One-Minute Combat Rounds

[Scott Anderson]

This is not strictly an ODD question. Which versions of the rules use a one-minute combat round? I always thought the LBBs had it, but I'm really not sure. Someone here will be able to tell us.

[foxroe]

OD&D/Chainmail and AD&D. Ten-second rounds were first mentioned (mistakenly?) in Holmes Basic, but became the norm in B/X editions and beyond.

[waysoftheearth]

Without wanting to dive down into another thermonuclear debate, there's some relevant posts on this question here.

[Zenopus]

Jun 5, 2017 1:48:47 GMT -6 foxroe said:

OD&D/Chainmail and AD&D. Ten-second rounds were first mentioned (mistakenly?) in Holmes Basic, but became the norm in B/X editions and beyond.

Holmes definitely added this to Basic, as it is in the manuscript, but I don't think it can be considered a mistake as published, because Gygax/TSR reviewed the manuscript and left it in there. This despite many other tweaks being made to the manuscript, including some in the same paragraph. Furthermore, Gygax refers to the "10 second melee rounds" in the Holmes version of B2, so it wasn't like it was something completely overlooked.

The question of where Holmes got the 10-second rounds is interesting and there's not a single clear source. The Warlock Supplement and Metamorphosis Alpha both used 10 second rounds prior to Holmes, but it could also be Holmes' interpretation of the combat system(s) presented in Chainmail/LBBs/Supplements. See the link waysoftheearth posted above.

[sixdemonbag]

I read through the linked thread. Really great analysis in there! Maybe I missed it, and if I did apologies, but when "combat rounds" are referenced, are we to assume this to mean the unit of time required for everyone to get a "turn" (in the board game sense) or is it understood to mean the amount of time each player is allotted during their "turn"?

In other words, assuming a typical 4 party group along with a couple of monster types (as an example), would this equate to ~6 "turns" in a 1 minute round for ~10 seconds each?

Also, it was mentioned that combat was often conducted in real time, so could this mean that each player had about a minute to take their "turn" (decide on actions, movement, attack, spells, funky maneuvers, etc.) to keep melee combat "fast and furious"? The consequence would be a player basically has a 1 minute sand counter to act, otherwise:

Ref: "Time's up slowpoke!! While Tyrion the Comtemplative is strategizing, (points to Bronn the Fighter), it's your turn now! We'll get back to Tyrion later!

Just food for thought. Love this forum btw!

[sixdemonbag]

After another cup of coffee, consider: surprise and initiative.

Was the assumption simultaneous combat? Side initiative? Individual? One minute of actions per player during individual initiative would play much differently (better or worse?) to one minute side initiative rounds (30 seconds per side split up among participants seems perfectly reasonable). One minute of simultaneous combat per round is basically Tunnels and Trolls territory and would make things even more abstract (again, better or worse?).

And finally, would a surprise round also follow the one minute convention? I'm not sure what the precedent for this would be.

All that said, if I had pick a favorite, I greatly prefer side initiative comprised of one minute rounds. This would allow for for a variety of actions of various lengths. Anywhere from 5-30 seconds per side (depending on what each participant is trying to accomplish and whether the referee decides to split up each action or run it simultaneous). In addition, time-keeping and initiative-tracking becomes trivial and players avoid checking out waiting for their turn while encouraging cooperation and tactical thinking.

*Throws 2 coppers into the pot.*

[Deleted]

Well, as Gary reffed it, everyone got an action in a one minute round; the number of players and NPCs was irrelevant. A simple initiative system (roll 1d6) determined the order people went in.

[sixdemonbag]

Jun 6, 2017 12:04:12 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Well, as Gary reffed it, everyone got an action in a one minute round; the number of players and NPCs was irrelevant. A simple initiative system (roll 1d6) determined the order people went in.

Wow, thanks Gronan! This makes perfect sense to me. In fact, I think I like Gary's method (go figure) best of all. It combines the best of all options, in my opinion. Keeping the round duration roughly static and the actual number of total actions variable provides a huge variety of possibilities, both tactical and dramatic. Simple 1d6 per player initiative prevents one player from "hogging all the action" (and I don't mean in official "caller" capacity; that's something else entirely and is very useful when exploring and not trying to cause a great clamor in a quiet dungeon). Can't really get any simpler than that.

