req@warwick.UUCP (Russell Quin) (08/09/85)
In article <1899@hcrvax.UUCP> jims@hcrvax.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) writes: >> Tying someone up in one round is o.k. if you go by the AD&D >> combat round, which is 1 minute long. [...] >Agreed, I find it difficult to believe that a fighter can only swing once >in one minute ! To be fair, the DMG s quite clear on this point (although perhaps not VERY clear :-] ) :- a combat round lasts a minute, during which time many blows will have been struck. The assumption is that only one of these is serious enough to be worth considering. >What I've always done is maintained a two-tier system. >During regular play, a round is a minute, but during melee, things speed >up a bit. This makes battle more realistic, and since my players know >that I treat time this way, I don't get any wild statements about attempting >strange feats during melee ("well, I have the time") >Jim Sullivan I think that perhaps this is most worthwhile when based on a clear understanding of what already exists. [no offence is meant here; this isn't a flame] Many people change to a "blow-by-blow" combat system, but keep the assumption that it always takes the same amount of time to get a blow in. Even AD&D has weapon speed factors..... using (say) a 10 second round & dealing with one blow/feint/parry/thrust/riposte/action per Person per round means that Time is quantified in 10sec intervals, so that in the same time that Coke'un has swung his mighty Classic Axe, I have kicked him exactly 3.0 times with my foot. Or whatever. Now, it's very difficult to run a combat where individuals have `rounds' of differing lengths... I certainly don't know if I could cope... but I thought that I'd point out that the whole concept of `round' is a little forced. Although that's not to say that it isn't useful. How many kicks do I get in with my bare left foot while Mhvrik is binding the arms of a wounded Droopian warrior? Two and a half? Is it a function of my Quickness/Lissomeness/Agility/leg-length/mass/strength? At any rate it certainly sounds an individual thing... (If my victim is wearing armour, I accede that I only make one attempt (at most)!). Hmph, sometimes game design is complex. Those are the easy days. - Russell -- ... mcvax!ukc!warwick!req (req@warwick.UUCP) "How beautiful are the socks of them that preach the gospel of peace..."
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (08/19/85)
In article <281@snow.warwick.UUCP> req@warwick.UUCP (Russell Quin) writes: >Now, it's very difficult to run a combat where individuals have `rounds' of >differing lengths... I certainly don't know if I could cope... but I thought >that I'd point out that the whole concept of `round' is a little forced. >Although that's not to say that it isn't useful. Well, actually, that might be a problem. However, the view of the problem is incomplete. What you actually have is a process, which statistically you know takes n ticks of some standard clock. If you set up a chart or schedule marked off in that tick increment, for each process, you can compare them and determine just who gets to do what when. >How many kicks do I get in with my bare left foot while Mhvrik is binding the >arms of a wounded Droopian warrior? Two and a half? Is it a function of my >Quickness/Lissomeness/Agility/leg-length/mass/strength? At any rate it >certainly sounds an individual thing... (If my victim is wearing armour, I >accede that I only make one attempt (at most)!). >Hmph, sometimes game design is complex. >Those are the easy days. > > - Russell >-- > ... mcvax!ukc!warwick!req (req@warwick.UUCP) >"How beautiful are the socks of them that preach the gospel of peace..." Actually, this is a function of weapon speed and level. Each weapon has a speed, each fighter has a speed multiplier. Simple. (Well, it wasn't all that hard to figure out how to do it. Getting the numbers to work was a little harder.) Hutch
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (08/20/85)
In article <281@snow.warwick.UUCP> req@warwick.UUCP (Russell Quin) writes: >Now, it's very difficult to run a combat where individuals have `rounds' of >differing lengths... I certainly don't know if I could cope... but I thought >that I'd point out that the whole concept of `round' is a little forced. Allow me to be the first to point out that this really isn't tough at all -- just see "Fantasy Hero" from Hero Games. Combat is played in 12-second turns. Every character has a speed rating that tells how many actions that character can do in the turn. For example, a character with speed 2 gets two actions: one in the 6th second and one in the 12th. A character of speed 3 gets three actions: one in 4, one in 8, and one in 12. That's about as fast as a normal human can get, but monsters can have higher speeds to get in more attacks. The characters who move in a particular second make their moves in order of DEX. DEX and speed are related but partly independent (DEX is more or less eye-hand co-ordination, while Speed is a combination of that and agility). Have a look at the system -- it's very simple in practice and gives the right feel for a blow-by-blow fight. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo