Are there any single-round combat systems?

[Geordnet]

Most RPGs I've read have their rounds representing a few seconds each, and each battle ends up being several rounds long.

Well, I wanted to know if there were any systems out there in which combat is a single round. As in: total up the stuff on each side, roll some dice, look up some tables and BOOM, the combat's over. I mean, I don't want it to be abstracted out to the point of pass/fail testing on a single number, I still want strategy to matter, I'm just looking for some streamlining.

I ask since combat seems to be the most difficult part of PbP games, and I was wondering if there was a better way.

[Slipperychicken]

Have you considered trying to get everyone to do something like roll20.net to resolve combats?

[Rhynn]

Don't take this as gospel, but I think Tunnels & Trolls has something a little bit like this?

You could probably resolve a fight in one roll-off in HeroQuest, although you'd have to do some fudging with the rules... maybe the best combat ability is augmented by everyone else's combat ability or magic ability (depending on what they're doing in the fight; apply improvisational penalties for skills that don't quite fit), and the augmented abilities make a single roll-off. That'd be very deterministic, though, since depending on the groups' composition and size, one could have an advantage of several automatic success levels over the other.

But IMO cutting out Extended Contests (combat is just an Extended Contest that results in injuries and death) from HeroQuest would gut the system.

[Airk]

Several games have abstracted combat resolution mechanics designed for use in battle when less detail is desired. Burning Wheel (and Mouse Guard as a result, and, honestly, it can be adapted to a lot of games) allow for resolution of a fight via a single opposed test (with all the usual modifiers) just as you would resolve, say, Stealth vs Perception or something. Though these are generally for one-on-one combat.

I'm not aware of any games that try to make combat both "single round" AND complicated.

[jindra34]

If its not being fully resolved in one roll its not a single round, so I doubt (exspecially with wanting strategy and tactics which means replanning/reacting to things not going your way) a system does what you want. At least not without some redefinition. And I probably wouldn't play it anyway, because thats to likely swing or too likely to not be able to.

[veti]

RPGs are all about "what individual characters do", so to reduce combat to that level of abstraction would be pretty tough.

I believe I've seen/played some board games that had combat mechanics that simple, but they were pitched at a tactical level: the idea was to manoeuvre and maintain your formation, rather than worrying about the fate of individual characters. A (computer) example would be 'Battle for Wesnoth'.

[NichG]

Hm, I was ready to say 'this is a bad idea' but the PbP angle is really interesting - I can see how something like this would be necessary for that, to prevent getting bogged down in minutiae.

What about running combat and conflict in general as a bidding system? Here's an example of what I mean:

Each participant in a conflict has a certain set of goals, and certain power level which is derived from their abilities applicable to the given scenario. Each goal can be assigned a certain number of points, such that all the points add up to the total power level.

Markus and Alisandra are being attacked by the forces of the Great Kobold King, because they have invaded the kobold lair. Markus is Experienced in Tunnel Fighting (+1 power) and Is a Skilled Swordsman (+2 power). He has the following goals for this conflict:

- Retrieve treasure from the lair (2 points)
- Kill the Great Kobold King (1 point)

Alisandra is a Master of Magic (+2 power) and has the following goals:

- Retrieve treasure from the lair (1 point)
- Make sure that Markus and Alisandra both survive (1 point)

The Great Kobold King has Great Cunning (+2 power) and Superior Numbers (+2 power) and Homefield Advantage (+1 power). The forces of the Great Kobold King have the following goals:

- Drive away the invader (3pts)
- Survive the fight (1pts)
- Kill the intruders (1pts)

Now, each side can propose a trade. For example 'I will let you drive me away, but I get some treasure and we both survive'. If there is agreement at this point, the conflict is resolved.

If however there is no agreement, then both sides must offer up a sacrifice to escalate the conflict, or must accept the trade. These sacrifices would ostensibly be something that would be pre-determined as part of each character and would be part of a 'conflict track'. Each sacrifice could gain or lose a certain number of points which can be assigned to goals to shift the balance of power - these would be part of the character building system somehow, so maybe sacrifices start bad and can be upgraded to have upsides as well. For example:

Markus' conflict track for battle looks like:

1. Suffer a temporary wound in battle, reducing power in this conflict by 1.

2. Surge of emotion - you have been backed into a corner and have nothing left to lose, giving you +2 power in this conflict. You must discard goals relating to protecting your own life.

