From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: Time and judgement
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:18:22 GMT

millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>> 	Yes, there are some cases where the 5 second phase is unrealistic. 
>> But I think that for the vast majority of cases, it is more realistic and 
>> playable than a 1 second phase. 
>
>I don't really agree, but if folx are bothered by combats taking too
>little game time then why not change perceptions instead of adding
>rules? When asked how long a X-round fight took, roll Xd6 for the
>answer. Quick. Easy. Satisfies the rules-lawyers. You can still keep the
>conceptual one second turn, but people no longer react at full speed.

	Is it just me, or is this for all practical purposes the same 
thing as saying that a round is around 3 or 4 seconds? 

	Saying after the fact that a fight took longer than it did 
leads to alot of inconsistancies. Like being unable to communicate 
during combat because saying anything meaningful takes to long, then 
finding out later that you actually had plenty of time to say that. Etc. 

	Why exactly is a 1 second conceptual turn desirable? Some say 
that it is neccessary for realism. 

	However, I don't see this. What makes a combat feel 'real' to 
me is the fear, confusion, hesitation, shock, and pain of the combatants. 
Playing at the one second level, you generally lose all this, because you 
have at least 30 to 60 seconds to decide on what your character can barely 
register. For example, say you cast a spell. You declare it on your turn, 
and have to wait for everyone else to state their actions until you find 
out what happened. Much of the continuity of the combat is lost because 
actions are broken up into small pieces. 

	I have played in two game systems now which broke up time into 1 
second resolution, and despite vastly different mechanics and players, they 
both had the same result. When combat occurred, all of the characters took up 
a frenzied pace, and combat almost never took more than 15 seconds. What 
I thought was particularly ridiculous was when we tried to communicate 
by shouting short phrases, and found that we were carefully choosing our 
words so that we could communicate at all during the combat. 
(i.e. "Igor, there's a Glue Spell in front of you!" No, wait, that takes 
3 seconds - he'll have run into it by then. Uh..."Igor - Glue ahead!" 
2 seconds. That's better.) 

	Using a longer time scale results in greater realism on average, 
I think, as well as simplifying things and allowing such novel actions as 
talking during combat time. Certainly smaller time scales are useful for 
such things as Special Ops firefights, and advanced martial arts fights, 
and some others. 
	But loading 1 second resolution with rules for confusion and 
hesitation gives the players more time to ponder their split-second 
decisions, which is fairly counterproductive. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "Deservin's got nothing to do with it."
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu |
Columbia University         |                - William Munny, 'Unforgiven'