impossible.

You never try to draw out a real fight, you always try to kill or disable the opponent as soon as possible. All this clanking your swords together for ten or fifteen minutes is pure hollywood. Real life medieval combat is more like a shootout or the power rangers fighting the mooks. A few blocks, a few parries, and then a solid hit or two and the other guy goes down. Its quick, its brutal, and it has no style.

Choreography never enters into the picture, fighting fancy doesn't work. You are savage, you are brutal, you do whatever it takes to kill the other guy before he kills you.

And just for the record, I remember watching one of the historical recreation things on History Channel about vikings, and one thing stood out to me as a D&D player. They had somebody they had been training for a day or two to use a viking hand axe against someone with a shield. They had a counter up on the screen for time and hits (not glances, but good solid hits). In ten seconds, the axe weilder got 8 hits. Again, not glances, but "chunks of wood flew out of the shield" hits.

Getting four hits in 6 seconds is *NOT* unreasonable for someone specifically trained in using their weapon, especially seeing as how someone that had never touched one of those axes in their life was getting over 4 attacks per round with one after just a couple day's training.

i agree with you 100%. from my own martial arts training i know that any fight that lasts more than 30 seconds or so is forever. and most of the fancy sword work occurs only in duals, while on the battlefield things are resolved in but a few hits.

but, in d&d we are often talking about a battlefield full of troops being taken out by a warrior in mere seconds, which just doesn't happen. how long were actual battles, rather than duals? because that is what i would like to base my combat time on. at least for the big battles. i could see using the standard system for a back alley mugging, or duals though.
Reversefigure4
10-08-06, 11:51 PM Keep in mind the purpose of a round. It's a standard measuring unit for keeping track of time in DnD.

Now, it makes no difference whether a round is 6 seconds, 10 seconds, a minute, or 10 hours, as long as the same rules apply per round (such as the Fighter landing his multiple attacks). It doesn't make any difference how long you deem a round to be, as long as you measure time equally for everything.

Remember, though, if you change a round's time, you need to change the time based effects of everything else too. If a round lasts for 1 minute, any 1 min/level spells will need changing to 10 min/level (No point in having a Bull's Strength that lasts 1 round!). Hour/level spells become 10hr/level. And then you have problems with common spells lasting longer than a day.

Think about the effects before you implement such a change.
rydi123
10-09-06, 01:30 AM Keep in mind the purpose of a round. It's a standard measuring unit for keeping track of time in DnD.

Now, it makes no difference whether a round is 6 seconds, 10 seconds, a minute, or 10 hours, as long as the same rules apply per round (such as the Fighter landing his multiple attacks). It doesn't make any difference how long you deem a round to be, as long as you measure time equally for everything.

Remember, though, if you change a round's time, you need to change the time based effects of everything else too. If a round lasts for 1 minute, any 1 min/level spells will need changing to 10 min/level (No point in having a Bull's Strength that lasts 1 round!). Hour/level spells become 10hr/level. And then you have problems with common spells lasting longer than a day.

Think about the effects before you implement such a change.

quite true. the biggest problems are the really good buff spells that only last a few rounds/level. the stuff that lasts 10+ minutes/lvl are not really in need of any fixing. not sure how i would go about that without changing the feel too much...
Kradlo
10-09-06, 08:59 PM D&D rounds were originally one minute long. Dave Hargrave, author of the Arduin Grimoire (unofficial supplements to D&D) used 6-second melee rounds. The people that played in his games liked the faster rounds, and when D&D 3rd edition came out, it was evident that the playtesters and designers preferred it as well.

To be honest, I think the problem is not that a melee round is too short, but rather that you're not getting the action moving faster. As a GM, I'll work down the initiative chart, and when a player's turn comes up, I get a quick answer as to what he's doing, and resolve the action. If you let them dither and delay, they'll eat up the clock and make the game drag. Make them choose an action or delay, with the requisite lowering of initiative as a consequence. Combat is supposed to be fast and furious, not a slow chess match.
rydi123
10-09-06, 09:07 PM D&D rounds were originally one minute long. Dave Hargrave, author of the Arduin Grimoire (unofficial supplements to D&D) used 6-second melee rounds. The people that played in his games liked the faster rounds, and when D&D 3rd edition came out, it was evident that the playtesters and designers preferred it as well.