3. Permanent wound - You suffer a permanent wound of some form, but the rage gives you +2 power for this conflict.

4. Death.

The other two tracks might have some sort of similar structure.

This doesn't necessarily resolve the entire fight in one round (since there's a conflict track), but you could institute a rule that a given 'skirmish' can at most advance each side down the conflict track by one step, modelling the overall conflict with the Kobold King and the entire adventure of invading his lair.

It might be nice if instead of having this sort of lockstep advancement of the conflict track, you can basically 'offer up' a conflict advancement in exchange for forcing the enemy's hand in some particular way. I'd have to think about it a bit more. The idea would be something like 'I take a tick to force you to take a tick' or 'I take a tick to force you to discard one of your goals, but you can give in to the trade instead' or other kind of meta-mechanics.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Primetime Adventures

Whenever there's a conflict (violent or no) the Producer asks everyone to define their Stakes (i.e. what they want to accomplish) for that Scene. Then everyone draws from a deck of cards and sees whether or not they've accomplished their Stake. Resolution has a few more moving parts, but the whole Scene is settled at the end of that Conflict.

[Geordnet]

Hm... Bidding is an interesting solution to this problem, but it doesn't appeal to my personal tastes.


What I'm looking to do really is abstract the PC's decisions in combat, such that the players don't need to supply much (if any) tactical input during the combat itself. That way, all the calculations can be done at once. They don't necessarily need to be simple calculations though - the important thing is that they can all be done at the same time by the GM without player input (which does limit complexity indirectly).

The scale of a battle which I'd be looking to resolve in one round would be roughly the size of a single encounter in D&D. (More than one round in a combat would be acceptable for big boss fights, but only them.)


Oh, and something to bear in mind is that I'd also like combat to result in the losing side retreating rather than being wiped out. And with "casualty" properly referring to "wounded", not exclusively "dead". But that's a secondary concern.

EDIT:
So, I basically want an RPG that works more like a traditional wargame.

[NichG]

Hm... Bidding is an interesting solution to this problem, but it doesn't appeal to my personal tastes.


What I'm looking to do really is abstract the PC's decisions in combat, such that the players don't need to supply much (if any) tactical input during the combat itself. That way, all the calculations can be done at once. They don't necessarily need to be simple calculations though - the important thing is that they can all be done at the same time by the GM without player input (which does limit complexity indirectly).

The scale of a battle which I'd be looking to resolve in one round would be roughly the size of a single encounter in D&D. (More than one round in a combat would be acceptable for big boss fights, but only them.)


Oh, and something to bear in mind is that I'd also like combat to result in the losing side retreating rather than being wiped out. And with "casualty" properly referring to "wounded", not exclusively "dead". But that's a secondary concern.

EDIT:
So, I basically want an RPG that works more like a traditional wargame.

There's a game called 'Dominions' (1, 2, 3, or 4 depending on taste) which has big automated fantasy battles where you have to script the actions of the various units. You could make characters in that system, load them into the game, and have it evaluate the outcome.

Dominions armies tend to rout at around 25% losses, plus or minus based on circumstance (e.g. there are morale checks, different morale for units, etc).

[WbtE]

Blood and Honor basically has single-round combat due to its incredible lethality.

0D&D and Basic combats are often (although not always) one-round affairs because one side or the other tends to break.

[jindra34]

EDIT:
So, I basically want an RPG that works more like a traditional wargame.

Strategic, wargame. Traditional tactical wargames take even longer to resolve fights because of everyone involved.

[Airk]

Strategic, wargame. Traditional tactical wargames take even longer to resolve fights because of everyone involved.

Yeah, I was going to say "My experience with traditional wargames involves a WHOLE LOT of rolls." Heck, even some strategic wargames combat can go into multiple rounds because both sides choose when to withdraw.

