I'm searching a scientific study that evaluated different combat systems in regards to the in-game out-game ratio. Or if there is currently non a dataset that would allow to create such a study.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm voting to close because this question in it's current form is too open-ended. Answers will end up being in the list/game recommendation format, which is off-topic here. I think this can be on-topic if you can narrow it down to a specific game (for example, the different versions of D&D). \$\endgroup\$ – LegendaryDude Jul 24 '16 at 19:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ What I hoped to find was/is some neutral analysis of different combat systems. Or at least some datasets of combats (in-game/out-game). Something like Dice Mechanics, which tries to analyze different approaches for tests. If something like this don't exists, it would definitely worth to start collecting data (not here). \$\endgroup\$ – lokimidgard Jul 25 '16 at 8:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ I see your point why you vote to close, however what I'm interested in is the last sentence of my question. Some more or less scientific study of combats. That, in best case, analyses why some systems are faster than others. By the way faster is not always better ;). \$\endgroup\$ – lokimidgard Jul 25 '16 at 8:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ Unfortunately, none of that changes that this question in its current form is not a good fit for this site. \$\endgroup\$ – LegendaryDude Jul 25 '16 at 12:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ I tried to reword it so it will no longer generate such list behavior. But I'm not sure if it is better now. \$\endgroup\$ – lokimidgard Jul 26 '16 at 7:21

There are some forum discussions on various sites on the Internet, such as this one, but notice that it is a similar topic but the original asker there is asking "how many fights per session can you comfortably fit in". If you really mean to focus on the game-time to real-time ratio, that may be harder to find, since that can range from 1-second-per-turn (GURPS) or less (Phoenix Command) to 1-minute-per-turn or more, or the commonly-used "the GM determines how much time each battle took in game time, when that matters".

In general, however, no, your question isn't going to have an answer in the form you say you are looking for, because there are too many variables which vary way too much from player to player, GM to GM, situation to situation, such as: number and speed of players (which can vary a lot depending on what players decide to do in each battle), number and complexity of opponents, how well everyone knows the rules, the way the GM runs the players, whether the situation being played brings up something the players need more time to think (or look up rules) about and how often that happens, how many players are playing and whether they're allowed/required to talk to each other during play, what time scale the game's combat system uses, if any, etc etc etc.

Even if you can decide what question you really want answered, you would need to focus your question on what you really want to know, limit the parameters and units according to that, and then find players who know all the systems you want to compare (or train up the group you are interested in, on those systems), and time them, take data, etc.

Even for very similar games, in equivalent situations, with all expert players, I don't think you're going to do a lot better than "system A seems to be faster than system B in this situation with these players," where "faster" involves two different numbers: how much real-time and how much gameworld-time.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree with you that there is most likely no answer to my question. But in my opinion the reason is not that the question is not answerable itself. Just that no one answered it or gathered the data to be able to do it. If there are many variables like number of player or playstyle of the group, that means you just need more data. It is most likely not enough to records the battle of one group in different systems. You would need many groups playing the same. While capturing as much variables (like combatants) as possible. My (small) hope is that someone, somewhere has done this. \$\endgroup\$ – lokimidgard Jul 25 '16 at 8:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ There are as many types of player as there are people, so I think the most you can get is certain data, which could be interesting to some people, but I don't know of anyone who's done that, except that many people have done that just by learning various systems. But the data is never going to be a fixed answer except for the parts of the equation which are fixed. You could certainly make a table where you list data which most games have a fixed answer for, such as proposed game-world time per turn, number of die-rolls and stats involved in the most basic and most complicated attacks... \$\endgroup\$ – Dronz Jul 25 '16 at 17:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ @lokimidgard ... , the minimum and maximum number of possible choices of per turn, but quite a few factors vary a LOT by situation and so on. Starting D&D characters may have few options and few hitpoints before something is dead, while high-level battles involve many more options, and piles of hitpoints to cut through - even the damage/hitpoint situation is a set of many curves which is different per class, monster, etc etc. There's too much data, and it's all undercut by how players relate to and use it. I run pretty fast GURPS Advanced Combat, but am slower at less familiar games... \$\endgroup\$ – Dronz Jul 25 '16 at 17:45

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.