To be honest, I think the problem is not that a melee round is too short, but rather that you're not getting the action moving faster. As a GM, I'll work down the initiative chart, and when a player's turn comes up, I get a quick answer as to what he's doing, and resolve the action. If you let them dither and delay, they'll eat up the clock and make the game drag. Make them choose an action or delay, with the requisite lowering of initiative as a consequence. Combat is supposed to be fast and furious, not a slow chess match.

cool, i wasn't crazy after all.

i agree with you, combat should move quickly, but in really large fights, or games with 7+ people it just gets really slow, even when people are taking their action quickly. especially at higher lvls, because there are more dice, more rules, more attacks, etc. not sure what to do to get around those problems.
CryoSilver
10-09-06, 09:14 PM IMC, you get 10 seconds to begin describing your actions, and if you pause for more than 10 seconds while describing ("uhm" and "uh" and "hold on" do not count as placeholders and are disregarded as the clock runs), you lose whatever actions you had left.
rydi123
10-09-06, 09:56 PM 10 seconds? wow, some of my players would never get an action again :) . but maybe if i go to a 20-30sec rule that might work. but it still doesnt get around the problem of multiple attacks, saves, damage dice, etc, taking up a ton of time.
Ranger REG
10-10-06, 03:02 AM cool, i wasn't crazy after all.
Nah, you're still crazy. :P

Then again, you're probably not a Star Fleet Battles player. :D

i agree with you, combat should move quickly, but in really large fights, or games with 7+ people it just gets really slow, even when people are taking their action quickly. especially at higher lvls, because there are more dice, more rules, more attacks, etc. not sure what to do to get around those problems.
Well, at least you don't have to worry about the initiative part. You roll once per combat encounter.

But you have to get your players to think and act quickly so you can resolve their actions in combat rounds.
CryoSilver
10-10-06, 12:47 PM Players should be thinking about theirn action while their buddies are taking theirs: the 10 second rule almost never gets used in my games because my players call out their actions as soon as their turn comes up.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rydi123 10-04-06, 07:39 PM	i have been toying with the idea of increasing the time a round takes. after the last game i ran in which 2 minutes of game time passed in 7 hours of real time, i found myself disturbed by the disparity, and by the number of incredible things that happened in such a short timespan. so, anyone else think that lengthening the round would be a good idea? and if so, by what amount? i believe a round is roughly 6 seconds, so i would say that an increase of anywhere from 10sec to 1min would be better.
Ranger REG 10-04-06, 07:56 PM	i have been toying with the idea of increasing the time a round takes. after the last game i ran in which 2 minutes of game time passed in 7 hours of real time, i found myself disturbed by the disparity, and by the number of incredible things that happened in such a short timespan. I'm not. But then I played D&D long before any CRPG came out (even then I played mostly text-based games from ZORK maker, Infocom). There are ways to speed up everybody's turns during the combat rounds. The PHB and DMG offer some good suggestions. If you want to increase the time increment of combat rounds, you may have to adjust all other time-related elements, including the reload actions of certain ranged weapons.
Telhuine 10-06-06, 07:42 PM	i have been toying with the idea of increasing the time a round takes. after the last game i ran in which 2 minutes of game time passed in 7 hours of real time, i found myself disturbed by the disparity, and by the number of incredible things that happened in such a short timespan. so, anyone else think that lengthening the round would be a good idea? and if so, by what amount? i believe a round is roughly 6 seconds, so i would say that an increase of anywhere from 10sec to 1min would be better. Are you going to be increasing the number of actions one can do in that time as well? This could be detrimental to your PCs, as if they are fighting a mob, they will be getting many more attacks than your group. Conceivably, they could wipe you out quickly. If you change the round length to 1 minute, that will allow someone to have 10 standard actions and 10 move actions at one time. Even 10 seconds would allow someone an extra attack action, which could turn the tide against your PCs quickly. Granted, it could turn the tide in the PCs favor also, but against mobs, the odds are in the mob's favor. A better solution might be to set a time limit in which the players can act. For example, you give them 20 or 30 seconds in which to decide what their actions will be that round. With 4 people and the bad guys going, that should give them a couple of minutes with which to figure out what they will do.
rydi123 10-06-06, 10:05 PM	Are you going to be increasing the number of actions one can do in that time as well? This could be detrimental to your PCs, as if they are fighting a mob, they will be getting many more attacks than your group. Conceivably, they could wipe you out quickly. If you change the round length to 1 minute, that will allow someone to have 10 standard actions and 10 move actions at one time. Even 10 seconds would allow someone an extra attack action, which could turn the tide against your PCs quickly. Granted, it could turn the tide in the PCs favor also, but against mobs, the odds are in the mob's favor. A better solution might be to set a time limit in which the players can act. For example, you give them 20 or 30 seconds in which to decide what their actions will be that round. With 4 people and the bad guys going, that should give them a couple of minutes with which to figure out what they will do. i was thinking more along the lines of the 2nd ed system. if i remember right, the rounds were a minute long, and they represented you dodging, parrying, etc, and the attack roll was a condensed representation of that. as you got to higher levels, you got more openings to act. in the current system, it isn't condensed really. so you get to do an incredible amount in a tiny amount of time, and at high levels it is really just beyond belief how fast a character can clear a battlefield of troops. so, i guess the answer to your question is no. everyone would still have the same number of actions and everything, it would just be in a different time frame. just not sure what that time frame should be. I'm not. But then I played D&D long before any CRPG came out (even then I played mostly text-based games from ZORK maker, Infocom). There are ways to speed up everybody's turns during the combat rounds. The PHB and DMG offer some good suggestions. If you want to increase the time increment of combat rounds, you may have to adjust all other time-related elements, including the reload actions of certain ranged weapons yeah, i plan to limit the time it takes people to decide what they are doing in a given round, and i plan on avoiding some of the really big battles except on special occassions. so it should be a bit better/smoother from now on. but i still think that i would like to adjust the round time. i dont think it will really affect much else if i do so. i might have to adjust spell times a little, and maybe reload times on a few weapons (though not that many really), but overall i don't see much of a difference to the majority of the system. though i do think that i could start implementing fatigue checks after really long fights if i make the rounds longer. which i see as a good thing, as it adds sort of a novelesque feel, and lets the higher con characters shine a bit (fatigue? Bah! I'm a dwarf!).
