When to drop second by second combat. Why? And what should replace it.

[Randover]

Hi there fellow krommites. I am blessed with some spare time and was revisiting my old notes from various games and campaigns. Currently I am more of GURPS: soft GM, enjoying low level fantasy but that made me wonder what to squeeze out of GURPS next.

Combat is one of the most important parts of the system. But sometimes it bogs down, roll after roll after roll...And I had multiple times when skipping those rolls improved our game table experience. But I can't quite put my finger on the topic, when to shift from standart combat rules.

SO I have some questions and please share your own experience if you like.

Why did you drop second by second combat rules?
(I did it when they stopped being fun.)

When is the perfect time to drop them, and where to strike a ballance.
(Assuming story before system.)

Do you have any good replacements? Are there any official ways how to do it?

[Kale]

One approach is to use second-by-second only for the most dramatic fights or events. For instance I might allow my PCs to hack through a group of mooks with just a couple rolls, focusing on drama and letting the results of the rolls tinge the outcome of the narrative. Let each PC make one combat roll, and the better they do the more dramatically and awesome they are during the combat. I then just narratively describe the result and carry on to the next scene. If a PC makes a particularly good or bad roll I might suddenly drop to second-by-second for a couple rounds to give a PC a fighting chance in the face of a critical failure or success so that really severe consequences are worked out through the dice, but overall I stick with the rule of cool and just work through it.
Of course when the PCs face down a major NPC and his elite henchmen, then it's time to go blow-by-blow and get all the detail, maybe even break out the tactical map and take it to the hexes.
In essence, you are going from a narrative style with suggestions from the occasional die roll, to the dice more strongly shaping the narrative when you go to second-by-second.

[Lisandro]

Just opened a thread about it few minutes later. Sincronicity?

[Stormcrow]

Only use second-by-second combat rules when it's important to organize opposing actions by maneuver. If the sides are not in direct conflict such that the order of their actions matters, then you don't need second-by-second combat.

But also don't drag out turns that don't need to be dragged out. If someone is on their second turn of Aiming, don't stop to say "You spend another turn aiming your bow at the second orc from the right." Just point at the player and say, or listen to them say, "Aim," then move on immediately to the next player. Reducing the cruft in each turn will make a big difference when you go through a whole bunch of characters' turns.

[AlexanderHowl]

If you know the system well, combat does not have to become boring, nor does it have to bog down. Deceptive Attacks, Feints, Spin Attacks, etc. tend to speed combat up quickly, even with realistic characters. For example, consider the following character:

Great Axe Wielder [200]

Attributes: ST 14 [40]; DX 12 [40]; IQ 10 [0]; HT 12 [20]

Advantages: Combat Reflexes [15]; Luck [15]; Mr. Smash 4 [20]; Signature Gear (Fine & Balanced Great Axe) [3]

Perks: Technique Mastery (Spin Attack [Two-Handed Axe/Mace]) [1]; Weapon Bond (Fine & Balanced Great Axe) [1]

Skills: Two-Handed Axe/Mace (A) DX+10 [24]-22/24*

Techniques: Spin Attack (Two-Handed Axe/Mace) (H) Two Handed Axe/Mace+4 [7]-26/28*

*+1 from Balanced and +1 from Weapon Bond

Notes: The character possesses 14 remaining CP (plus any from negative traits) for customization

In single combat, the character will usually Wait and then perform one Spin Attack to a leg with their Great Axe, dealing 2d+5 cutting damage with an effective skill of 26 (which often ends with their opponent missing the leg in question). If they are facing more than one opponent, they will instead depend on deceptive defensive attacks to the limbs, trusting that 2d+3 cutting damage with an effective skill of 18 (and a -2 to their opponents defenses) will deal sufficient damage to cripple their opponents and that their Parry of 16 will protect them.

Now, there is nothing particularly cinematic or supernatural about the character, it is just a character with a solid build that is designed to end combat very quickly. With this type of optimized combat monster, combat tends to be clean and quick, especially if they are supported by other combat characters. They are also easily transformed into cinematic characters, just add ST+3 [30] and Weapon Master (Great Axe) [20] to make them deal 3d+10 cutting damage with their spin attacks or 3d+7 cutting damage with their deceptive defensive attacks.

[Dalin]

I stick to "bullet time" (as we call it, even in our fantasy games) when the tension is high and it's fun to see what each move entails. I try to avoid dropping into bullet time too early in an encounter. Even though it might be realistic to have everyone spend a few turns maneuvering, this is usually not that fun. I'd rather just get an idea of where the party wants to be and where the opponents might be and then narrate things into an interesting formation before we start going turn-by-turn.

I often narrate the end of battles, especially if they just need to mop up the remaining mooks after killing the boss. I might just ask, "Will you chase down any who flee?" and go from there.

I am striving as a GURPS GM to become more nimble with this technique, including in the middle of battles if things get sloggy. I've been thinking about adding some simple mechanics to this so that it doesn't feel entirely arbitrary. Perhaps rolling a quick contest of tactics in the midst of a longer battle to see which side might have disadvantage in the next scene. For example, if the monsters win, I might say something like, "a few more seconds of furious but inconclusive battle pass and then you find that the bugbears have maneuvered you so that your back is to the chasm. What do you do?" I'm not quite there yet, but I like the idea in theory.

[VIVIT]

Official ways to do it? None that I know of to do away with second-by-second combat time altogether, but there's a sidebar about faster combat on MA126. It recommends a number of standard things to make play flow better (decide in advance which rules to use and use only those, compile cheat sheets, calculate as much as possible in advance, hold players responsible for remembering any optional rules they want to use, etc.) but there are a few interesting specific bits of advice. One is "Encourage options that lower defenses" -- feints, deceptive attacks, ripostes, etc. -- and another is "Have major wounds end fights". That last one is especially good because it's actually a lot more realistic than having enemies continue to fight till the point of total incapacitation. Don't forget about morale checks either!

There's also the chase rules from Action 2, although that's not quite the same thing.

[shadowjack]

Like others here have said, I only "zoom in" to second-by-second when it feels like it's necessary. Garroting a guard? Starts in narrative time; only goes to second-by-second if it goes very badly. Two sides in cover trading shots? Narrative time, while the PCs try to figure out how to flank; we only go second-by-second when they actually get to close quarters. A day of battles? Narrative time, a couple of rolls to cover it all.


Another speed management trick I use is to split up a large fight into several small ones. I find it confusing and distracting for everyone to go round-the-table most of the time; we forget what action we're in the middle of!

Say the PCs are Royal Musketeers in a tavern brawl with the Cardinal's Guard. Well, I'll do several seconds of D'Artagnan's fight, then cut over to Porthos for several seconds, then cut over to Athos's fight. I switch away when their foes go down, or if the duel's gone on for a bit and it feels right to give someone else a go, or if the PC has gotten in trouble and now sounds like a perfect time to say, "Aramis! You come in from outside, and immediately see—"

This lends a rapid back-and-forth to each exchange. "I jab at his face!" "He dodges and draws a knife." "I grab and strike his arm, bashing against the counter." "He holds onto the knife. He tries, but can't break free from you." "With my free arm, I smash his face." "He kicks at your knee, but misses." And then we cut away to someone else. Doesn't seem to matter too much if one PC gets 9 seconds of activity to another PC's 7 or 12, really.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

Official ways to do it? None that I know of to do away with second-by-second combat time altogether, but there's a sidebar about faster combat on MA126. It recommends a number of standard things to make play flow better (decide in advance which rules to use and use only those, compile cheat sheets, calculate as much as possible in advance, hold players responsible for remembering any optional rules they want to use, etc.) but there are a few interesting specific bits of advice. One is "Encourage options that lower defenses" -- feints, deceptive attacks, ripostes, etc. -- and another is "Have major wounds end fights". That last one is especially good because it's actually a lot more realistic than having enemies continue to fight till the point of total incapacitation. Don't forget about morale checks either!

There's also the chase rules from Action 2, although that's not quite the same thing.

Don't forget "Very Basic Melee Combat" from Roleplayer #23 (May 1991):

*Attack, Defense, and Damage are one roll
Each fighter rolls versus Weapon (or other Combat) skill, and the result is treated as a Contest of Skills. If both fighters miss their rolls, they both missed their attacks. If one makes the roll, and the other misses, the one who missed is hit. If both make the rolls, the one who makes it by the least is hit, while the other is not – ties result in no damage
*Multiple Combatantse
This works if the NPCs are effectively interchangeable. "The GM simply rolls once for all NPCs, and announces how well the roll was made. This is the result for each of the PC’s opponents"
*Critical Hits and Misses
"For simplicity, treat a critical miss as a dropped weapon. Treat a critical hit as maximum damage."

Using this makes GURPS combat faster then D&D's as the two characters roll together.

[Taneli]

Semi-off topic: This guy I know runs a bi-weekly or a weekly game at university roleplaying club for around half a dozen or more players (or used to, before the current events in the news), and one of the things he does is to have everyone roll not only for their own attack, but also the foe's defense, AND their own damage dice all in one throw of 6 dice plus their damage dice.

The dice are colour coded, so that you can separate your attack roll from their defense roll, and from your damage roll. I feel like it tends to speed up the play a bit, and it also confirms to my hypothesis of players liking to roll oodles of dice.

Of course, the players will learn the defense stat of the NPC's faster this way, if you would normally roll behind the GM screen, or as usual if you roll in the open.