Padded Sumo vs. Rocket Tag

[Quertus]

How long should combat last? What do you prefer, on the scale between Rocket Tag and Padded Sumo?

I've been thinking about this because I've realized that my dislike of 4e D&D has almost nothing to do with Padded Sumo. I like HP. I like characters having time to realize that they're in trouble, and come up with a new plan, and/or implement their exit strategies.

However, in 3e, I enjoyed adventuring with a party so competent that, rolling a 17 on init (darn lousy +7 init modifier) against an ancient red dragon, I knew I wasn't going to get a turn, because the dragon would be dead by then. That party really felt like some rocket-wielding, alpha-striking BDHs.

So I seem to prefer something closer to Padded Sumo, with the option for the PCs to wield rockets.

What do your preferences look like?

[Eldan]

Tactical, brutal and short. I don't particularly enjoy combat, but I especially hate the part where the party knows how to do this and everyone is just waiting for damage to add up. I quite like rocket tag, as long as selecting the right rocket for the job is still important.

[Geddy2112]

A combat that last more than 4-6 turns/rounds/whatever it is in a system becomes dull and boring with rare exception. Combat should also last long enough each player gets to contribute at least something-less than a round and that is too quick.

[CharonsHelper]

However, in 3e, I enjoyed adventuring with a party so competent that, rolling a 17 on init (darn lousy +7 init modifier) against an ancient red dragon, I knew I wasn't going to get a turn, because the dragon would be dead by then. That party really felt like some rocket-wielding, alpha-striking BDHs.

Was the dragon naked and unbuffed?

While fine against sub-par PCs, that sounds like the DM didn't properly equip the dragon when up against optimized PCs. Mage armor, a ring of protection, and a cloak of resistance make a dragon far harder to kill - and they're a tiny part of their horde. You can get much crazier if you use even 1/4 of their wealth on gear. :smallbiggrin:


What do your preferences look like?

As to the question at hand - as a very general rule - I prefer combat to approx. be 3-5 rounds. Enough time for tactics etc., but not enough to start to drag like 4e often does.

Now of course, this can vary depending upon the speed of a round & the context of the battle. Some might be running battles which would be 3-4 encounters in another session etc.

[Max_Killjoy]

The length of combat should be determined what happens during the combat. Two people in dog-bite suits smacking each other each other with foam bopper-weapons should last longer than two people throwing hand grenades at each other in an absolutely empty 50x50 warehouse.

[Necroticplague]

It depends on how 'fixed' your options are. If one of the main challenges is trying to get your options out to bear in time, then it can last quiet a long time and still be fun. The challenge is then making do with what you've got, and accelerating getting your good stuff as fast as possible, while outmaneuvering your enemies attempts to do the same.

For example, it's not that hard for me to have Sentinels of the Multiverse games that drag on for 15+ turns and still feel engaging, because we're always having to keep a watch out for something the Villian does to completely screw up our plans, while trying to still advance them.

On the other hand, I've had DnD encounters that felt like a drag at 4 rounds. All the options were available from outset, the optimal strategy was easy to figure out, so all the actual combat was just coloring by the numbers, and you could have replaced the players with a flowchart.

[Yora]

A combat that last more than 4-6 turns/rounds/whatever it is in a system becomes dull and boring with rare exception. Combat should also last long enough each player gets to contribute at least something-less than a round and that is too quick.

That was also my first thought. After more than six rounds it turns into a complex tactical battle, not just a common skirmish.

[Segev]

I haven't really seen this in combat mechanics, but my "ideal" would be, I think, a system where everybody gets to make a move or few, and the moves are strategic/tactical enough that the choices are meaningful and could lead to surprising results if somebody makes an error (forced or unforced). But still shouldn't take more than 30 min. real time. I say the measure in real time because I don't really mind it being many rounds if the rounds are quick. But often, a single round in a full-sized table of 4-7 players can take 20+ min. on its own, in most systems.

[Max_Killjoy]

I haven't really seen this in combat mechanics, but my "ideal" would be, I think, a system where everybody gets to make a move or few, and the moves are strategic/tactical enough that the choices are meaningful and could lead to surprising results if somebody makes an error (forced or unforced). But still shouldn't take more than 30 min. real time. I say the measure in real time because I don't really mind it being many rounds if the rounds are quick. But often, a single round in a full-sized table of 4-7 players can take 20+ min. on its own, in most systems.

Agreed, in that IMO real-time length is at least as important as "number of rounds" length.

[Lazymancer]

How long should combat last? What do you prefer, on the scale between Rocket Tag and Padded Sumo?
If you are spending any time preparing for combat, the combat had already begun.