But yeah, I think you're going to have to write your own, Geord, because I'm not aware of any games that have designed with this particular goal in mind, since usually it's either "Combat is important in this game and should have lots of rules and take a long time" or "Combat is not important in this game, and it uses a simple ruleset not far removed from the standard task resolution system, and shouldn't take long at all."

Honestly though, I've always found it a little bit odd that combat occupies such a disproportionate amount of time and such a heavy burden of specific rules in many games.

[Geordnet]

Strategic, wargame. Traditional tactical wargames take even longer to resolve fights because of everyone involved.

That's why I'm looking to cut out the tactics while retaining the strategy.

(And by "traditional wargame", I don't mean miniatures. I mean like hex-and-counter wargames.)


EDIT:

Yeah, I was going to say "My experience with traditional wargames involves a WHOLE LOT of rolls." Heck, even some strategic wargames combat can go into multiple rounds because both sides choose when to withdraw.

That's very different from my experience. In very few wargames I play is withdrawal optional - retreat is almost always mandatory. Combat may take several rolls, but there is rarely any necessary* decision-making between them. In fact, even when there are multiple combats they're often all declared before any combat is resolved, so an entire battlefield's combat phase could conceivably be resolved at once.

*They deliberately put some in because otherwise it'd be boring. But these decisions could be moved to before or after all the dice are rolled without significant changes to the effect most of the time.

[Slipperychicken]

Honestly though, I've always found it a little bit odd that combat occupies such a disproportionate amount of time and such a heavy burden of specific rules in many games.

1. I know that I want my RPGs to have good, detailed combat rules, where many maneuvers and strategies are possible.

2. Many players I've seen don't seem to like rules governing social ineraction, so I see little need to spend many resources on those.

3. And the skill systems I've seen, which try to break most non-combat actions down to a single roll or two, strike a satisfactory balance between speed and simulation which keeps the game running smoothly.

[Airk]

1. I know that I want my RPGs to have good, detailed combat rules, where many maneuvers and strategies are possible.

2. Many players I've seen don't seem to like rules governing social ineraction, so I see little need to spend many resources on those.

3. And the skill systems I've seen, which try to break most non-combat actions down to a single roll or two, strike a satisfactory balance between speed and simulation which keeps the game running smoothly.

I think a lot of these are self fulfilling prophecies - games have 'always' done things this way, and people fear change and/or tend to be unable to think outside the box, so they want/expect games that work the way they think games are "supposed" to.

Most people who claim to "not want" social interaction rules have never actually tried even thinking about what that might involve. AND most game systems include them anyway, and people use them without complaint. They're just not given the 172 pages of stuff given to combat.

That's the really weird thing. I understand "some things are more important than others" but combat is SO disproportionately important, if importance is measured by "number of pages allocated", and then people go on and complain that "combat takes too long."

[Rhynn]

I think a lot of these are self fulfilling prophecies - games have 'always' done things this way, and people fear change and/or tend to be unable to think outside the box, so they want/expect games that work the way they think games are "supposed" to.

Fun fact, though: D&D didn't have detailed combat rules until AD&D (and, for BECM, the Companion rules). OD&D combat rules (either system) are very simplistic, with very limited options; this, IMO, puts weight on strategic and tactical decisions.

One big reason I went with ACKS is that the combat rules are very simple, at least by comparison to the giant majority of games.

HeroQuest is a good example of a game where combat rules get no extra weight or attention: they are the exact same rules used for any Extended Contest, such as a duel of magic, a protracted negotiation, navigating heroically dangerous/difficult terrain, etc. (There's no rule for what merits an Extended Contest; it's up to the GM and players.)

[Airk]

Fun fact, though: D&D didn't have detailed combat rules until AD&D (and, for BECM, the Companion rules). OD&D combat rules (either system) are very simplistic, with very limited options; this, IMO, puts weight on strategic and tactical decisions.

I think this only holds true if you don't count spell lists. As soon as you notice that the number of spells intended for combat is like 50% of the spell list, the ratio of "combat stuff" to "not combat stuff" shifts pretty significantly.

One big reason I went with ACKS is that the combat rules are very simple, at least by comparison to the giant majority of games.

What is ACKS? I don't know that one (at least, not by acronym.)

HeroQuest is a good example of a game where combat rules get no extra weight or attention: they are the exact same rules used for any Extended Contest, such as a duel of magic, a protracted negotiation, navigating heroically dangerous/difficult terrain, etc. (There's no rule for what merits an Extended Contest; it's up to the GM and players.)

Nice! I don't really have any experience with superhero RPGs because I've never really had any interest in superheroes.

[NichG]

Combat naturally lends itself towards 'tactical' gameplay structures more easily than most other tasks though. Even when it comes to things like abstract strategy board games, they're usually given as a metaphor for war and battle (e.g. Chess and Go and Shogi and the like).

Its kind of intuitive to say things like 'Okay, in a fight where you are matters. How fast you move matters. How far away you can hit things matters.'

I think its harder (not impossible) to design that kind of mechanic for other scenarios, but not universally. Making a 'strategic' lockpicking mechanic, for example, would probably just feel a bit contrived.

Negotiations/social interactions do have their own strategic elements, but attempts at writing rules for them often have the feeling of resulting in something that is simpler and less nuanced than what you get by just playing it out. This is where the bias of previous iterations of game systems is crippling game design as a whole I think - too much tendency to try to combine all of social interaction into pass/fail mechanics like lockpicking, and into overt 'domination' style effects. In combat, you can kill the enemy, but the set of abilities that actually let you directly control an enemy's actions is pretty limited. The social equivalent would be, you can disgrace an enemy, but you can't just make them do what you want; instead the social 'combat' would be about generating leverage, so that the alternative to not doing what you want is crippling and also lowers their ability to influence the social scenario (e.g. 'kills' them socially).

[Slipperychicken]

Most people who claim to "not want" social interaction rules have never actually tried even thinking about what that might involve. AND most game systems include them anyway, and people use them without complaint. They're just not given the 172 pages of stuff given to combat.

I say that because the gamers and GMs who I've played with often try not to use social resolution mechanics, prefering to "roleplay it out", and are reluctant to roll for social skills unless reminded that "it's the rules". Even then will often forgo rolling social skills except for when they're unsure as to what would happen.

ACKS is "Adventurer Conqueror King System", and it's trying to do retro hexcrawls and dungeon-crawls with an emphasis on PCs gaining power through followers, mercenaries, and eventually ruling their own lands, and the game's economic/political system which works on every level, and only makes more sense when you poke at it. I believe the website for it is called Autarch. The mechanics for things like skills and hitting people are quite simple.

[Airk]

I say that because the gamers and GMs who I've played with often try not to use social resolution mechanics, prefering to "roleplay it out", and are reluctant to roll for social skills unless reminded that "it's the rules". Even then will often forgo rolling social skills except for when they're unsure as to what would happen.

Whereas I have always found "just roleplaying it out" to be an awful mechanic, since it means that players who are inherently good at talking can have characters with zero charisma and pass 'social conflicts' easily, while players who aren't a 'people person' can have a charisma of 18 and still not succeed because the player keeps putting their foot in their mouth.

I think it is much more interesting to let some sort of character driven system drive RESULTS, while the roleplaying is the "how did this happen".

[WbtE]

I think this only holds true if you don't count spell lists. As soon as you notice that the number of spells intended for combat is like 50% of the spell list, the ratio of "combat stuff" to "not combat stuff" shifts pretty significantly.

The great majority of the spell list is for war. But war is largely "not combat stuff".

What is ACKS? I don't know that one (at least, not by acronym.)

I think it's "Adventurer, Conquerer, King System". Whatever the "S" stands for didn't stick in my mind.

Nice! I don't really have any experience with superhero RPGs because I've never really had any interest in superheroes.

Heroquest isn't a superhero RPG.

[Airk]

The great majority of the spell list is for war. But war is largely "not combat stuff".

I dunno; Are we still talking about early D&D editions here? Because most of the spells I remember were pretty definitively 'combat'.

Heroquest isn't a superhero RPG.

