I found, the one time I used it, that tracking things on an actual wheel proved messy and more hassel than its worth.

I think a compromise on the concept, action costs, would work a bit better, treating the wheel as a more linear concept and making it easier to track in your head.

Really its the same basic rule presented a bit differently. The idea is the same, to get rid of discrete rounds.

Of course, in Exalted's case there was the whole oddball concept of 'joining battle' that just jarred badly, this idea that you could be standing there, weapon out as just a spectator until you specifically 'joined' the battle was just... odd. Sure, I think I know what they meant by it, but it turns out deciding to actually fight someone was slower than stabbing them with a knife. Sounds like a good jailhouse stabbing, until you realize that at some point the stabber ALSO spent five ticks (or whatever) deciding to fight you by spending the three ticks (or whatever) it took him to actually stab you and then it just starts to break down into ad hoc justifications.


For some reason this made me think of the original Deadlands (not the new one), which presumed multiple actions in a round, but the speed of them was determined by drawing cards (that is, you drew cards based on your number of actions, and acted in card order for each action... as I recall. Its been a good decade since I used it. Still have it. Should pull it out for a quick game.)
Obviously not as fluid, and does nothing to cover relative speed of various actions.

A more traditional take that attempted to cover the speed of acting was the old Phoenix Command, with its two second rounds with a total of 8 quarter second phases. You could act in X number of phases determined by your character's ability, and each action took a set number of phases to execute.

Of course... resolving even a single gunshot was a nightmare, which is odd given how lethal the system was. What is it with lethal game systems trying to add complexity by making you look up just how dead you are on a table?

Quote from: Spike;642648Of course, in Exalted's case there was the whole oddball concept of 'joining battle' that just jarred badly, this idea that you could be standing there, weapon out as just a spectator until you specifically 'joined' the battle was just... odd. Sure, I think I know what they meant by it, but it turns out deciding to actually fight someone was slower than stabbing them with a knife. Sounds like a good jailhouse stabbing, until you realize that at some point the stabber ALSO spent five ticks (or whatever) deciding to fight you by spending the three ticks (or whatever) it took him to actually stab you and then it just starts to break down into ad hoc justifications.

Yeah, that was a bit incomprehensible alright. In my system you are in the fight whenever a character becomes aware of your existence. If there's a sniper on the roof, he's part of the combat as soon as someone spots a glint of sunlight on his scope. Maybe nobody can hit him and he can fire whenever, but he's tracked on the wheel.

Quote from: Spike;642648I found, the one time I used it, that tracking things on an actual wheel proved messy and more hassel than its worth.

I think a compromise on the concept, action costs, would work a bit better, treating the wheel as a more linear concept and making it easier to track in your head.

Really its the same basic rule presented a bit differently. The idea is the same, to get rid of discrete rounds.

How would it get rid of rounds?

The same way the wheel does?

I thought that was obvious: Since you are simply tracking ticks of action there is no need to 'refresh' the rounds and put everyone back at 0.

If Joe is attacking with a knife his next action is in two ticks (say), while Frank, his opponent, is using a massive hammer, so his next attack is always seven ticks away.  If Johnny jumps in to grab Frank for Joe to stab, he'll be moving for the next 8 ticks, then spend three ticks trying for the tackle, and if Frank sees him coming he can chose to swing his hammer at Johnny when he gets there instead of using his action to keep out of Joe's reach...


Where do I ask for them to stop and roll initiative? Why would I? Doesn't matter if you're tracking it with tokens on a wheel or linearly in your head, its all 'one fight, one round'.

It sounds fun, outside the bookkeeping, but then there will have to be tight power design of tick rate added to the already complicated design of other powers.

Basically, to simplify (what I think is the tick idea) it runs very much like Final Fantasy Tactics:

Imagine you have a bucket that fills at 100.

Each ability has a tick rate. For example, Sword Slash has 25, Dagger Throw has 50, and Supernova Spell of Ultimate Doom! has 1.

Each player goes around and fills his "bucket" with tick rate until reaching 100 to get a turn.

In two rounds across the table Dagger Throw fills and goes off, Sword Slash is at 50, and Supernova is at 2.

Two more table rounds go. Dagger Throw and Sword Slash go off simultaneously (but resolved in table round order). Spernova is now at 4.

Odd numbers not cleanly divisible into 100 have spill over into their next turn bucket. So Quarterstaff Whack 40 would take 3 table rounds to fill and go off, and start its next bucket with 20 in the bucket. That means next Quarterstaff Whack will only take 2 table rounds to fill and go off.

Spike will correct me if he's thinking of another form of tick rates.

Just remove the bucket or the need to fill it, at least in the simplest incarnation of what I (we?) are talking about.

So when you've got your 25 ticks you blast a dude with your spell of doom. You want to do something that takes 40 ticks? You have to take 40 ticks, that's it.

But 'waiting for them to accumulate' is somewhat backwards thinking.  Its better I feel, and simpler, to state 'I'm gonna blast that sucker with my spell of doom!' and the GM nods wisely and says "you gonna be spending the next 25 ticks chanting and waving you hands, foo!  Better hope your buds keep the knife weilding stab monkey off you while you do!"