Illithid_Tentacles 10-07-06, 12:31 PM	i was thinking more along the lines of the 2nd ed system. if i remember right, the rounds were a minute long, No, in 2e, turns were a minute long, and just the in-game name for 10 rounds. Rounds were still 6 seconds.
rydi123 10-07-06, 12:42 PM	well then i just suck. :) still, i do like the idea.
Ranger REG 10-07-06, 09:34 PM	No, in 2e, turns were a minute long, and just the in-game name for 10 rounds. Rounds were still 6 seconds. :ahem: Ahem. :ahem: In 2e, A round is a minute long. Ten rounds equals one turn, ergo 10 minutes. I checked the source (my copy of the 2e PHB). :teach:
Alac Luin 10-07-06, 10:58 PM	The issue with the minute long round is things become more "unbelieveable". I remember running combats 3 low level charicters vs. one goblin. Due to bad rolls on each side, this combat lasted 15 minutes game time, I ended it with an arrow sent from the heavens. Even with one minute rounds, the time disparity still exists unless you take drastic messures. I knew of a DM that used a 1 minute egg timer (hourglass type) to get rid of this. If time ran out on the time, the round was over, better luck next round. Point is, it would just be better to keep the 6 sec round and limit the time each player has to make thier move.
Edymnion 10-08-06, 12:34 AM	As someone that has had some measure of experience in real world medieval combat (not much, just some sparring with some SCA buddies really), I can tell you, both from my own experience and the stories from the guys that do it a lot more than myself, that any combat that goes more than a few minutes is unbelievably long. The shear amount of physical exertion required to do real combat (even with padded weapons) is extreme, and even those in the best of shape will quickly tire. Those ten minute sword fights you see in movies are just that, movies. They are drawn out to eat up screen time and make things look cool, it doesn't happen that way in real combat. Mainly this is because that after a minute or two, you are so exausted that keeping up a good defense is almost impossible. You never try to draw out a real fight, you always try to kill or disable the opponent as soon as possible. All this clanking your swords together for ten or fifteen minutes is pure hollywood. Real life medieval combat is more like a shootout or the power rangers fighting the mooks. A few blocks, a few parries, and then a solid hit or two and the other guy goes down. Its quick, its brutal, and it has no style. Choreography never enters into the picture, fighting fancy doesn't work. You are savage, you are brutal, you do whatever it takes to kill the other guy before he kills you. And just for the record, I remember watching one of the historical recreation things on History Channel about vikings, and one thing stood out to me as a D&D player. They had somebody they had been training for a day or two to use a viking hand axe against someone with a shield. They had a counter up on the screen for time and hits (not glances, but good solid hits). In ten seconds, the axe weilder got 8 hits. Again, not glances, but "chunks of wood flew out of the shield" hits. Getting four hits in 6 seconds is NOT unreasonable for someone specifically trained in using their weapon, especially seeing as how someone that had never touched one of those axes in their life was getting over 4 attacks per round with one after just a couple day's training.
rydi123 10-08-06, 05:20 PM	As someone that has had some measure of experience in real world medieval combat (not much, just some sparring with some SCA buddies really), I can tell you, both from my own experience and the stories from the guys that do it a lot more than myself, that any combat that goes more than a few minutes is unbelievably long. The shear amount of physical exertion required to do real combat (even with padded weapons) is extreme, and even those in the best of shape will quickly tire. Those ten minute sword fights you see in movies are just that, movies. They are drawn out to eat up screen time and make things look cool, it doesn't happen that way in real combat. Mainly this is because that after a minute or two, you are so exausted that keeping up a good defense is almost impossible. You never try to draw out a real fight, you always try to kill or disable the opponent as soon as possible. All this clanking your swords together for ten or fifteen minutes is pure hollywood. Real life medieval combat is more like a shootout or the power rangers fighting the mooks. A few blocks, a few parries, and then a solid hit or two and the other guy goes down. Its quick, its brutal, and it has no style. Choreography never enters into the picture, fighting fancy doesn't work. You are savage, you are brutal, you do whatever it takes to kill the other guy before he kills you. And just for the record, I remember watching one of the historical recreation things on History Channel about vikings, and one thing stood out to me as a D&D player. They had somebody they had been training for a day or two to use a viking hand axe against someone with a shield. They had a counter up on the screen for time and hits (not glances, but good solid hits). In ten seconds, the axe weilder got 8 hits. Again, not glances, but "chunks of wood flew out of the shield" hits. Getting four hits in 6 seconds is NOT unreasonable for someone specifically trained in using their weapon, especially seeing as how someone that had never touched one of those axes in their life was getting over 4 attacks per round with one after just a couple day's training. i agree with you 100%. from my own martial arts training i know that any fight that lasts more than 30 seconds or so is forever. and most of the fancy sword work occurs only in duals, while on the battlefield things are resolved in but a few hits. but, in d&d we are often talking about a battlefield full of troops being taken out by a warrior in mere seconds, which just doesn't happen. how long were actual battles, rather than duals? because that is what i would like to base my combat time on. at least for the big battles. i could see using the standard system for a back alley mugging, or duals though.
