Topic: Roundless Combat

[Marc R]

  I use a roundless combat system that is perfect for this but right now the people I play with like rounds and have trouble grasping the roundless concept. Too much thinking for them. BTW it also solves a lot of other problems you talk about in the other thread.
MDC

I've experimented with roundless from time to time but always run into issues with anything metered in rounds, like stun, or bleed, or spells, or maintaining adrenals. . .causing us to benchmark meta rounds, which we realized just put rounds back into play anyway.

How do you work around that?

[markc]

  I use a roundless combat system that is perfect for this but right now the people I play with like rounds and have trouble grasping the roundless concept. Too much thinking for them. BTW it also solves a lot of other problems you talk about in the other thread.
MDC

I've experimented with roundless from time to time but always run into issues with anything metered in rounds, like stun, or bleed, or spells, or maintaining adrenals. . .causing us to benchmark meta rounds, which we realized just put rounds back into play anyway.

How do you work around that?

 I cant tell you as it is part of the system.
MDC

[Marc R]

It's a secret?

[markc]

It's a secret?

 Yes.
MDC

[Marc R]

Now I'm intrigued. . . .but will resist sending ninjas to get it out of you. . .

Anyone else have a way to get around the fact that even if you try playing without rounds, you get stuck with meta rounds?

[markc]

Now I'm intrigued. . . .but will resist sending ninjas to get it out of you. . .

Anyone else have a way to get around the fact that even if you try playing without rounds, you get stuck with meta rounds?

I suggest reading the book The Ninja by Eric Van Lustbader for Ninja info. Great modern day fiction IMHO. The series is also good as well as the other two that spawned from it. The book I have was published in 1980 so it might be hard to find or it might be easy to find in a combo-book. IE 3 books in 1.

MDC

[rdanhenry]

Now I'm intrigued. . . .but will resist sending ninjas to get it out of you. . .

Exactly what someone who was sending ninjas would say...

Anyone else have a way to get around the fact that even if you try playing without rounds, you get stuck with meta rounds?

Well, you can redefine durations in ticks, heartbeats, seconds, or rels, but you have to have some measure of time and that can always be restated in terms of some arbitrary length in rounds. In translating material that uses rounds as its measure, you would use that. [With the difference that different events will take place at different times during the round, rather than conveniently grouped together at the end or beginning of the round.] OTOH, some things can be changed - bleeding can be translated into "lose 1 hit every X time units" instead of the "lose X hits every time unit" as expressed now, for example. That will increase bookkeeping, but that's pretty inevitable if you insist on maximally unwinding a convenient abstraction like chunking time into rounds.

[Marc R]

When we played roundless RM as activity %, with rounds defined as 100% for purposes of ticking off round metered effects. . .we realized that all we'd done is re-define the round as 1/10 of a second long, with almost all actions taking multiple rounds.

[Cory Magel]

I've experimented with roundless from time to time but always run into issues with anything metered in rounds, like stun, or bleed, or spells, or maintaining adrenals. . .causing us to benchmark meta rounds, which we realized just put rounds back into play anyway.

How do you work around that?

We've used second by second in RM and you simply have to convert rounds, minutes, hours, day, etc durations into lengths of time.  You might have to come up with some house rule exceptions depending on how you run things, but it's pretty straightforward for the most part.  Technically the RMSS/RMFRP round is six second for example.  We kept a combat sheet that had 10 rounds of seconds (i.e. 1 minute).  Basically anything that lasted 'hours' you didn't need to track in combat, other than that it was either six second (one line on the sheet) or 1 minute (each time you start your combat sheet over it's been one minute).  We did this with dry erase pages and makers.

Outside of combat you simply have to keep track of time as the GM.

[Ravenheart]

Rolemaster Companion IV introduced the Action Point Based Turn Sequence system that could be used to replace "round system". It was interesting, but too complicated and still included "rounds".

What we did in our group was to adapt the action points and got rid of rounds.

Every action spends some action points, the exact amount depending on task and character's quickness, skill level, health and so on. There's no "turns" or "rounds", just a cumulative Action Point (AP) rolling until tactical situation is over. Actions follow each other seamlessly. 40 Action Points equals to 10 seconds or one "round" if that information is necessary.

Classical example: This may seem incredibly complicated, but I think that normal Action% system with the same example, stating percentages in explaining manner would suffer equally.

Jack and Jones are walking on the road, and encounter some orcs. Distance is 100 feet. GM rolls for some Alertness rolls for everyone, and describes to players some first-look things from orcs (like weaponry, armors, size etc) depending on the success level. GM states that tactical battle begins, rolls laminated hex map on table, draws some trees and stuff on it and throws in miniatures.