Ooops. Conflated with Hero System, I think.

[Rhynn]

What is ACKS? I don't know that one (at least, not by acronym.)

Adventurer Conqueror King System (ACKS, pronounced the same as "axe"), a Basic D&D (not BECM, but the original Basic or B/X) retroclone from Autarch.

See my sig for links!

As to the spell lists: true, in a sense, but OD&D spell lists are pretty sparse, and given that many, many, many RPGs contain much larger spell lists with more complicated rules, OD&D and B/X come out far ahead on any simplicity comparison.

Nice! I don't really have any experience with superhero RPGs because I've never really had any interest in superheroes.

HeroQuest isn't actually a superhero game, although the world of Glorantha does have SuperHeroes...

Spoiler: HQ/Glorantha aside

Show

HeroQuest (the second and later editions of Hero Wars, renamed after GW's registration of their HeroQuest trademark ran out) was originally Greg Stafford's new game for roleplaying in his venerable setting of Glorantha (published in the 70s and, much like the Forgotten Realms, with roots set further back in pre-D&D fiction). The rules were written by Robin D. Laws, and later editions are presented as generic (a bad choice, IMO).

The rules fit the setting perfectly (and this from someone who still prefers to game Glorantha with RuneQuest).

The name is actually derived from an old, old, old term originally used in the RuneQuest Glorantha material: a HeroQuest is a magical quest/journey into the Otherworlds to achieve some goal or gain power or knowledge.

And the setting does, indeed, have SuperHeroes, originally in the Chainmail sense... the wargame (White Bear, Red Moon) that was the original Gloranthan game had SuperHeroes who (with their elite retinue or boon companions) fought like entire armies and had the power to nullify magic through a connection to the Infinity Rune.

HeroQuest is a system pretty much anyone should check out, and Glorantha is a setting anyone interested in coherent fantasy with incredible mythical/mythological/metaphysical depth and breadth and verisimilitude should check out.

[Airk]

As to the spell lists: true, in a sense, but OD&D spell lists are pretty sparse, and given that many, many, many RPGs contain much larger spell lists with more complicated rules, OD&D and B/X come out far ahead on any simplicity comparison.

I don't think it's really relevant how spare the spell lists are compared to other games. It only matters how much space the spell lists take up relative to the rest of the content in THIS game.

If the sum total of the game rules is 25 pages, for which 10 are combat and there's another 25 for spells of which 15 are combat, you have a game which is 50% combat rules and 50% EVERYTHING ELSE (including "one time" processes like chargen), even though 25 pages of spells is "sparse" compared to a lot of modern systems.

Of course, it's been a long time since I opened either AD&D 1 or BECM D&D tomes, so all numbers are invented.

[Slipperychicken]

Whereas I have always found "just roleplaying it out" to be an awful mechanic

I didn't say it's a good thing*. That's just how I've seen people do it.

*I've had a lot of trouble personally with rolling a 30 on Diplomacy, and then I blurt out something stupid which really ought to result in failure, which confuses GMs to no end as they're forced to weight the importance of OOC roleplaying vs. in-character skill. I've resorted to not even talking IC when rolling diplomacy, just saying something like "my character uses his social skills to convince the guard to let him in, appealing to his sense of empathy and offering a bribe if that doesn't work."

[NichG]

I didn't say it's a good thing*. That's just how I've seen people do it.

*I've had a lot of trouble personally with rolling a 30 on Diplomacy, and then I blurt out something stupid which really ought to result in failure, which confuses GMs to no end as they're forced to weight the importance of OOC roleplaying vs. in-character skill. I've resorted to not even talking IC when rolling diplomacy, just saying something like "my character uses his social skills to convince the guard to let him in, appealing to his sense of empathy abd offering a bribe if that doesn't work."

I think this is sort of a design flaw in the system on two levels. The first level is, it presents you with a skill/attribute which it claims should help you be good at social stuff, but then table culture tends to make that skill/attribute irrelevant for what they're supposed to do. If, for example, you had a system in which there were no 'social stats' or 'social skills', I don't think there'd be this dissonance to quite the same degree.

