Author Topic: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?  (Read 1158 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Druss_the_Legend

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 537
  • OIC Points +0/-0
This is what I was previously using but am considering a revamp of combat round resolution. IM always looking for ways to streamline combat and speed it up or simplify it without losing too much of what makes combat fun.

At start of combat round:

DECLARE ACTION TYPE - prior to your initiative roll choose one of the 3 action types:
1) Fast Action (snap)
2) Normal Action
3) Slow Action (deliberate)

Individual initiative is used. Initiative Roll (2d10) + 1/5 of Agility/Quickness modifier.
Highest initiative acts first. You can hold your action and respond to someone with a lower initiative.

INITIATIVE MODIFIERS
Fast Action +2 initiative (-20 to one action)
Normal Action +0 (no mods)
Slow Action -2 Intitiative (+10 to one action)
Using two weapons -1
Using a two-handed weapon -2
Shields: wall shield -4, normal shield -2

I am especially interested in how GMs run movement during the combat round. I have seen systems that require all movement actions to be resolved first and then combat actions - this means none attacks until everyone has moved or had the opportunity to move on their initiative. The goal imo should always be to keep the action flowing and not over complicate combat where you dont need to. In practice though, moving combatants with multiple options and changing variables can make for a slow battle with too much down time trying to resolve individual players actions.

Offline MisterK

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 655
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2022, 12:31:42 AM »
I've tried
- the phased combat (original RM rules)
- the initiative + declaration and action % rules of RMSS
- the ranked initiative (roll d100 + combat awareness and modifiers, action in decreasing order

and none have really satisfied me.

Next in the pipeline are two options
- remove rounds entirely and use APs (continuous action), or
- abstract manoeuvering system similar to that of the first edition of Agôn (2nd edition is a bit too much for my tastes):
  * battlefield is an abstract ladder board (typically 8 steps). Initial positioning depends on visibility conditions (better visibility = opponents start farther away)
  * everyone rolls manoeuvering. Movement goes from lowest to highest result [+ tie breakers]
  * a protagonist can move either themselves or anyone who rolled lower than they did. You can move one step (forward or back) or decide to stay where you are.
  * when everyone has moved, attacks occur and are simultaneous - if they can occur at all. All weapons have a preferred range, and can also hit at slightly longer or shorter range (+/-1, or +/-2 steps) with negative modifier.

It would require a bit of tweaking (it was originally designed for thematic heroic bronze age combat without magic), but the main aspects are
- relative positioning is abstract - what each protagonist does is trying to get a positional advantage.
- manoeuvering is at least as important - and potentially more important - than actual combat prowess, especially if you can lock a powerful opponent out of their combat range.
- actual resolution is simultaneous - initiative is not about who strikes first, but about who gets the positional advantage.

I guess you can add some variety to that by introducing environmental factors (obstacles, cover...) and ruling that activating a factor counts as manoeuvering. You can also try and tweak it by increasing the number of steps in the board and giving two manoeuvering actions for each protagonist (action = move one step, move someone else of lower result one step, or trigger an environmental factor) to add options. To be playtested, obviously - the beauty of the original system is its simplicity and balance, and adding options messes with those aspects.

Offline Druss_the_Legend

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 537
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2022, 03:58:41 AM »
I've tried
- the phased combat (original RM rules)
- the initiative + declaration and action % rules of RMSS
- the ranked initiative (roll d100 + combat awareness and modifiers, action in decreasing order

and none have really satisfied me.

Next in the pipeline are two options
- remove rounds entirely and use APs (continuous action), or
- abstract manoeuvering system similar to that of the first edition of Agôn (2nd edition is a bit too much for my tastes):
  * battlefield is an abstract ladder board (typically 8 steps). Initial positioning depends on visibility conditions (better visibility = opponents start farther away)
  * everyone rolls manoeuvering. Movement goes from lowest to highest result [+ tie breakers]
  * a protagonist can move either themselves or anyone who rolled lower than they did. You can move one step (forward or back) or decide to stay where you are.
  * when everyone has moved, attacks occur and are simultaneous - if they can occur at all. All weapons have a preferred range, and can also hit at slightly longer or shorter range (+/-1, or +/-2 steps) with negative modifier.

It would require a bit of tweaking (it was originally designed for thematic heroic bronze age combat without magic), but the main aspects are
- relative positioning is abstract - what each protagonist does is trying to get a positional advantage.
- manoeuvering is at least as important - and potentially more important - than actual combat prowess, especially if you can lock a powerful opponent out of their combat range.
- actual resolution is simultaneous - initiative is not about who strikes first, but about who gets the positional advantage.

I guess you can add some variety to that by introducing environmental factors (obstacles, cover...) and ruling that activating a factor counts as manoeuvering. You can also try and tweak it by increasing the number of steps in the board and giving two manoeuvering actions for each protagonist (action = move one step, move someone else of lower result one step, or trigger an environmental factor) to add options. To be playtested, obviously - the beauty of the original system is its simplicity and balance, and adding options messes with those aspects.

very interesting ideas here. it amazes me how varied each campaigns rules are.

Im all for a system that smooths out combat resolution. im still searching for a system that does that. I play a fair bit of D&D as a player and the DM of that game uses some of our rolemaster rules in his game eg. his own modified crit tables and fumble table. im green with envy at how fast combat in D&D is compared to combat in rolemaster.

I have developed my own hybrid system for combat. it works well enough but combat can still grind to a halt with all the number crunching required eg. parry mods that change between rounds, opponents that change within a round, movement actions and skill resolution during a combat round, variable combat mods for flanks/positional changes during combat etc etc.

Im considering using narrative combat blended with dice rolls. Something like this...
 :) PHASE ONE: (Start) 2-3 rounds of combat to set the stage, then
 :) PHASE TWO: (Middle) each side rolls a d20 to see how the next phase of the battle unfolds (this dice roll is modified by +1 for each advantage your side has gained in phase one such as superior positioning/tactics/leadership/greater numbers/superior weapons/greater average level. Note. if one side outnumbers the other 2:1 they get to roll with advantage (3:1 = double advantage etc)
 :) PHASE THREE: (End)
based on the roll from phase two the battle reaches its final resolution.
Compare the two d20 rolls
  • >>Difference 0-5, Too close to call - play out another 2 combat rounds and give the PCs a chance to rally/motivate/use inspiring leadership to gain the upper hand
    >>Difference of 6-10, A Clear winner and loser is imminent, morale checks must be made for NPCs on the 'losing side' and these checks have disadvantage. NPCs who fail their morale check surrender
    >>Difference of 11-15, Losing side surrenders/auto fail morale (NPCs drop their weapons and give up fighting). PCs on the losing side are cornered/surrounded/lose ground and are outclassed/overwhelmed by the other side
    >>Difference of 16+, Rout, losing side makes RR vs fear or runs for it if escape is possible (otherwise treat result as surrender/auto fail morale).

Offline Spectre771

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,385
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2022, 04:55:08 PM »
We only play RM2 and we use a very simple system.

1) Declare parry, spell prep, or adrenal prep (or use)
2) D100 OE and/or OED + QU bonus
3a) Highest Initiative goes first and can delay initiative until later in the round
3b) Tied initiatives - higher QU bonus goes first
3c) If still tied - actions are resolved at the same time
If discretion is the better valor and
cowardice the better part of judgment,
let's all be heroes and run away!

Offline Rask Tril

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2022, 10:53:43 PM »
Everybody rolls initiative and then our GM (me) rolls a d6 to determine how many rounds will be completed before another initiative roll is needed.  This has allowed a bit of unpredictability.  No problems.
You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life – but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud.”
 --T.R. Fehrenbach, This Kind of War:  A Study in Unpreparedness

Offline Majyk

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 477
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2022, 02:27:02 AM »
RoCo VI Second by Second combat system.
Have a speedy guy with a dagger vs a slowpoke with a battleaxe?  You might get two to three chances to hit someone before they even swing once!

…and it’s simply the GM counting the ticks going by, “One, Two, Three, Four, Five…”

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,103
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2022, 10:29:37 AM »
RoCo VI Second by Second combat system.
Have a speedy guy with a dagger vs a slowpoke with a battleaxe?  You might get two to three chances to hit someone before they even swing once!

That's a little weird if it means the person with the short weapon can always safely run in on the person with a longer weapon and hit them before they can strike.
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline MisterK

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 655
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2022, 11:37:48 AM »
RoCo VI Second by Second combat system.
Have a speedy guy with a dagger vs a slowpoke with a battleaxe?  You might get two to three chances to hit someone before they even swing once!

That's a little weird if it means the person with the short weapon can always safely run in on the person with a longer weapon and hit them before they can strike.
I guess that in such situations, the person with the shorter weapon would wait for an opening (the person with the longer weapon over-committing). Which means they would relinquish the initiative in order to avoid being skewered ?

In game terms, this could be interpreted as the person with the shorter weapon losing the initiative and being at a significant disadvantage until they can get inside the guard of the person with the longer weapon (in technical terms, you lose the initiative, you are at -X on your OB, and the malus stays until the opponent misses AND you hit. After which, the malus is applied to the opponent and they are at -X until they hit AND you miss. X being a function of relative reach).

I like it because it creates a back and forth between opponents to get the positional advantage, and it provides an incentive for switching weapons during a fight to change the combat conditions. Has anyone tried that before ?

Offline Spectre771

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,385
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2022, 03:44:13 PM »
I've been thinking on this for quite a while and I'd like to implement it in my next gaming session.  It came from watching a WH40K Battle Report.  To make things fair to both sides of a rather large battle, all attacks would be made by both sides by all units.  At the end of the turn, all damages were applied, +\- bonuses calculated, bodies removed from the board.  At the start of turn 2, all attacks were once again made by both sides with the existing bonuses applied.