If you may, Gronan, I have a couple of follow-up questions if somewhat off-topic: Did Gary require initiative to be rolled each round or once at the beginning of combat? I know the SR FAQ indicated each round, but i'm more curious about what was played than what was written. Second, were earlier actions allowed to be deferred later in the order*? (I'll guess the answer: depends on the situation and Gary's mood at the time!)

*Individual initiative (assuming the ref rolls once for all monsters) when actions are allowed to be deferred boils down to side initiative with a little more structure, as far as I'm aware. Anyone please feel free to correct me if this is incorrect.

Ex. Player A, B, Monsters, C, A, B, Monsters, C, A, B, Monsters, C, A, B and so on.

[Zenopus]

Jun 6, 2017 10:27:33 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

I read through the linked thread. Really great analysis in there! Maybe I missed it, and if I did apologies, but when "combat rounds" are referenced, are we to assume this to mean the unit of time required for everyone to get a "turn" (in the board game sense) or is it understood to mean the amount of time each player is allotted during their "turn"?

In other words, assuming a typical 4 party group along with a couple of monster types (as an example), would this equate to ~6 "turns" in a 1 minute round for ~10 seconds each?

Generally in a ruleset using 10 second rounds, such as Holmes Basic, everyone (on both sides) gets one action in a 10-second combat round. After everyone has gone, the round is over and you move on to the next 10 second round. After 10 rounds, a turn is done - which is mostly important for spells, magic items and other effects that have a duration in turns.

sixdemonbag said:

Also, it was mentioned that combat was often conducted in real time, so could this mean that each player had about a minute to take their "turn" (decide on actions, movement, attack, spells, funky maneuvers, etc.) to keep melee combat "fast and furious"? The consequence would be a player basically has a 1 minute sand counter to act, otherwise:

Ref: "Time's up slowpoke!! While Tyrion the Comtemplative is strategizing, (points to Bronn the Fighter), it's your turn now! We'll get back to Tyrion later!

Gygax certainly played this way, at least in this recent report of a con game from 1988: mystical-trash-heap.blogspot.com/2017/06/my-games-with-gary-part-3.html

Trent wrote:

Once the action started everything moved super-quickly: [Gary] went around the table asking for actions and if you hesitated you got skipped. I'd never played in a game with a DM who moved the game ahead as quickly as Gary did. No dithering or hesitation at all. It was very tense and exciting, very engaging, everybody was on the edge of their seats (except maybe the hapless archer guy).

sixdemonbag said:

Just food for thought. Love this forum btw!

Thanks, and welcome!

[sixdemonbag]

Jun 6, 2017 18:14:53 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Jun 6, 2017 10:27:33 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

I read through the linked thread. Really great analysis in there! Maybe I missed it, and if I did apologies, but when "combat rounds" are referenced, are we to assume this to mean the unit of time required for everyone to get a "turn" (in the board game sense) or is it understood to mean the amount of time each player is allotted during their "turn"?

In other words, assuming a typical 4 party group along with a couple of monster types (as an example), would this equate to ~6 "turns" in a 1 minute round for ~10 seconds each?

Generally in a ruleset using 10 second rounds, such as Holmes Basic, everyone (on both sides) gets one action in a 10-second combat round. After everyone has gone, the round is over and you move on to the next 10 second round. After 10 rounds, a turn is done - which is mostly important for spells, magic items and other effects that have a duration in turns.

Thanks Zen.

I started with the RC (and black box) in grade school in the early 90's and I am pretty sure I played this completely wrong. I dabbled in 2E as well and I can't remember how it interpreted round length.

In fact, I have never considered that the 10 second (or 6 second B/X?) round was for ALL actions. I don't remember much besides, "okay, now it's your turn and you get one attack, spell, etc." Mind blown! I think I always assumed that the 10 or 6 secs was for each PC/NPC/Monster action.

Anyway, I think I may join the 1 minute round camp (more options, less hand-wringing, and just easier for the ref to adjudicate without having to rationalize whether or not there is enough time to perform whatever action is attempted). I can certainly see it's merits. Using 1 minute rounds, the list of things you couldn't do would be much shorter than the list of things you could do to the point where such a list wouldn't even be necessary.

Ultimately, however, I'm not sure it matters that much as it's simply an abstraction to simplify combat and keep time-keeping to a minimum (spells and such as you mentioned). After all, combat should be treated as a majorly inconvenient speed bump on the road to more sweet loot.

The actual length of each round is of far less consequence than the (as Gronan mentioned) 1 action per player turn limitation. In my mind, that's the only substantial mechanical limitation for combat outside of spell durations, wandering monsters, rest, etc.

