Long vs fast combat in RPGs: technical analysis and game design impact

Pubblicato il 28/12/2025

One of the most heated debates in the tabletop RPG landscape concerns combat duration. While systems like D&D 5E and Pathfinder favor tactically complex encounters that can last 60-90 minutes, other modern systems such as Borg of Pripyat, Mörk Borg, and Cy-Borg prioritize streamlined 15-20 minute combats. But what does this choice really entail at the game design level? How does it affect the overall gaming experience?

In this article, we’ll analyze the pros and cons of both approaches from a technical perspective, examining underlying mechanics, narrative impact, and the role of combat encounters in the overall economy of a session.

Anatomy of RPG combat: two different philosophies

When we talk about “long” and “fast” combat, we’re not simply describing a difference in real time. Duration is a consequence of fundamental design choices that include:

• Action Granularity: how many micro decisions a player must make in a single turn
• Resolution System Complexity: how many calculations, modifiers, and variables come into play
• Tactical Depth: how much the tactical space and opponent positions influence the outcome
• Option Variety: how many different strategic approaches are available

Systems with long combats tend to excel in granularity and tactical complexity. D&D 5E, for example, offers attackers dozens of options per round: ranged or melee weapon attacks, ability channeling, strategic movement, object interactions, reactions (though in limited numbers).

Systems with fast combats, by contrast, emphasize clarity and resolution speed. Borg of Pripyat uses a streamlined system where each action resolves with few dice and a quick table lookup. Tactics don’t disappear, they simply become more narrative than numerical.

Comparative table

Advantages of long combats

Long combats enable complex strategies to emerge during encounters. A party can coordinate elaborate maneuvers: a wizard sets the terrain with control spells, the ranger provides ranged support, the warrior holds the line.

Example: In D&D 5E, a four versus four encounter can unfold as a tactical minigame where collective intelligence decides targeting, resource management (spells, class abilities), and retreat timing.

Winning a long fight requires planning, adaptation, and intelligent resource use. Victory feels “earned” rather than determined by the first round.

Long combats allow resource management during the encounter: spell slots, movement points, ability uses. This “managed attrition” is key in many modern systems.

Tactical space becomes a canvas for narrative. Movements carry geographic significance, critical failures create memorable moments, each character’s position tells a story.

Disadvantages of long combats

A 90-minute encounter in a 4 hour session means dedicating over 20% of playtime to action. For tables preferring balance between combat and narration, this becomes problematic.

A story with needed emotional momentum gets interrupted by 90 minutes of turns. This can undermine dramatic tension, especially in narrative or cinematic systems.

With 4+ players, each player waits 3-5 minutes between turns. Downtime accumulates and reduces engagement.

New players get lost in modifiers, reactions, bonus actions. This creates a significant barrier to entry.

Advantages of fast combats

The Borg system represents an alternative game design philosophy rooted in NSR (New School Revolution) traditions. Short combats offer specific benefits.

With turns lasting 30-60 seconds, gameplay maintains steady pacing. No long waiting periods; action flows naturally.

In Borg of Pripyat, characters aren’t hit point reserves. They can die quickly if they make mistakes. This fragility creates genuine tension: every decision truly matters.

Mechanical Example: In Borg of Pripyat, a fighter with 10 HP might find themselves in a life-or-death situation after a few hits. Unlike D&D’s progression curve that makes characters increasingly robust, risk remains constant.

With less time spent on calculations, players stay immersed in the story. Borg of Pripyat uses result tables that directly influence narrative: a critical hit isn’t just “+2d6,” it’s a description that changes the scenario.

A new player can sit down and play immediately without a manual in hand. Rules are simple enough to learn through play.

With 15-20 minute combats, a session can contain 2-3 completely different encounters. This creates narrative and tactical variety.

Disadvantages of fast combats

While Borg of Pripyat maintains tactical elements (position, resources), the decision space is narrower. No elaborate combos or multi round strategies.

Encounters end quickly. If the plan to “fight the enemy” fails, the character often simply dies. Unlike D&D, there’s no time for a “strategic retreat.”

Players accustomed to D&D feel fragile and vulnerable. This is intentional in Borg of Pripyat’s design, but can alienate those preferring classical progression. In D&D, a control focused wizard dealing no direct damage remains viable for support. In Borg of Pripyat, every action must count quickly.

Why timings change

Combat duration isn’t random. It emerges from three fundamental mechanical choices:

1. Hit points and damage curve

System | Average Enemy HP | Average Damage per Turn | Expected Turns

D&D 5E | 40-60 | 10-15 | 6-8
Borg | 6-10 | 5-8 | 1-2

In Borg systems, enemies fall faster because hit points are minimal. A typical “bandit” has 4-6 HP. A weapon strike inflicts 1d6 damage. Statistically, an encounter resolves in 1-2 rounds.

2. Number of actions per turn

D&D 5E offers:
– 1 main action
– 1 movement
– 1 bonus action
– 1 reaction (for enemies)
– Free interactions

This is built to extend turns. Borg systems drastically reduce choices:
– 1 action
– Movement implicit in narration
– No “bonus action”

Fewer choices = faster turns.

3. Damage resolution

D&D uses an “attack roll + damage roll” system with multiple modifiers. Borg of Pripyat often uses a single roll that determines both outcome and damage, reducing resolution steps.

Which system to choose?

Choosing between long and fast combats depends on variables:

Choose Long Combats if:
– Your players love tactics and strategy
– You want classical progression (characters growing stronger over time)
– Your players enjoy building optimized characters
– You have enough time for 4+ hour sessions
– You want an epic/classical fantasy genre

Choose Fast Combats if:
– You prefer narrative emphasis over numerical tactics
– You want to create tension through real mortality
– You’re seeking a “film noir” or “post-apocalyptic horror” experience
– You have limited session time (2-3 hours)
– You want accessibility for new players
– You want varied encounters within a single session

Toward a spectrum

The “long vs. fast” dichotomy is actually a spectrum. Systems like Forbidden Lands and Mothership find middle ground: 30-40 minute combats that maintain tactics without sacrificing pacing.

The key is deliberate design: every choice (HP, actions per turn, rule complexity) carries consequences for duration and experience. The best game designers think carefully about this balance rather than leaving it to chance.

Borg of Pripyat and modern Borg systems represent a game design current prioritizing narrative tension and speed over quantitative tactical depth. It’s not better or worse than D&D 5E, simply a different answer to the same question: “What’s your preferred playstyle?”

Blog