Reversefigure4 10-08-06, 11:51 PM	Keep in mind the purpose of a round. It's a standard measuring unit for keeping track of time in DnD. Now, it makes no difference whether a round is 6 seconds, 10 seconds, a minute, or 10 hours, as long as the same rules apply per round (such as the Fighter landing his multiple attacks). It doesn't make any difference how long you deem a round to be, as long as you measure time equally for everything. Remember, though, if you change a round's time, you need to change the time based effects of everything else too. If a round lasts for 1 minute, any 1 min/level spells will need changing to 10 min/level (No point in having a Bull's Strength that lasts 1 round!). Hour/level spells become 10hr/level. And then you have problems with common spells lasting longer than a day. Think about the effects before you implement such a change.
rydi123 10-09-06, 01:30 AM	Keep in mind the purpose of a round. It's a standard measuring unit for keeping track of time in DnD. Now, it makes no difference whether a round is 6 seconds, 10 seconds, a minute, or 10 hours, as long as the same rules apply per round (such as the Fighter landing his multiple attacks). It doesn't make any difference how long you deem a round to be, as long as you measure time equally for everything. Remember, though, if you change a round's time, you need to change the time based effects of everything else too. If a round lasts for 1 minute, any 1 min/level spells will need changing to 10 min/level (No point in having a Bull's Strength that lasts 1 round!). Hour/level spells become 10hr/level. And then you have problems with common spells lasting longer than a day. Think about the effects before you implement such a change. quite true. the biggest problems are the really good buff spells that only last a few rounds/level. the stuff that lasts 10+ minutes/lvl are not really in need of any fixing. not sure how i would go about that without changing the feel too much...
Kradlo 10-09-06, 08:59 PM	D&D rounds were originally one minute long. Dave Hargrave, author of the Arduin Grimoire (unofficial supplements to D&D) used 6-second melee rounds. The people that played in his games liked the faster rounds, and when D&D 3rd edition came out, it was evident that the playtesters and designers preferred it as well. To be honest, I think the problem is not that a melee round is too short, but rather that you're not getting the action moving faster. As a GM, I'll work down the initiative chart, and when a player's turn comes up, I get a quick answer as to what he's doing, and resolve the action. If you let them dither and delay, they'll eat up the clock and make the game drag. Make them choose an action or delay, with the requisite lowering of initiative as a consequence. Combat is supposed to be fast and furious, not a slow chess match.
rydi123 10-09-06, 09:07 PM	D&D rounds were originally one minute long. Dave Hargrave, author of the Arduin Grimoire (unofficial supplements to D&D) used 6-second melee rounds. The people that played in his games liked the faster rounds, and when D&D 3rd edition came out, it was evident that the playtesters and designers preferred it as well. To be honest, I think the problem is not that a melee round is too short, but rather that you're not getting the action moving faster. As a GM, I'll work down the initiative chart, and when a player's turn comes up, I get a quick answer as to what he's doing, and resolve the action. If you let them dither and delay, they'll eat up the clock and make the game drag. Make them choose an action or delay, with the requisite lowering of initiative as a consequence. Combat is supposed to be fast and furious, not a slow chess match. cool, i wasn't crazy after all. i agree with you, combat should move quickly, but in really large fights, or games with 7+ people it just gets really slow, even when people are taking their action quickly. especially at higher lvls, because there are more dice, more rules, more attacks, etc. not sure what to do to get around those problems.
CryoSilver 10-09-06, 09:14 PM	IMC, you get 10 seconds to begin describing your actions, and if you pause for more than 10 seconds while describing ("uhm" and "uh" and "hold on" do not count as placeholders and are disregarded as the clock runs), you lose whatever actions you had left.
rydi123 10-09-06, 09:56 PM	10 seconds? wow, some of my players would never get an action again :) . but maybe if i go to a 20-30sec rule that might work. but it still doesnt get around the problem of multiple attacks, saves, damage dice, etc, taking up a ton of time.
Ranger REG 10-10-06, 03:02 AM	cool, i wasn't crazy after all. Nah, you're still crazy. :P Then again, you're probably not a Star Fleet Battles player. :D i agree with you, combat should move quickly, but in really large fights, or games with 7+ people it just gets really slow, even when people are taking their action quickly. especially at higher lvls, because there are more dice, more rules, more attacks, etc. not sure what to do to get around those problems. Well, at least you don't have to worry about the initiative part. You roll once per combat encounter. But you have to get your players to think and act quickly so you can resolve their actions in combat rounds.
CryoSilver 10-10-06, 12:47 PM	Players should be thinking about theirn action while their buddies are taking theirs: the 10 second rule almost never gets used in my games because my players call out their actions as soon as their turn comes up.