Hey Peeps - first off! I’m not someone who really cares about Turn and Round duration. For me, the durations are very flexible and based upon what fits for the moment. Saying that, on page 15 of the ICRPGME it says that Turns are 10-20 seconds but Rounds are about 1 minute. Why? Aren’t all Turns happening at once? Surely a Round will also be 10-20 seconds otherwise after a PC takes their Turn of 10-20 seconds, they’ll be sat there twiddling their shield thumbs for 40-50 seconds waiting for their next figurative Turn so to speak. What am I missing?
Round Duration Query
Golbolog
#2
I think this is one of those questions that extends beyond ICRPG and into a lot of other RPG games and I would say that it’s really up to the GM’s discretion.
My own preference is that turns happen consecutively rather than simultaneously. Yes, it doesn’t make a lot of sense in reality, but it’s a lot cleaner and simpler. What if the first player in the round does something like open a door and the GM says that’s okay, but then the last person in the round decides to set the door on fire? Does it negate the first player’s actions? Or should the entire party have a debate before each round on what they would intend to do in the next round?
It’s just one of those things that I think can get a bit too complicated for me personally. But if anyone has a clean solution for how turns happening simultaneously could work, I would love to hear! I think it comes down to whether you value simplicity in running the game, or immersion more.
Like @Golbolog said: I think simultaneous actions are a bit too complicated for me. Another way I like to imagine rounds is that they are still in motion while the players play their turns. Think of it that the characters are still fighting each other in the fiction, but that attack roll is the opportunity to strike amidst the flurries of slash, blows, and roundhouse kicks. A character is running away? That character is in motion until he stops, and that tag may affect the roll of another player!
Don’t sweat it, do it however you feel comfortable! o7
Warhippo
#4
Thanks guys - I thought it was my lack of understanding, something that happens with an unhealthy regularity 
In my games, all Turns take place more or less simultaneously. I’ve played around with having players describe their actions in reverse initiative order but act in initiative order (giving a noticeable advantage to the quick witted PCs) however, if speed is of the essence then it’ll just be players describing their actions, acting and then I’ll adjust my NPC actions / outcomes based upon the story the players are attempting to tell. I fudge a fair amount so that the narrative wins over the rules. Cheers!
Kotzsu
#5
Interesting - I think I’ve actually been running turns as simultaneous without realizing it. We normally describe the same span of time experienced by each character. I’ve always thought of it as like, the camera cuts from one character to another in a scene.
If you prefer simultaneous… then I’d run it that way! I was doing it and didn’t even realize it could be done differently haha.
The exact time duration is pretty flexible. We’ll have turns that last hours and turns that last seconds and turns that last days, all depending on the scale of action. Like my group often montages “downtime” with something like, “Okay you guys spend a week in town, what do you do in that time before we go back out?” for a round.
cdj0902
#6
On the surface ICRPG can seem like it encourages a very rigid TURNS/ROUNDS structure most of the time. In fact 2E states quite plainly that the entire game is “ALWAYS in turns”. However, Master Edition backs off this rigidity, encouraging falling out of TURN/ROUND tracking to let the game breathe in those moments/scenarios where that feels more “organic” (see ME p. 6 “Always Turns?” and p. 15 section “FREEFORM”).
IMO this is beneficial advice. I’ve been playing ICRPG since 1E and one of the concepts I’ve always found jarring is when a GM insists that the entire game follow the TURNS/ROUNDS structure rigidly. It makes it feel somewhat over-structured and boardgame-ist, which I kind of bounce off of. I find the TURN structure useful for things like combat, or general “action scenes”. When the game is in “freeform” mode I drop general turn tracking unless there is some time/pressure constraint that needs to be tracked. I still keep the general concept of TURNS in mind, just to make sure each player gets a “TURN” vs having one player keep “screen time” too long, but that’s a general technique that applies regardless of the rpg I’m playing. It’s just a feel for how to pass the ball around vs. letting any one person get too much screen time in those freeform scenes.
Paxx
#7
I’m going to disagree a bit here. And I’m not Defending one version over another…but I have found the always in turns very helpful as a GM, as much as timers, but not as much as effort.
I don’t think the “always in turns” or “timers” should always be player facing or even influencing, but it is very helpful for the Game Runner or GM to have in mind.
The change we see in the language of editions has to do with the Authors thinking at the moment. It’s not per say a well thought out “this is how it is”.
Assuming you have 5 players, and you are in free form play. One or two players will typically take up limelight and or attention. The “oh, I want my character there as well/involved in doing that too” starts to happen. Stopping free form play and returning to turn based just to add clarity to the situation is called for.
If instead you (as the GM) go around the table facilitating plans of action, it feels artificial.
But if you go around the table asking for plans of action, let some discussion arise from that….the GM only interacting when questioned. Then returning to turns to ask what the characters are actually doing…and clarifying who is with who else, it really works.