Frankly, I don't see anything inherently wrong with Rocket Tag, except for actual implementation - available rules for pre-combat preparation are either non-existent or overly simplistic.

[Vitruviansquid]

Combat should last as long as there are meaningful decisions to be made in it.

I can be bored by a five-minute combat if my strategy was obvious and execution rote.

I can stay excited by a 2 hour combat if I was being made to consider new things throughout.

The problem with DnD 4e, I'd say was not related to the sheer length of combat, but to the way that your strategy was mostly baked into how you set up your character. A better combat system would provide occurrences during combat that forced players to rethink their strategies and give them the tools to execute diffferent strategies successfully.

[VoxRationis]

I am personally of the belief that combat should be quick and lethally decisive once you get into proper position. Positioning (or metaphorical positioning, if non-spatial elements are a factor in gameplay) should be the main factor delaying elimination of a piece on the game. The idea that a hobgoblin chieftain can just stand there taking your fireballs, arrows, and claymores for a minute is irritating—even more so if, like 4e or many computer games, the game is PvE balanced and your supposedly "tanky" fighter can't take nearly as much punishment.

[BayardSPSR]

I'm all in favor of rocket tag, provided everyone (including the GM) gets a chance to do something meaningful before it ends.

Even with fast, high-intensity combat, you can still do epic multiple-hour battles - the difference is that to accomplish that, you're scaling everything up, adding more combatants in multiple waves and potentially multiple environments. The faster the combat, the more combat you can fit into a given period of time.

[Telok]

It's an interesting question, and very dependent on the particular combat system being used.

By my personal experiences Champions/Hero, Traveller, Paranoia, and AD&D were the most fun. Now Hero is very 'padded sumo' and rather slow in realtime with newbies playing, but also very open and flexible, lots of options and interesting results (scenery damage and knockback being built into the system). Traveller was total rocket tag (well, mil spec lasers and PGMPs but still the same effect) but the openness of the system and very quick resolution meant that even very long combats were over in less than 45 minutes. Paranoia can be anywhere on the padded-rocket scale depending on armor, weapons, perversity, and humor, but it's also very fast. My longest combat in the game took place in total darkness where I had the players face away from each other, only take actions by passing me notes (talking was completely ok), and I just kept up a running verbal description and rolled a scatter die to see where attacks went. That was hilarious, everyone enjoyed it. AD&D was quick and open to options and stunts too as long as you had a decent DM, but the padded-rocket scale depended on what the party and the monsters brought to the fight.

Least fun for me are the WotC versions of D&D. The grids and the gating of options behind feats, classes, and impossible or lol-random rolls makes the combats pretty static and/or make your choices predetermined or inconsequential. It stops being static in highish level 3.x versions but that's because it's caster/charger rocket tag where you roll the first round's initiative, attacks, saves, and know the outcome at the end of the first or second round. My groups experience with 4e was that it was slow padded sumo. My turns were fast but that was because outside of using the class powers everything was a bad choice, so I had very few choices to make and acted quickly. But I was reading a book between my turns and we had several of the 4-6 hour combats any ways. We didn't play 5e past the lower 1/4th levels because most of our group picked non-magic characters and the d20 so vastly outweighed their character's abilities that they felt their choices didn't matter and even the length of combat was determined by if the dice were rolling high or low. It was too random for them, which is saying something after Paranoia.

I'm neutral or neutral-ish on things like Pendragon, the White Wolf games, and a couple other systems. I've played them, but usually only for a little while or only under one DM. So I don't really feel qualified to pass too much judgement on them.

I really think that it depends on the game, it's tone and the expectations that it sets, how many options and actions that it offers the characters, and especially how fast the player's turn comes around again. If there's quick player turns and resolution you can have longer combats, if it takes more than five minutes between a single player's turns even a 30 minute combat is too long. If players have a real breadth choices to make and they're all or mostly relevant you can take a bit longer on combat and turns, but if the only choices are a move and either a limited use strong attack or an unlimited use weak attack then you've got to have really fast turns and combat to keep people's interest.

The sumo-rocket variable is only a small part of the equation that determines fun/not-fun.

[Necroticplague]

The sumo-rocket variable is only a small part of the equation that determines fun/not-fun.

True. If the action is inherently engaging on its own merit, having it drag on is a good thing, it's like getting more dessert! Meanwhile, of the action isn't inherently engaging, having more of it is just getting in the way of what is engaging about the system.

[Piedmon_Sama]

If given a choice between a game where combat is highly lethal---and sometimes that means very unfair---and one where combat is more "fair" at the price of being dragged out interminably, I'd take Rocket Tag every time.