This then allows for things like interruptions, both deliberate (stab monkey in my face! Oh noes! I stop casting and dodge!!!!) and oppositional (Stab monkey stabbed me! Oh Noes, I failed my concentration check!!!).

So instead of filling up, you count down, gotcha.

The design challenge is how to add later iterative attacks.

One way still retains rounds, and then ticks just become another form of initiative.

Dagger tick 5 of three attacks, Sword tick 10 of two attacks and Ultima tick 40 of one attack.

Dagger goes off first at 5, then dagger & sword simultaneous at 10, again last dagger at 15, next last sword at 20, and finally ultima spell at 40. No extra attacks are squeezed into 21-39 before 40 triggers.

The other allows contiguous stacking, which will get ugly fast as soon as things get into odd sequencing.

In this example a dagger can fit 8 attacks, and the sword 4, before ultima spell goes off. However once speed rates like 7 or 14 come into existence, bookkeeping becomes a pain.

Maybe it might be better to describe the system without ticks so:

If Hrundigir the Thewsome wants to swing his sword, he adds 3 points to his actions. He is now at 3. Everyone else is at -3, since they subtract whatever action just happened from their actions.

Gadagrist the Green Theurgist wants to blast Hrundgir with 'Vapourise Bravado' and make him flee, this takes 4 actions. He casts, now he is at +1 (-3+4), Hrundgir is at -1 (+3-4) and everyone else is at -7 (-3-4).

Characters then take actions based on who has the lowest action score.

Two problems with this approach, accounting of course and the difficulty of deciding who goes first when two characters have the same action score. One way or another it's going to come down to initiative rolls or arbitrary nonsense like whoever is sitting closest to the GM.

What I like about the wheel is that you can just stack counters in order of who gets there first, so tied scores are automatically sorted for you, something not heavily focused on in game theory but a significant bonus I feel.

If you and your group are more comfortable adding and subtracting numbers constantly, the accounting approach works acceptably. If not, pushing counters around the wheel is very simple.

Quote from: Spike;643340The same way the wheel does?

I thought that was obvious: Since you are simply tracking ticks of action there is no need to 'refresh' the rounds and put everyone back at 0.

If Joe is attacking with a knife his next action is in two ticks (say), while Frank, his opponent, is using a massive hammer, so his next attack is always seven ticks away.  If Johnny jumps in to grab Frank for Joe to stab, he'll be moving for the next 8 ticks, then spend three ticks trying for the tackle, and if Frank sees him coming he can chose to swing his hammer at Johnny when he gets there instead of using his action to keep out of Joe's reach...


Where do I ask for them to stop and roll initiative? Why would I? Doesn't matter if you're tracking it with tokens on a wheel or linearly in your head, its all 'one fight, one round'.

So that's the same as the aces and eights system i mentioned above.

Quote from: The Traveller;643573Maybe it might be better to describe the system without ticks so:

If Hrundigir the Thewsome wants to swing his sword, he adds 3 points to his actions. He is now at 3. Everyone else is at -3, since they subtract whatever action just happened from their actions.

Gadagrist the Green Theurgist wants to blast Hrundgir with 'Vapourise Bravado' and make him flee, this takes 4 actions. He casts, now he is at +1 (-3+4), Hrundgir is at -1 (+3-4) and everyone else is at -7 (-3-4).

Characters then take actions based on who has the lowest action score.

Two problems with this approach, accounting of course and the difficulty of deciding who goes first when two characters have the same action score. One way or another it's going to come down to initiative rolls or arbitrary nonsense like whoever is sitting closest to the GM.

What I like about the wheel is that you can just stack counters in order of who gets there first, so tied scores are automatically sorted for you, something not heavily focused on in game theory but a significant bonus I feel.

If you and your group are more comfortable adding and subtracting numbers constantly, the accounting approach works acceptably. If not, pushing counters around the wheel is very simple.

You still have to decide the order of initial actions.

Screw initiative. Its a melee. everyone acts simultaneously. You can cut the head off of a guy at the same time he spears your stomach.


Rolling dice to see who rolls dice first? Madness.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;643619You still have to decide the order of initial actions.

Yup, that can be whatever method you prefer. Someone has to go first, shootouts at high noon would be rather pointless otherwise wouldn't they?

Quote from: TristramEvans;643622Rolling dice to see who rolls dice first? Madness.

Sounds like pat rpgnet fuckery to me old son. We roll dice to work out damage after rolling to hit in some games but you don't see me complaining about it.

Quote from: The Traveller;643633Sounds like pat rpgnet fuckery to me old son. We roll dice to work out damage after rolling to hit in some games but you don't see me complaining about it.

I dont do random roll damage either. Too whiffy.

Quote from: TristramEvans;643634I dont do random roll damage either. Too whiffy.

Me neither but having a problem with rolling dice to roll dice is having a problem with random encounter tables among other things. The only person besides yourself I've noticed saying this is that halfwit over on rpgnet whatever her name is.

Quote from: The Traveller;643636Me neither but having a problem with rolling dice to roll dice is having a problem with random encounter tables among other things. The only person besides yourself I've noticed saying this is that halfwit over on rpgnet whatever her name is.

I've known lots and lots of people who dont like the "rolling for Initiative" style of initiative, but no idea who you're referencing on rpgnet.