GM calls for Orientation rolls for everyone. This roll is a catch-all initiative roll, perhaps misleadingly named but anyway. [Orientation roll is modified by QU/SD bonus average + 50 + d100 + gm mods, result is checked from the short table, giving usually something around 5 - 30 AP). Orientation AP (Action Point) says the amount of action points that goes by before the character can do anything. 5AP is quite a norm for experienced characters, having Instinctive Maneuver ranks, Lightning Reaction talents and so on.

After Orientation rolls, we know exactly who goes first (in tie, it's either same time action or the one with greater QU bonus, stat etc goes first).

GM asks for intentions, players state theirs and GM writes down orcs intentions and the moment when actions are resolved. For example, orc 1 draws a sword from scabbard which takes ½ of normal attack Action Points (without quickdraw action) - let's say it's 18AP action. Since orc 1's Orientation was 10AP's from start, the sword is at hand on 10+18=28AP.

Orc 2 rolled 5AP for his Orientation and decides to shoot with short bow at Jack. Loading a bow takes 24AP's + shooting 10AP's more, so GM marks AP 5 + 24 + 10 = 39 as a action resolution phase for orc 2.

Orc 3 decides to run behind the nearest tree so that he can check the situation from someplace safe. Orientation roll states AP15, nearest tree being some 20feet away. GM calculates that orc runs (120feet/rnd) the 20 feet in (20feet/120)*40 = 7AP's. He's behind the tree at AP 15+7=AP22.

Orc 4 fumbles his Orientation roll, so he's totally surprised and can do nothing in next 40AP's.

Jack's player states that his Orientation resulted in AP5, and his intention is to draw a sword with quickdraw. Since none is doing anything at AP 5, he rolls for his Quickdraw skill, a success, which means 1/4 of attack time = 8AP's. His new intentions are called at AP 5+8=AP13.

Jones rolls for AP 10, and states that he's casting a class I directed spell, taking 10AP's. He targets the orc with a bow who he now sees is probably loading his bow. GM secretly rolls for orc's alertness if they could have any change to notice what's going on. Rolls fail so no actions because of spell casting.

Everyone takes care of his own numbers, which is basically just a next action resolution phase. Jack's paper says AP 13 and Jones's paper says AP 20.

And from that it all really starts:

At AP 13 Jack is ready for further action. GM says that one orc is loading his bow and Jones is apparently casting a spell (assuming it's apparent from casting style, let's say it is an essence spell). This information is available, since the actions have already started (orc started it on AP 10 as well as Jones). Jack's player curses and decides to run behind a tree, shouting a warning to Jones. Distance to nearest tree is 30 feet and Jack's running speed is 150feet/rnd, so it takes (30/150)*40=8AP's. So Jack's next Action Phase is 13 + 8 = AP 21. He runs and shouts to Jones at the same time: "Run for cover". GM says its such a small message that it really happens at the same time. Had Jack decided to speak longer, he would continue speaking while at cover. GM rolls for Jones's routine Alertness and he gets the message but decides to pay no attention while casting a spell.

Meanwhile, Orc 1 sees that one human draws a sword and runs behind the tree while he self is drawing his sword. The orc is slightly worried since the human draw a sword incredibly fast.

Orc 2 is loading his bow and sees that his intended target ran for cover. Since the load phase is still going on (probably setting a arrow to string now), he just decides to shoot Jones instead, taking no penalty since the actual shooting phase has not yet started. Orc still intents to shoot at AP 39.

GM calls for actions. Jones says he's ready at 20, so he's next. Jones's been casting a shock bolt spell and now's the resolution phase. Spell casting is a success and after damage resolution, orc has suffered some damage and is at stunned state. Jones feels a momentary stress of spell casting and knows he's not able to cast another spell yet (spell casting interval = spell level/2 + 20AP's). Jones states he intents to run for cover as Jack did. He's at cover at AP 20 + 9 = 29.

Orc 2: While loading, he sees a flash at Jones's hand...(AP 20)...and feels the heat of shock bolt and intense pain on his side. Orc is stunned and cannot continue his action of loading the bow for next 40 AP's (one old-time "round" of stun). In short, orc is stunned until AP 20+40=60. Among other things, stun results in need of another and immediate orientation roll, and now with some penalties. GM rolls orc's new AP to be 20, so orc's next action phase is 20(stun result)+20 (new orientation).

Orc 3 is ready for action and behind the tree at AP 23. He scans the area shortly (10AP's of Observation), so his next Action Phase is at AP 33. During this scan (23-33) he sees how Jack has disappeared and Jones is running for cover. He also sees that one of his comrades has been hit by some nasty thing, one is standing still like an moron and one is drawing his clumsy sword from his back and is finally ready for an action.
After a scan (at AP 33) Orc 3 shouts to moron (orc 4) to follow him, using his Leadership skill (GM rolls success). Orc 4 instantly runs behind the same tree as orc 3.

What I'm trying to show, is that round system is an abstraction that is not at all necessary. Actions can follow each other and synchronize, creating a intriguing tactical situation, a game of it's own especially if using hex. Any action possible can be simulated this way, with varying intervals and individual AP's. Everyone follows his own next Action Phase and alerts when time is right.

Many things in RM refer to 10sec rounds, like stuns, spells etc. This is easily solved as 1 rnd = 40AP's.

What is needed in this system is a Action Point table which lists a base AP cost of any action. RM Companion IV page 16 is quite full of these.

We've been playing with this system for some 10 years now, and it's fluent.

In short, you only need to know how long your action takes AP's and roll.

[Marc R]

I still think the various continuous action methods, be they 40 AP or 100 percents, just make for 1/4 or 1/10 of a second phases. . .and lots of them.

When you say that "a sleep spell goes off at the end of round 3 and lasts 6 rounds, ending on round 9", it's the same as "a sleep spell goes off at AP 120 and lasts 240 AP, ending at 360AP."

All these continuous action systems seem more like the rounds are still there, you're just playing in tiny tiny phases and have scrapped initiative.

[markc]

Now I'm intrigued. . . .but will resist sending ninjas to get it out of you. . .

Begin Silliness
    I do not know wither to feel some what thrilled or scared "bleep" as to warrant a group of Ninjas as IMHO a single Ninja would take me out. If I do have a choice please send a Ninja Ko or group of Ninja Ko in training [N-KiT] as I would rather perish by the hands of one them.
End Silliness

MDC

[Cory Magel]

I still think the various continuous action methods, be they 40 AP or 100 percents, just make for 1/4 or 1/10 of a second phases. . .and lots of them.

When you say that "a sleep spell goes off at the end of round 3 and lasts 6 rounds, ending on round 9", it's the same as "a sleep spell goes off at AP 120 and lasts 240 AP, ending at 360AP."

All these continuous action systems seem more like the rounds are still there, you're just playing in tiny tiny phases and have scrapped initiative.

Moving to second to second combat implies, to me, that there is a reason for measuring time in seconds instead of rounds without anything else actually changing.  I don't know why anyone would bother with it if they weren't changing the potential length of time it takes to perform actions.

For example, the "the round really represents a series of attacks and parries" is no longer the case.  Each action is an individual action.  You also start using speed factors as a result.  So someone with a dagger may be able to attack three times in the amount of time it takes you to swing once with a two handed sword.  In my opinion, it evens the odds a bit between, say, a "tank" and a "fencer".  Essentially you take a weapons speed factor, you figure in your quickness/agility bonus(es), you factor in any modifiers before the roll (magic effect of the weapon itself, or whatever applies), you roll an initiative (this ADDS to the overall result, causing some needed randomness), then you add any modifiers after the roll (slow, speed, whatever).

So lets say you have a two handed sword and it takes (just for arguments sake) 6 seconds to swing it (i.e. speed factor 6 of course).  Lets say you have a magical weapon that reduces it's speed factor by 2, so it's now a 4.  You subtract your combined Quickness/Agility bonus divided by half (lets say it's 4).  You roll a d10 and add that (let's say you got a 5).  So, it takes you 7 seconds (just longer than a round) to make your attack.  Now, if you had some kind of Slowing effect on you it may increase that by 50% (we'll round down to 10) or if you had some kind of Speed effect on you it might halve that (we'll round up to 4).

One of the side effects I like about this is the amount of time it takes for a combat to resolve.  If it is very one-sided and you have a bunch of hardened adventurers fighting a bunch of wimpy goblins that fight is over very quickly in terms of time.  However it the fight is more evenly matched they last longer.  It also puts a little more emphasis on tactics... which most of our group enjoys.  It can sometimes drastically change the default choice of weapon and armor selections that players will make.  Having a Rogue with a dagger is now a more attractive character concept.  That player that always finds the heaviest armor and biggest weapon they can may now seriously start looking at a wider variety of options.

You also convert actions taken in what would be Snap, Normal, and Deliberate and modify the amount of time it takes them.  If you want to pick a lock the "Normal" amount of time it takes is six seconds.  Want to make it a "Snap" action, reduce it by two seconds and give a -20 penalty.  Want it make it a "Deliberate" action?  Add two second and give a +10 bonus.  The nice thing about that is you can also extrapolate it (with a limit).

The primary problem is having players who are on the ball.  They can't sit around talking about what they want on their pizza (or whatever) while it's not 'their turn to go'.  They need to be thinking about their next action and calculating everything that will add/subtract to their rolls (both initiative and their action roll).  Now, we aren't Nazi's when it comes to playing - after all we gather together because it is half a social event, otherwise we'd be playing an online game - but if you constantly are causing everyone to wait every time your turn comes up you are probably going to start annoying people.  I want to strangle the people who have to completely calculate all their modifiers every time it's their turn when they have been taking the same action (like an attack) more than once or twice.  You should have all your own modifiers figured out after your first attempt at that action.

[Marc R]

How often do you roll init, if you don't every "round"?

[markc]

   I agree that a round-less system is much different in the way you attack and the weapons you might chose to attack with. Smaller weapons generally attack faster than heavy weapons so you work out a balance of hits and crits per time period. In my game the best weapon tends to be the short sword (ss) unless you have to crack heavy armor then you look at other weapons.  
  Since in my game armor is expensive you most often go up against leather or chain so the ss wins in the time period of about 1 min of cbt (in game, not real time). But also the luck of the dice can be a big decider on who goes first and who stuns their opponent first just like in RM's cbt system.
MDC

I roll init every round for PC's and NPC's when using roundless as IMO you have to but in other games sometimes I keep my NPC's round numbers and let PC's roll every round. To me it adds more tension to the game if you have a chance to roll every round.
MDC

[Marc R]

I doubt noobs would be interested. . .this falls more into "Ideas for experienced players/GMs".

[Cory Magel]

How often do you roll init, if you don't every "round"?

Technically you have an initiative for every action you take. Every action takes a certain, set, amount of time based on various factors that the player should already have worked out, modified by whatever the GM tells you... but then you roll a die and add that to it.

Keep in mind the die you use (1d4 vs 1d20 or higher) will have an impact on the balance of things.  A very low die (1d4) will cause fast weapons to become more powerful and cause spells with a duration to become slightly more powerful, where a larger die (1d20) will cause slower weapons to become more advantageous and for spells with a duration to become slightly less powerful.

[Marc R]

OK, so then:

Drawing a weapon might be 20 + 1d20 - Quickness bonus
Picking a lock during combat might be 100 + 1d20 - Quickness bonus

That kinda thing? And if two actions end up resolving in the same moment, they are simultaneous, that's just how it goes?

[Cory Magel]

Ah, nope. Only one action at a time. You don't start another action until the first one resolves (unless you're using two weapons, then you'd have two simultaneous attacks going at once).

So, it's more like:
Second 1: Draw a weapon. 2 Second Action + 1d6 - Stat Bonus.  2+4(roll)-4(stat bonus) = 2 seconds
Second 3: Pick a lock: 6 Second Action + 1d6 - Stat Bonus.  6+2(roll)-4(stat bonus) = 4 seconds
Second 7: Full attack with a Broadsword (speed factor 4) + 1d6 - Stat Bonus.  4+6(roll)-4(stat bonus) 6 seconds
Second 13: etc...

Picking the lock is a full round action according to RM I believe, so a 6 second action. If you wanted it to be hurried (snap), shave two seconds off and take a -20 to your actual roll to pick the lock.  If you wanted to be careful (deliberate) add two seconds and get a +10 bonus.  So you could have picked the lock with a -20 modifier is 2 second, or with a +10 modifier in 6 seconds with the above roll.

You could potentially roll very low multiple times in a row and have a good stat bonus and take more actions than would normally be allowed.

This makes things like Quickdraw and instant spells nice too... they just happen.  There's no declaration and depending on how liberal you want to be you can make them take no time at all, take one second, have them interrupt the current action or not, etc.  You could even vary it by if they have a free hand if the spell takes a hand motion, etc (whatever makes the most sense for your style).  For example: If they were doing a Turn Missile in the middle of a melee attack and had a free hand, or chose to abandon their shield bonus during that attack, I'd allow it.  If they had a two handed sword and wanted to Turn Missile I'd make them abandon their attack to perform the Turn Missile and start that action over again.

I'd mix up the stat contributing to the roll depending on what the weapon was (i.e. Str/Ag for something like a Broadsword or Ag/Qu for something like a Rapier, etc.) and what the action was (i.e. maybe SD/Dex for picking a lock).  It might sound complex, but once you write down the initiative modifier next to each action or weapon it's not bad.

[Marc R]

I meant each as a stand alone example. . .

Could you do an action under base amount with a good roll and/or qood quickness bonus?