I'd love to do this with RM.  One scenario that still bothers me is a battle scene with my group.  The pirate captain spent 2 rounds prepping a beautiful spell. At the start of round 3, he stood up and was promptly shot in the throat with an arrow and died immediately.  Now using this method,  any crits that state "...you have initiative over foe..."  Players would still have to roll initiative though as it is possible to fumble your initiative and the PC fails to act that round.
If discretion is the better valor and
cowardice the better part of judgment,
let's all be heroes and run away!

Offline damage

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?
« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2022, 08:47:44 PM »
I play RMFRP, and I've never liked the RM phased initiative system. I use a slightly tweaked HARP initiative system instead.

2-second combat rounds, characters roll d10 + or -  a number that's their IN & QU bonuses plus or minus a few other things (weapon type, casting an instantaneous spell, pole arms, etc). They get to do one thing a round, or sometimes two. Draw a weapon, attack, take a round of observation, move, get up, cast a spell. Reloading missile weapons or prepping spells are multi-round actions.

The whole thing goes very quickly, and avoids most situations where one character has a complicated turn and takes 15 minutes before it's the next player's go.

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?
« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2022, 09:44:58 PM »
I like two extremes.  Either full on second-by-second, or very simple using the 'BattleTech' round as I often refer to it (cause we largely stole it from BattleTech).

BattleTech round is...
No pre-declared actions, roll 1d10 + Qu/Ag/Re bonuses divided by 3 (you can mess with that in order to make it more or less random or stat based).
1. Lower initiative has to move first.  Better initiatives can choose to intercept if they like.
2. Higher initiative moves last.
3. Higher initiative acts first.  Better initiatives can chose to delay their action.
4. Lower initiative acts last.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline Majyk

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 477
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2022, 02:05:50 AM »
As Cory notes in his post, this is once foes have met already.

I have a bunch of house rules we had to figure out for just such oddities of switching to the system, but you’re correct that Attack Counts(including slowness or speed of a weapon) would start the exact second a “meeting of foes” occurred. This gave free attacks to one another using a roll-off based on Qu and the usual Init modifiers for Longer Reach/Shield/2-handed Weapon, etc.

Most times the quicker party still attacked ‘first’ unless someone was set to receive a charge from a previous Init count declaration.  However close to fully attacking was based on one’s Attack Count, ie. that was the amount of OB one could apply to a Meeting Attack.  As well, we would allow simultaneous results if they occurred within 1 second of one another except where “instant death” crit results occurred, saving oneself from so called slack-backs.

Example:
-Dagger(5 secs.) vs Battleaxe(10 secs.) Attackers meet on Init Count 4 of a starting battle. 
-Dagger uses 80%(4/5ths) of OB while BattleAxe uses 40%(4/10ths=2/5ths)
-After resulting crits are processed by both parties, Attack Counts are re-declared or changed to other Movement/Maneuver reactions to a hit, and new next actions were added to the Init Count.

As above, on Init Count 9(Meeting @ 4+5 seconds later for Dagger user) the smaller blade would strike again, while Battleaxer would still be winding up their attack occurring on Init Count 14, where again another Dagger attack would be inbound and unavoidable!

RoCo VI Second by Second combat system.
Have a speedy guy with a dagger vs a slowpoke with a battleaxe?  You might get two to three chances to hit someone before they even swing once!

That's a little weird if it means the person with the short weapon can always safely run in on the person with a longer weapon and hit them before they can strike.

Offline Finwe

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 172
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2022, 05:12:39 AM »
I think that normally the combats are prolonged unnecessarily. I use Combat Minion, and automatically roll initiative for all combatants (which takes 1 second). Afterwards, I go one by one announced and resolving their action at the same time.
I try to never take fights to the last HP, enemies tend to run away or give up when they see things wrong.
Do you do anything to shorten the fights?

Offline Jengada

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 409
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2022, 03:44:54 PM »
I'm pretty sure my system came from a Companion, with some modifications.
1 - d10+(QU bonus/5) initiative, counting downward
2 - An individual can act early in a round, at a -10 per segment they go early. If spell casting, this is the modifier on an Extraordinary Spell Failure Roll.
3 - Full action (movement and attacks) on the character's initiative.

It's not perfect, but it's simple and it's fast. The discussion above does make me think that maybe I should put a - modifier on using 2-handed weapons.
We ask the hard questions here, because they keep us too busy to worry about the hard questions in the real world, and we can go with the answers we like the best.

Offline PiXeL01

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 631
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Seeing things from the top of Mt. Fuji
Re: Combat Round Sequence, what rules do you play by in your game?
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2022, 05:42:33 PM »
We only play RM2 and we use a very simple system.

1) Declare parry, spell prep, or adrenal prep (or use)
2) D100 OE and/or OED + QU bonus
3a) Highest Initiative goes first and can delay initiative until later in the round
3b) Tied initiatives - higher QU bonus goes first
3c) If still tied - actions are resolved at the same time

This is what I have always done as well, except it’s OE + temp Qu/Me average
PiXeL01 - RM2/RMC Fanboy

I think violence in games only causes violence in real life if the person in question has an insufficient mental capacity to deal with the real world in the first place. But, that's more the fault of poor genetics and poorer parenting than it is the fault of a videogame