Of course my ideal is somewhere much nearer to the middle than either one of those poles.

The engagement in RPG combat can't come from flashy visuals or clever editing like a fight on TV. It's basically a mental exercise so it needs mental engagement or buy-in. Admittedly, this isn't true for everyone: I've met people who seriously just want to roll a die and be told if they hit or not, and any more "investment" than that is to them taxing/annoying. But for me I am going to get hells of bored fast if combat just means "roll to hit" even if you're lucky enough to have a GM who enthusiastically pitches the excitement of what's going on to you (and most GMs in my experience are terrible at this)

Basically what I'm talking about is meaningful tactical choices. Go for a charge and try to overwhelm your opponent, or roll onto their flank and go for a sneak attack? Say you're playing a Duskblade: do you want to try blinding/hampering an enemy and then whacking them with one hit or using your full attack? These are options (and hopefully to keep combat from dragging out you gave it some thought before your turn...... people who don't do that just AGH) You need these options, which can come from terrain or other variables as much as from your character sheet, or the combat needs to be fast because there's nothing worse than "okay---roll---hit---little damage... okay, he rolls---miss... okay now you roll..." like if you're taking on an orc in a featureless 20x20 stone chamber with no way to mix it up I seriously hope that's over in about 1-2 rounds or I'm going to mentally check out.

This is what makes Dark Souls so much fun btw. You go into combat and you have a bunch of different options. You will never ever beat the game by being a one-trick pony. Not all of the ways to disable an enemy are equally easy to learn; some are downright impractical and only worthwhile for the satisfaction of mastering them. It's still engaging, moreso than most RPG combat systems I know.

[Castilonium]

"How long should combat last?" is the wrong question to ask.

"How do we make combat engaging the entire way through, regardless of length?" is the right question.

[mikeejimbo]

Depends on the mood of the game. In a classic hack 'n' slash, a little slower is OK. In a military sci-fi, ideally combat should be decided before it starts based on how well you planned, and be very much Rocket Tag, perhaps literally so. In some games, combat should be lethal and avoided by all parties as much as possible, while in others the enemies should have rockets and combat should be avoided by the PCs.

[ElFi]

"How long should combat last?" is the wrong question to ask.

"How do we make combat engaging the entire way through, regardless of length?" is the right question.
This.

If a combat encounter is a tense slugfest where each side is just throwing attacks back and forth until one of them drops, that sort of combat should be fast and efficient, and dragging it on will just bore everyone involved.

If a combat encounter is a tense tactical situation where each side has to formulate new tactics on the fly to gain the upper hand over the opponent, that sort of combat should be methodical, thought-out, and (most importantly) long enough that every participant gets an opportunity to contribute meaningfully.

That being said, even the above is fluid depending on the narrative. If the outcome of a slugfest will determine whether a PC lives or dies, dragging it out can heighten the drama. And if the PC's are in a rush and can't afford the time for a drawn-out tactical battle, having them improvise strategies or just bum-rush the foes to end the fight quickly can also help to prop up the flow of narrative.

TL;DR- context is key.

[Mechalich]

It's also important to consider the likelihood of character death in an average encounter. Rapid combat systems usually translate into powerful, devastating attacks that can kill characters dead. That can be extremely problematic for many reasons and grows more problematic the longer a campaign goes on and the more invested players become in their characters. As such, rocket tag is only acceptable if there are methods to get around character death: D&D style raising, Eclipse Phase style backups, etc. However, that comes with it's own costs in reducing the value of death in the game (especially in the GM plays it even on both sides and lets villains come back again and again).

[Koo Rehtorb]

I think there's room for both in the same system. In Burning Wheel, for example:

If two master swordsmen in no armour go at each other chances are very good one or both of them will be dead on the first attack.

If two amateurs in plate armour go at each other with swords the fight will almost certainly last until one of them manages to wrestle the other person to the ground and pin them.

[Anderlith]

I like combat to be like Rolemaster/MERP or Warhammer with a fairly brutal & quick fighting. Not exactly rocket tag because you can find ways to outlast, but sort of that vein. Other systems like Shadow run & WoD are also good & not as rules heavy.

[CharonsHelper]

Other systems like Shadow run...are also good & not as rules heavy.

You don't consider Shadowrun to be rules heavy? Or just not the combat portion?

[Anderlith]

You don't consider Shadowrun to be rules heavy? Or just not the combat portion?

Compare taking two types of damage, & having a few penalties from filling in hit point boxes. To rolling on charts for injuries with various penalties, & such. Shadowrun's mechanics for getting hurt don't have nothing on Rolemaster/MERP.