What do you all feel is the best way to handle combat in PbP games?

With past games I've ran, I would more or less describe the action that was taking place building up to the conflict, have my players role initiative, have them post what they wanted to do (not necessarily in order of initiative), and then I'd resolve their actions in order of their initiative rolls. I usually use a battle map that I would update whenever I was resolving everyone's actions.

Do you guys do something like this or something else entirely? Are there any strategies that you feel have helped contribute to keeping things moving during combat situation? Are there any snags that you've experienced that you've found are best avoided altogether?

I'm just looking for some advice within that realm. I'm considering starting a game and I have some misgivings about this particular area. I haven't personally lost very many games to long drawn out combat scene, but it seems like combat has often put a good deal of strain on games I was a playing in.
This message was last edited by the user at 04:27, Sun 25 Jan 2015.

I recommend keeping things organized.   Let everyone have "a turn" with an idea of what each can do in the limited time they have each turn.
A good understanding of everyone's capabilities and power limits is always good, too, to better plan out the possible outcomes of any battle.

What you've done in the past seems about ideal.  The main thing is to keep things flexible and to keep them moving.  Make sure players know exactly how you'll be running things so they know when/when not to post, if there's a time limit on how long they have to post (a day or two tends to work for most) for each round/turn and the consequences of they miss that deadline.

Anything you can do to condense any back and forth required between you and the player will also help.  This may mean you making a lot of dice rolls in behalf of players, or having them roll multiple things at once so actions can be resolved no matter whether they succeed or fail.

If possible try to include "fog of war". This is easily achieved using private lines. This should add some level of confusion to any battle and spice things up a bit.

In terms of mechanics, turn-based is best and easily achieved using most rule systems. If using Freeform then simply allow each player a reasonable action per turn, moderating as needed. You might also want to set a timescale for responses so slow players don't hold up the game for everyone, with you as GM NPCing slow players if needed.

I've spent a long time looking for the perfect combat rules - and I'm still looking. Having said that, I think I have something pretty close now.

The main problem with combat in PbP is, as you say, the time each turn takes. What you need to do is reduce the number of dice rolls to a minimum.

For example, I don't bother with Initiative rolls - they'll probably add several days to your combat round... Often, the order of initiative is obvious from the scene - one PC is closer to a target than another, is more dextrous than another, etc. If you leave damage until everyone has had a turn, it doesn't make much difference anyhow.

I found that D&D, Gurps, and all the old tabletop rules are fun around a table, but are an absolute chore in PbP. I found I had to either houserule them beyond recognition, or find something else altogether. You cannot sensibly take a rule set designed for one medium and use it in another, slavishly play it 'as written', and expect it to work.

You need a rule set that avoids 'a roll for everything'. The rules must be simple and easy to administer, otherwise players and GM alike get lost in the complexity. It's easy to administer a five-roll-per-PC turn if you're sitting around a table looking at the dice and the rolls are made in five seconds, but if you have 8 players and 40 rolls spread over the best part of a week, there's no way you're going to remember who rolled what, and you'll be constantly scrolling up and down to re-read the posts.

Ideally, you want a rule set that uses one, or at most two rolls per turn, so you only have to wait for everyone to roll once, or perhaps twice, to resolve the combat. Even the most mechanistic players can get bored with a combat that stretches over several weeks, and if you have 'storytellers' in your game they're likely to walk after (or during) the first clash.

A battle map that is updated every turn can be useful if a combat scene is complex, but OTOH if a combat is complex, it's likely to be lengthy...
Better, perhaps, to have a simple area map and use your GM omnipotence to ensure that the combat isn't too complex to begin with - less work for you and less waiting for the players.

If you have large numbers of foes (orcs, mooks, or whatever), dictate that they act together en masse and their numbers are reflected in increased 'effective skill'. The amount of damage you do translates to the number of them you kill. That way, you don't have large numbers of rolls, or fights spread all over the map. If you only have two combatants, or two groups of combatants, you probably don't need to know where they are - they're just 'together'.

PbP is a simple medium. You need simple rules to use it. If you want blow by blow detail, you need to use a different medium - get a group of mates around your kitchen table or use a real-time VTT link. Anyone who expects PbP to feel like a FtF session is going to be disappointed. PbP is much better suited to rules-lite or outright storytelling, rather than in-depth combat resolution.

In PbP your golden rule is K.I.S.S.

IMHO, of course. :)

Above all, Kagekiri, I recommend that you don't wait too long for a player to post a combat turn, while everyone else gets tired of waiting. Once combat starts it's 24-hour turnaround or I sock puppet you.

Otherwise, I'm with icosa on this, which is why I like running Savage Worlds and, even better, Call of Cthulhu. It definitely helps to abstract all the fiddly bits like facing and range and such with the GM making those judgements.

Of course, the fiddly bits are exactly what players of some systems, such as D&D and D20, come to the table for. I understand that and it's why I don't play or GM such systems.

I have everyone make secret rolls and post their turns actions in a PM within the thread, I also have them roll initiative every round.  I put a clock on the turnaround time, say 24 hrs, then, once I have everyone's actions (or time has lapsed), I resolve everything in initiative order and splice all of their descriptive text (with minor necessary alterations) into a single summary post which reads as nearly simultaneous action.  Rinse, repeat.

In this way I get through a round every 24 hours (or less), using Rule 0 liberally to make sure that everyone is having fun with it.  It shifts the focus much more into RP instead of changing over into battle tactics mode, and the fog of war effect plays nicely, I think.  It isn't perfect, and there are some hiccups, but it keeps the game moving and the interest high.

I started this method because I saw too many games I started playing in die in the first rounds of combat while waiting our turns for initiative.  Rounds can take a week or more with that method, with single combats stretching over a month or more.

I do pretty much as Kagekiri does. I'll have the characters post their actions, then run through the initiative until the first PC's second action. If a PC's stated action is no longer valid, I'll substitute it with the most obvious or advantageous and act for them. Unless they act late (i.e. last) in the order and have multiple valid options. In that case, I allow that PC to restate last turn's action in addition to the next turn's action. Some of my players anticipate certain scenarios and offer a primary and secondary option. "I'll stab the orc, unless it runs away or Kris kills it, in which case I'll pull Pat out of the pit." For large battles, I'll group the monsters in the same initiative to keep things simpler.