Then acting out the scenes with the mini-group in free form until it becomes necessary to act in turns or the scene is over, has been very helpful for me.
So when running…the actions are always in turns. RP/discussions/planning/strategizing/recommendations…. Is free form. However Turns might not be around the table, but just two players.
I guess it is how my GM style has evolved since first encountering ICRPG. Free form is great, but when players are being left out, or getting bored, or frustrated, being able to simply bring it back to official “player 1, what is your character doing…player 2 what is your character doing…” is a great tool of flow. Just learn to not use it when you are frustrated…look for player reactions cause you might be interrupting everyone’s favorite part of the game.
cdj0902
#8
I don’t see where we disagree. As mentioned even in Freeform “mode” the GM should still be thinking in TURNS, but perhaps no so rigidly and literally as the rules suggest (especially when talking about the wording used in 2E). I personally don’t want/need a rigid turn order for “you’re all wandering around in the city, what is the group doing?”. I prefer to let a scene like that breathe a bit. Now, my GM brain is still considering that each player should get “a turn” so no one hogs the spotlight. Rolling a d20 and enforcing actual turns makes a scene like that feel rigid and constrained for me. Knowing how to move the spotlight around can be considered using “TURNS” without actually having rigid turn structure.
Paxx
#9
Yup, yup!!! I did say I disagreed “a bit”. Bits are subjective 
For me it is just a difference of emphasis.
For me as a GM keeping “in turns” is the default, but don’t be rigid about it, and allow it to break down.
For you it seemed more, use turns for x, y and z…but not for A, b and c….but have the option…
In practice it is probably identical.
But since the keeping it in Turns was revolutionary for me…took work for me to incorporate, I see it more plainly. Or as something to always track. Knowing how long 55 seconds feels like, if there is an event that you run repeatedly for 55 seconds while doing other things.
Like the cadence one uses for “Ready, Set, Go” if trying to be fair in a kids race. It’s not that important…but there is an expected cadence.
That said, every GM being different is a fun part of the game! We all have our quirks and superstitious beliefs about how to run a game. What works and what doesn’t…I just try other peoples superstitions more than most. Sometimes it works, sometimes not so much.
I’ve even stole things other GMs where trying and didn’t like.
Warhippo
#10
Some excellent commentary here - thanks for that. I’m always interested to see how other GMs run the table. I tend to use Turns and Rounds as a vehicle for ‘fairness’ both in terms of player spotlight and realism. For the latter I mean that if one PC gets to scale the castle walls in the same time that another PC hits an orc on the head, once, then that would be unrealistic and ‘unfair’.
If you prefer simultaneous… then I’d run it that way! I was doing it and didn’t even realize it could be done differently haha.
Then I may have never understood what simultaneous meant before: is it that the GM makes the players tell him what they wanna do, roll their checks before telling them all what happened in one long, DM turn?
Seems like I may have been doing this without realizing. XD
Paxx
#12
Simultaneous means different things to different people.
Original meaning is probably from war games.
Movement phase, each player takes turns moving their units…if contested, contested point is where units go, and goal location is marked…or the opposite.
Then attack phase…
Starting with contested movements.
Then each attack is done in turns up to the players.
Results phase.
Based on attacks results are calculated and marked.
Clean up.
Markers are picked up, verify everything is noted correctly, not forgetting anything.
What it means in an RPG at a basic level…all actors that start the round, end the round…nothing is eliminated/frozen/taken out of action until the results are calculated.
But every game seems to treat it differently. For many D&D 5e is simultaneous cause it’s not one side goes first then the other side.
For others,
Declare actions. All players and GM
Roll action/effort. Typically around the table, but often based on miniature location. All players and GM
Declare results. Weave what just happened into a narrative. GM
Is what is meant by simultaneous combat in RPGs.
Advantage of simultaneous combat is it reduces analysis Paralysis.
Disadvantage is GM has to play enemy in a tactical fashion (based on enemy in combat) and not a strategic fashion, while running the entire game in a strategic fashion.
Because you must simulate fog of war.
Anthony_C
#13
Just a note on simultaneous turns from someone who actually uses them:
That does NOT mean that all the players are yelling at the GM in a chaotic tangle of voices. That is simply poor table etiquette and a strawman argument against simultaneous turns, often given by people who’ve never honestly tried to use simultaneous turns.
More specifically to your question, time is fluid. You decide how long a turn is. Six seconds? A minute? Second by second? You decide.
The real issue is how much time do players spend NOT PLAYING THE GAME in serial versus parallel turn orders. We can argue back and forth about whether “in game” it’s better to play turn based or simultaneously, but the thing that is IMO unassailable is that we should strive to minimize player downtime between their turns. There is no issue with phones, for example, if John doesn’t have to wait 15 minutes before he can play again (for about 30 seconds, then it’s not his turn anymore).