Great stuff as always everyone. Learning a lot slowly going through all the old threads.

[Scott Anderson]

Jun 6, 2017 12:04:12 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Well, as Gary reffed it, everyone got an action in a one minute round; the number of players and NPCs was irrelevant. A simple initiative system (roll 1d6) determined the order people went in.

Mike, do you remember if you announced your action first or rolled initiative first? We've done it both ways and it's more fun (more surprising) to announce first. But I don't know if there's precedent for that.

[Deleted]

Declare first, because if a magic user is throwing a spell and gets hit before the spell finishes, they lose the spell.

[tetramorph]

@gronanofsimmerya, do you ever remember playing in (what I have come to learn to have been) the more "judges guild" style?

From what I understand this style had no initiative but was based on when something could happen in a round, like weapon length and the like.

There is that table in the Ready Ref Sheets for judging rounds this way. (It is, as with almost all things Judges Guild, too many rules for me! But I've been exploring a house-ruled rules-lite variant at the table and it has been going well so far).

@hedgehobbit has a youtube video on initiative that talks about it. That is where I learned about it. Great video. I found it through some other thread talking about initiative.

[Deleted]

No.

[sixdemonbag]

Jun 7, 2017 11:04:38 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Declare first, because if a magic user is throwing a spell and gets hit before the spell finishes, they lose the spell.

Declarations is another interesting tidbit. It certainly adds more strategy and makes spellcasting less of a sure thing. I like it.

[Zenopus]

Jun 7, 2017 21:18:32 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

Declarations is another interesting tidbit. It certainly adds more strategy and makes spellcasting less of a sure thing. I like it.

The LBBs as written don't have any particular rules for declarations or disruption of spells. There's no mention of spell disruption being a possibility in the rules.

This allows for a lot of flexibility in crafting your combat rounds: Full declarations, spell-casting only declarations, no declarations. 'No declarations' does have the advantage of being fast - you can just go around the table once and have folks attack on their turn. Playing with 'full declarations' requires going around the table twice each round. Spell-casting only declarations is sort of a happy medium if you want to include the possibility of spell disruption.

When I ran OD&D at a con last year, I used no declarations and no initiative - all combat was simultaneous. I had no spell disruptions but if a wizard was hit he couldn't cast a spell the next round (sort of a "stun"). It was very fast and helped to finish the game in the limited con time with 8 players. So think about how much time you have to play and what you want to spend your time on during the game.

[sixdemonbag]

Jun 8, 2017 6:30:15 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

The LBBs as written don't have any particular rules for declarations or disruption of spells.

Indeed they don't. I just bought the WotC LBBs along with Chainmail in pdf earlier in the year (great value btw) and ctrl-f is a godsend.

From everything I've read interrupting spells, declarations, and round-by-round initiative seems to be a Gary staple in actual play and even in his later con house rules (sidenote: is Gary even allowed to have house rules??? Should just be "the rules"  ).

Learning how Gary and Dave played compared to what was written is fascinating to me nonetheless. Great point about declarations requiring a couple laps around the table. I can totally see an evil wizard being absolutely devastating to a party of PCs without some means of interrupting (ref: sleep spell incoming, I hope you make your saves!). I suppose declarations and counter-moves are traditional wargaming concepts. I know Chainmail has both and I'm sure Gronan is very comfortable with those concepts. Add segmented rounds by distance to that list as well. All of these things can be found in Chainmail so it's no shock they would be used in the early days and even today by wargaming vets.

Good insight, Zen.

[sixdemonbag]

Zen, in an effort to get back on topic, could you expand on your simultaneous combat? Assuming 1 minute OD&D rounds, did you just resolve actions one at a time or did everyone get to do what they wanted that round? In other words, if a monster died was he still allowed to attack? And how did you visualize movement where everyone is moving at the same time? Could an archer hit a goblin before it closed into melee? Or was it simultaneous as in one side goes then the other depending on who's the aggressor?

I have never experienced simultaneous combat outside of once-off situations and usually initiative ties went to the player (probably not fair in hindsight). The 1 minute turn would make all this action fairly abstract I'd imagine, which is probably the intended effect Gary had in mind at the time.

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 5, 2017 1:48:47 GMT -6 foxroe said:

OD&D/Chainmail and AD&D.

