Simplified combat rules for non-combat intensive campaigns

[Apache]

My players usually try to ambush the bad guys so that the fight's over in 1-2 seconds, so it rarely comes up.

Failing that, they try to arrange it so that somebody else fights the bad guys. Or accidentally drops 2000 lb laser-guided bombs on them. Things like that.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Can't you get the same result by encouraging players to use excess skill for Deceptive or Rapid Strikes?

you can set something similar but weaker.

With settling combat, I think it really depends on the game you are playing. You might be able to come up with a composite "fighting score" by averaging the key scores. You are dealing mainly with HP, defense skills, and a primary weapon skill. You can average the defense skill (I'd 'take it back to the number it was derived from, shield for block, the weapon for parry) and the weapon skill, and have a either a regular contest to determine the winner, or a quick contest to determine the next hit. You can give better or worse weaponry a bonus or penalty. If fighting more than one opponent figure odds and use something similar to the mass combat modifiers. You can even through a tactics role in if appropriate.

[Peter Knutsen]

A more radical thought:

How about disallowing the players from taking any normal combat or military skills, and instead forcing them to choose between nothing or a single character-appropriate Violence Wildcard skill each? Rapier! Bow! and so forth?

And then resolve fights between PCs and major NPCs via a quick contest of violence Wildcard skills, while fights between PCs and minor NPCs are resolved... well, using something similar. Perhaps a Feng Shui-like mechanic, where the PC can kill or otherwise disable a larger number of minor NPCs with a single roll, at a penalty to the skill roll based on the number of NPCs, -1 for 2 NPCs, -2 for 3 NPcs, -3 for 4 NPCs, and so forth. Or even doubling, so -1 for 2 NPCs, -2 for 4 NPCs -3 for 8 NPCs, and so forth?

[marceloyoiti]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Could a set of rules be written where combat came down to a quick contest, or even a regular contest?

Thanks Bill. This is exactly what I meant. Anyone knows of such rules?

[Earther]

Something is fishy. Tough guys that look for fights are in a non-combat intensive campaign?

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by marceloyoiti

Thanks Bill. This is exactly what I meant. Anyone knows of such rules?

That take into account the usefulness of secondary skills?

Such rules may exist, but they'd be difficult to design, so I doubt it. That's why I'm proposing Wildcard combat skills. Because that way, each character's combat prowess is defined by a single skill.

ST is still ignored, and armour DR (including magical DR on top of the natural DR of the armour that the character has chosen to encumber himself by), so it's not optimal, but I think it might work reasonably well.

[Snaps]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Can't you get the same result by encouraging players to use excess skill for Deceptive or Rapid Strikes?

This is a close second, but it's still no where near as fast as saying that every attack lowers defense by 1 for every 2 points you make you roll by.

Most characters if they have an 18 skill might take a -4 penalty to still give them a 14, for a -2 to the enemies defense, or -6 for a 12.

But with the 3e option every attack gets this by default. So if your guy with the 18 skill rolls a 10, that's -4, if he rolls an 8, that's -5. It means that a guy with an 18 skill on average is giving a -4 to whoever he attacks.

Try it some time and see how much faster combat goes.

[kdtipa]

I know you're looking for rules for quicker combat, but I feel I should mention too that the biggest increase in speed I've ever seen for running combat comes when players know the rules well enough that they don't need much time to think about it, or have the GM do any of the work for them. So players knowing the rules really well helps a lot.

That said, if you want to shorten the time but still take into account the majority of traits characters might bring to bear, you could run just the first few seconds of combat, see how it's going, and then (if your players trust you quite a bit), you narrate how the rest of combat goes based on how things were going. So you play through 1 to 4 seconds of combat, and if things seem to be going in favor of one side, you just decide how combat would have ended up.

[The Rampant Gamer]

This is difficult for me, as I really love the level of detail given to combat in GURPS, but I honestly don't see why this couldn't be a simple contest of skills, with an extensive die mod chart:

Combatant is wearing armor - apply a positive DM to his roll of 1/3 of DR, round down (or a different value?)
Combatant has Tactics skill - apply a positive DM to his roll based on the difference in Tactics skills, with a cap of +3
Combatant has received one or two wounds - subtract the number of wounds from his roll
Combatant has received three or more wounds - subtract double the number of wounds from the roll
Make a comparison of weapon types and damages - apply an appropriate modifier

At the end of each turn in which you have been wounded at least one, make a HT roll, minus 1 per wound you've received, to remain "in combat" - fail and you're out, either fallen, unconscious, seriously stunned or dead.

I'm sure it could be done, but would need some extensive playtesting to ensure it was balanced and valid, and gave you an abstract version of what might really happen.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

That take into account the usefulness of secondary skills?

Why shouldn't it? GURPS has the complementary skills rule now.

Bill Stoddard