The second design flaw is the idea that a single social interaction is well-modeled by pass/fail mechanics. Part of the reason people find replacing RP with a Diplomacy check to be so distasteful is that its sort of like the social equivalent of 'lets replace the combat system with an opposed War skill check' (yes, I realize the irony of this given that's sort of what the OP is trying to do in this thread).

In a combat situation, there is an element of player skill in the selection of the character's actions - the character has 'abilities' and the player's intelligence deploys those abilities in order to win the fight. Ideally, social mechanics should not interfere with the complexity of real social interactions or replace the player's abilities, but instead should augment the player's abilities and provide an arsenal of tools for the player to use.

An example would be an ability that gives a player access to the detailed emotional response of an NPC as a result of each word they say - basically a perfect cold read. Another example would be an ability that lets a player retract the last thing they said after seeing the NPC's response and then re-say it. They don't replace the player's socialization ability, but they augment it.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Most RPGs I've read have their rounds representing a few seconds each, and each battle ends up being several rounds long.

Well, I wanted to know if there were any systems out there in which combat is a single round. As in: total up the stuff on each side, roll some dice, look up some tables and BOOM, the combat's over. I mean, I don't want it to be abstracted out to the point of pass/fail testing on a single number, I still want strategy to matter, I'm just looking for some streamlining.

I ask since combat seems to be the most difficult part of PbP games, and I was wondering if there was a better way.

Since this thing doesn't really exist, I'm going to try to make you a bespoke mechanic for it.

So, here are (what I gather) the things that you want:

Spoiler

Show

(1) Combat that requires every participant to contribute information ONCE before resolving the entire combat.

(2) Strategic decisions (e.g. move/countermove that governs the entire conflict) are important.

(3) Battles end with one side Retreating but injuries being passed out on both sides.

So, aside from judging whether or not this covers all you're looking for, I have additional questions:

- How "strategic" do you want those decisions to be? Are we talking about Rock-Paper-Scissors each combat or the sort of decisions that affect the course of a series of combats after being made once? If both, what mixture do you want?

- If battles usually end with one side Retreating (which means many, many more combats before a decisive outcome) then what sort of circumstances govern whether the losing side is wiped out?

Once I have these answers, I shall continue

[Rhynn]

If the sum total of the game rules is 25 pages, for which 10 are combat and there's another 25 for spells of which 15 are combat, you have a game which is 50% combat rules and 50% EVERYTHING ELSE (including "one time" processes like chargen), even though 25 pages of spells is "sparse" compared to a lot of modern systems.

I'm pretty sure OD&D comes out to ~90 pages between the three books, and has maybe 4 pages of spells? I'm AFB so I can't check. It's slightly increased in BECM.

ACKS, for instance, is 254 pages (excluding sheets, index, etc. at the back), and this is a partial break-down...

Characters (creating, classes, etc.) 23 pages
Equipment 17 pages (equipment list 7-8 pages, followers & henchmen 6 pages)
Proficiencies 10 pages (list 9 pages)
Magic rules 4 pages
Spell index 21 pages
Adventuring rules 25 pages (combat, including surprise and evasions & pursuit, morale, saving throws, and sea combat, is 16 pages)
Campaign rules 32 pages
GM secrets 27 pages

Obviously, ACKS has a lot more pages than its grandfather (B/X D&D), but it's a great example of the principle in action.

[Airk]

I didn't say it's a good thing*. That's just how I've seen people do it.

Right. Which is exactly what I'm trying to say here - lots of people are using a bad method for this stuff, probably in part because they've never tried anything else, or even thought too heavily about why they found a particular game session unsatisfying.

I guess really what I'm trying to say is that many RPG gamers are creatures of habit, and don't tend to think too much about their hobby. The way they do things is informed more by what they are "used to" than what the "right" way to handle something is, or, for that matter, what might actually be the MOST FUN way for them to do that thing. Then they come on the internet and argue that the only game they've played in the past decade does everything GREAT. Even though last session it was completely weird when...

Oh well. Rant off. Sorry for the derail. I'm curious to see what comes out of attempts to create this system.