Mmmm, well Chainmail has one-minute combat turns with an indeterminate number of rounds (potentially) occurring within each turn.
The Dalluhn manuscript includes a combat section which (broadly) reproduces CM's man-to-man rules (albeit with proto-alternative attack matrices).
Published OD&D (unfortunately?) cut that combat section although it still refers to it (M&T p5), but otherwise defers to CM instead. It continues to include the alternative attack matrices. The other combat "additions" from Dalluhn (critical hits and instant kills) also appear in EPT.

Jun 6, 2017 10:27:33 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

when "combat rounds" are referenced, are we to assume this to mean the unit of time required for everyone to get a "turn" (in the board game sense) or is it understood to mean the amount of time each player is allotted during their "turn"?

In Chainmail and Dalluhn (and, IMHO, in "early" D&D) a combat round need not be a fixed period of time.
Instead, a combat round is simply an exchange of blows. It takes however long is required for everyone involved to have their "chops" or "swings", but the exact period is immaterial.

Jun 8, 2017 15:09:09 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

is Gary even allowed to have house rules??? Should just be "the rules"

Everyone played/plays their own variation of D&D; the game is built that way.
Dave's game, Gary's game, Prof. Barker's game, Warlock, Holmes' and so on were/are all different variations of the game. The printed "rules" describe yet another variation of the game which is different enough to how everyone played/plays to fill this forum, and dozens of others, with thousands of posts worth of discussion. 

It can be problematic, I think, to conflate the printed rules with "Gary's game", or "Dave's game", or whoever else's game. We know EGG wrote rules he didn't use, and we know he used a bunch of house rules too. A D&D game is also a continually evolving thing, whereas the printed rules can only capture a fixed snapshot in time...

[foxroe]

Yes, well, I'll leave such details to the experts - never claimed to be one... but I did spend a night at a Holiday Inn Express once!

[sixdemonbag]

Jun 9, 2017 3:41:33 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

In Chainmail and Dalluhn (and, IMHO, in "early" D&D) a combat round need not be a fixed period of time.
Instead, a combat round is simply an exchange of blows. It takes however long is required for everyone involved to have their "chops" or "swings", but the exact period is immaterial.

I really like this interpretation. Gives the ref and players a lot of freedom and flexibility. This seems the most intuitive approach to me. Thanks for the clarification.

Jun 9, 2017 3:41:33 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Everyone played/plays their own variation of D&D; the game is built that way.
Dave's game, Gary's game, Prof. Barker's game, Warlock, Holmes' and so on were/are all different variations of the game. The printed "rules" describe yet another variation of the game which is different enough to how everyone played/plays to fill this forum, and dozens of others, with thousands of posts worth of discussion. 

It can be problematic, I think, to conflate the printed rules with "Gary's game", or "Dave's game", or whoever else's game. We know EGG wrote rules he didn't use, and we know he used a bunch of house rules too. A D&D game is also a continually evolving thing, whereas the printed rules can only capture a fixed snapshot in time...

This can't be stated enough. My comment was tongue-in-cheek, but your point is an extremely important one.

The rules as they evolved were both fluid and dynamic. Just because they were typed out and published at a particular moment in time, does make them any more valid than any other rule set. It is clear that the early rules were an amalgamation of ideas. These ideas coming from multiple sources while some were eventually abandoned or changed. Others were even added before the original publication and introduced in supplements.

Things like this are always important to keep in mind.

My curiosity will always be in seeing how others play, what they like and don't like, and how I can use that information to my advantage. The early days are fascinating to me.

I am also always interested in what made the game so popular, and as such, what elements and aspects are more crucial to OD&D (by taste of course) and which are more fungible. I'm always seeking to tease out the core of what makes this game so influential (a fool's errand I'm sure).

Good reminder, ways.

[smubee]

Gary's initiative system sounds like what evolved into the AD&D initiative.. Or at least how Ernie plays it. (roll d6 per player, add the Reaction Adjustment with a maximum of 9. Then call out from the highest number to the lowest.)

For example - 3 players come across a Goblin. Everyone rolls a d6.
P1 : 4 + 2
P2 : 6 + 3
P3 : 1 + 1
Goblin : 3

So then Ernie (or the DM) calls out "Initiative 9?" Player 2 says "That's me!" and then declared his action. Followed by "8?" No one. "7?" no one. "6?" "That's me -- I'm going to slash at the goblin"

Etc.


Personally, I very seldom use initiative. Whoever first decides "I want to attack the monster" goes first, unless the monster spots the party first and wants to attack them before they spot it.

More of a "surprise" system.