Something to consider.
AC
That does NOT mean that all the players are yelling at the GM in a chaotic tangle of voices. That is simply poor table etiquette and a strawman argument against simultaneous turns, often given by people who’ve never honestly tried to use simultaneous turns.
I did not argue that, nor do I assume that to be the default.
The real issue is how much time do players spend NOT PLAYING THE GAME in serial versus parallel turn orders. We can argue back and forth about whether “in game” it’s better to play turn based or simultaneously, but the thing that is IMO unassailable is that we should strive to minimize player downtime between their turns. There is no issue with phones, for example, if John doesn’t have to wait 15 minutes before he can play again (for about 30 seconds, then it’s not his turn anymore).
Yup, a lot more problems are tied to the GM than we want to admit, and that’s why we went on this quest to become the very best like no one ever was and found Runehammer. 
@Paxx did make a good point about what Simultaneous rounds means for different people, however. How does it play at your table? 
Warhippo
#15
For me, we run simultaneous rounds as follows.
-
In initiative order…
-
A player describes an intended action, makes any die rolls and the result is determined.
-
Rinse and repeat. until everyone has had their turn.
Looks like a standard turn sequence and it could be understood as being concurrent or consecutive however, what’s important is how it’s perceived by the players. Although each player (and by player, I’m including the GM / NPCs) gets to describe their actions one after the other, the perception is that it’s all happening at much the same time - though not exactly at the same time. We understand that a round takes a few seconds but the important element of a PCs actions take a little less. We don’t define Round duration any further than this simply because we need this ‘blurring’ to make the whole thing feel…fair.
Most of the time, this process is without any conflicts - that may well be because we all get along or perhaps because we have fairly vanilla combat Sometimes though, we do get a conflict such as a player stating that they make a grab for the glowing sword and then another player, despite it not being their Turn, pipes up “hey, I want the sword as well”. In those cases, I’d check how far apart their initiatives are and possibly allow a rolloff between the two players. The other time you get conflicts is with combat damage. Example, a PC kills an NPC before the NPC gets to act. In this situation, most of the time, the NPC dies without acting because most of the time, NPCs are meaningless mooks and we don’t want to slow the game down by giving them much thought but occasionally, I’ll allow the NPC to make a dying slash, bash, belch - whatever - just to spice things up. I’ll certainly do it if the NPC is a boss.
I’m very much not a fan of consecutive turns as they just doesn’t fit thematically with us on any level. They make it easy to follow the rules and help to avoid disagreements but for us, it takes you away from the drama of the game. I’m happy to fudge the rules but I don’t like fudging the thematic reality we’ve created. Sure, we’re playing a game of fantasy but we’re playing within certain constraints of what fits our creation and anything that takes us away from it, even if it’s the rules, is treated with a great deal of care.
How you guys play is fine by me - I’m not judging here
Anthony_C
#16
Hey Poly!
I wasn’t replying to you, or anyone here, specifically. But the whole “table chaos” objection is the #1 thing I hear when I describe how I run combat. I’ve seen that argument on this forum in years past, in the Discord recently, and on countless other RPG forums. I just wanted to address that for anyone here who might be considering trying simultaneous turns.
Characters action simultaneously doesn’t mean that players all talk at the same time. It just means we resolve the actions mechanically at the same time (parallel resolution as opposed to serial, which is what turn based combat uses).
AC
cdj0902
#17
I went back and rewatched the “Social Encounters: Decoded” video on YouTube and one section in particular brought me back in from the weeds a bit on the concept of TURNS in ICRPG. The segment is within the context of social encounters, but really applies to any situation in your ICRPG game.
A few things stood out to me:
- The idea that turns can be in the ICRPG way (roll D20 go clockwise in every situation) or they can bounce around as you like, as long as everyone gets a turn each round. The bouncing around could be a rolled initiative order or, as I mentioned above, could be the GM shining the spotlight around to ensure each player gets their “turn” in a fair and equitable way.
- The illustration that focused on the current player and put a mask over the other players, highlighting the idea that when it’s someone’s TURN, the other players don’t “disappear”, but they should not be “taking the moment” from that player. The others can pitch in but they don’t have the stage spotlight on them. To me this leaves room for “freeform” play that could be considered simultaneous, whether it be RP/social or a “you’re all wandering around in Waterdeep what do you do today?” scene.
It basically codifies and uses a game mechanical structure to capture what’s really going on during freeform play anyway (or should be): each player should get a chance to contribute (get a TURN) vs any one player getting multiple TURNS of action/activities before other players get their action. Those turns could take minutes/hours/days (depends on the context of your scenes). And just because one player’s turn happens before another in a round doesn’t necessarily mean their PC’s actions are wrapped up before the next PC’s.
Anyway, regardless, I found that segment particularly interesting considering our thread here. Thought I’d highlight it.