The one-round-encounter doesn't make a lot of sense... it's like flipping a coin to define a winner... nearly close to pure randomness, far from a fight in an rpg. There are many way to speed up a fight in game but this one is not 'clever' unfortunately! Thanks for the reading in any case!
I don't disagree! I first read it and thought (this sounds....not great), because I'm a huge tactical gamer at heart. But I do really like a lot of Runehammer content, so it fascinates me that he was totally into it. I think I just need to try it out :P
Well, firstly my apologies! I don't want to be misunderstood and have nothing against Runehammer (I don't know him, hence that is an additional reason to have nothing against him). The solution of 1-round-fight to my eyes is not a good solution (unless you have a fight every odd round of game!). While I understand the need of speed-up the game since nowadays we have little time for our hobby, I am not convinced that everything needs to be squeezed as much as possible... combat in Fantasy RPGs should be the last circumstance where this "need to squeeze" should be applied. That's the explanation underlying my skepticism. Hope it helps!
No need for apologies. I didn’t take it as an offense or anything. I totally agree with you. I do think this would be an interesting thing to try as a “montage” potentially prior to a big fight. But not sure it’s my cup of tea overall
At the end of the day, I made a game where a fight lasts max 3 turns (so far it has never lasted more than 3 turns)... so with my game mechanics I realized the "squeezed combat" without thinking at this goal specifically! Funny thing!
I do think a game designed from the ground up around a one round encounter could definitely be interesting. Especially with a lot of the resources and abilities specifically tailored for such. Perhaps providing victory points or directly Bolstering/Hindering the output of other combatants.
I am honestly just not a fan of this approach. It prioritizes damage which limits or suppresses other more creative approaches to combat by hinging everything on that single aspect of a conflict.
Honestly at this point I would rather just have a single party roll resolve the entire combat and not even go into specific actions.
It also eliminates any of the cool tactical approaches that may take more than a single round. Like sneaking up on a group of orcs and poisoning their grog before engaging with the party.
Overall this mostly seems like a way to force in content you don't really want to play into a game. Square peg, round hole. Like if I am on board with a megadungeon experience I want to spend weeks within it exploring different faction interconnections and taking time to "live" in it.
In all other ways I just prefer a smaller dungeon as they wholesale just make more sense, have all the benefits of speed without having to suckify encounters, and can easily maintain tension and exploration.
I don't disagree with your comments here. But I haven't tried this yet. I have a feeling that it puts a lot of weight on the GM to figure out how to make the encounters interesting, or it just makes every encounter just a narrative discussion that you move through.
I'd be very interested to see what a game would look like that was designed around the concept of the One Round Encounter.
I quite like the idea, I think it solves the problem of bogging down a session with multiple lengthy combats.
DC20 has a similar notion with combat skill challenges and I think they are fun, possibly a little more cinematic.
I wonder if some of the other concerns raised might be tackled by adding an objective or target. As combat begins, saying something like:
"This is a one round combat, to succeed you must kill the Goblin leader before he reaches the beacon..."
I'd certainly give it a go in my sessions.
I do like the idea of alternative win conditions besides most damage both side
The one-round-encounter doesn't make a lot of sense... it's like flipping a coin to define a winner... nearly close to pure randomness, far from a fight in an rpg. There are many way to speed up a fight in game but this one is not 'clever' unfortunately! Thanks for the reading in any case!
I don't disagree! I first read it and thought (this sounds....not great), because I'm a huge tactical gamer at heart. But I do really like a lot of Runehammer content, so it fascinates me that he was totally into it. I think I just need to try it out :P
Well, firstly my apologies! I don't want to be misunderstood and have nothing against Runehammer (I don't know him, hence that is an additional reason to have nothing against him). The solution of 1-round-fight to my eyes is not a good solution (unless you have a fight every odd round of game!). While I understand the need of speed-up the game since nowadays we have little time for our hobby, I am not convinced that everything needs to be squeezed as much as possible... combat in Fantasy RPGs should be the last circumstance where this "need to squeeze" should be applied. That's the explanation underlying my skepticism. Hope it helps!
May the fun be always at your table!
No need for apologies. I didn’t take it as an offense or anything. I totally agree with you. I do think this would be an interesting thing to try as a “montage” potentially prior to a big fight. But not sure it’s my cup of tea overall
At the end of the day, I made a game where a fight lasts max 3 turns (so far it has never lasted more than 3 turns)... so with my game mechanics I realized the "squeezed combat" without thinking at this goal specifically! Funny thing!
I do think a game designed from the ground up around a one round encounter could definitely be interesting. Especially with a lot of the resources and abilities specifically tailored for such. Perhaps providing victory points or directly Bolstering/Hindering the output of other combatants.
I am honestly just not a fan of this approach. It prioritizes damage which limits or suppresses other more creative approaches to combat by hinging everything on that single aspect of a conflict.
Honestly at this point I would rather just have a single party roll resolve the entire combat and not even go into specific actions.
It also eliminates any of the cool tactical approaches that may take more than a single round. Like sneaking up on a group of orcs and poisoning their grog before engaging with the party.
Overall this mostly seems like a way to force in content you don't really want to play into a game. Square peg, round hole. Like if I am on board with a megadungeon experience I want to spend weeks within it exploring different faction interconnections and taking time to "live" in it.
In all other ways I just prefer a smaller dungeon as they wholesale just make more sense, have all the benefits of speed without having to suckify encounters, and can easily maintain tension and exploration.
I don't disagree with your comments here. But I haven't tried this yet. I have a feeling that it puts a lot of weight on the GM to figure out how to make the encounters interesting, or it just makes every encounter just a narrative discussion that you move through.
I'd be very interested to see what a game would look like that was designed around the concept of the One Round Encounter.