I've been back and forth, up and down, around the bend (wooh!), and round the houses with the issue of initiative. But in the end, while I wish I could dream up some fancy pants awesome system, traditional initiative - at least some form of sequential resolution where who acts first gets an advantage over later players (to some degree) - just works.
There are two choices I can think of:
PC goes first, doesn't matter which, unless circumstance absolutely precludes it. If the PC succeeds, he picks who follows, if he fails the GM picks (and vice versa). Once everyone's acted the round ends and one unit of narrative time passes (if you need to measure or count down an exploding bomb or something.
Or:
GM resolves each action in any old order and effects are resolved at the end of the round. IE, if characters score damage they accumulate 'hits' of some kind and then roll them to see how that translates to actual damage at the end of the round. This means things sort of happen concurrently, as they would (once all have taken an action round ends as above), but get sorted out after.
I cannot see any way past sequential ordering. Every other idea i've found or read about seems certainly no quicker. There's no point being clever for the sake of clever.
Tick systems like exalted's battle wheel work for me. I don't like complexity or accounting, even rejecting a simple death spiral mechanic, but the tradeoff in this case is worth it. It leads to unpredictable, fluid, flexible, edge of your seat combats where any damn thing can happen.
Besides, one action per round systems don't make any sense. How often can someone punch with a knife versus swinging a two handed axe, these things don't take the same amount of time. Then mix in skill levels, so an axe master can hit three times as often as joe peasantlevy, and you've got something new.
Problem with tick systems is players never remember the cost and never remember to keep monitoring their place. This was always the case with Feng Shui and it annoys me to no end (players are the laziest fuckers on earth).
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;639879Problem with tick systems is players never remember the cost and never remember to keep monitoring their place. This was always the case with Feng Shui and it annoys me to no end (players are the laziest fuckers on earth).
Then don't be shy about introducing elements like tick wheels, initiative tracks, or action cards. Board games use them because they
work, and we shouldn't just disregard them or write them off because they were invented for a different gaming discipline than ours.
One of WFRP 3's strengths was it's presentation. Something you need to know? Bam, it's there, right in front of you. No fussing about with a rulebook or crossing things off a sheet of paper, it's on a card or track right there.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;639879Problem with tick systems is players never remember the cost and never remember to keep monitoring their place.
The battle wheel uses counters to track their place, the overhead comes with remembering action moves, but that can be greatly mitigated by writing down skill costs on the character sheet and keeping a cheat sheet of the most common actions (like movement) on the table.
As I said it's a compromise, but the best of a bad lot if you're looking for something completely different and exciting. Plus for the crafty amongst us the counters and wheel present excellent opportunities for customisation.
The central thing about initiative and action systems for me is that different actions take different lengths of time, which rules out all of the standard you go-I go methods. A system has to encompass this idea, and the battle wheel is the most optimal I've come across so far.
There must be an easier way of doing this without battle wheels or other potential distractions. I'd rather keep it all in the imagination as much as possible.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;639903There must be an easier way of doing this without battle wheels or other potential distractions.
Sadly, there mustn't. Some things just can't be simplified without cost. For me that cost is too high so I live with the overhead, as do my players. Maybe for some a straightforward one action per round mechanic would be better.
This is interesting, another topic that is right in tune with my current considerations as well:
I have designed my core rpg rules to be playable as a miniatures game too, at least in combat.
However, when i used to use them as miniatures rules, i used to use speed/initiative differently, i used to let the characters have 1 - 4 Actions depending on speed, and some things took more than one action to perform.
Right now, i wonder if i should adapt those rules for my rpg instead of use the basic Initiative + roll thing ...
I am curious about that "wheel" in Exalted that is referred to.
In his game Galactic Adventures, David Johansen had a neat trick - players could trade chance of success for quality of success, and vice versa. I used that concept in StarCluster 2E - and in all my games since - using it for inititative, chance, and quality, allowing players to freely trade from one to the other. What this does is give the players abstract tactics. They can say "I will hurry this strike and get it in quickly, even though I may have a greater chance of missing." or "I will hold back and wait longer for a better opening to do more damage." or "I will take the first chance I get to get a wounds in, even though I risk only a superficial cut."
-clash
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;639903There must be an easier way of doing this without battle wheels or other potential distractions. I'd rather keep it all in the imagination as much as possible.
If you can work out a better way, you'll affect game design for years to come, but the battle wheel does it's job well, with a minimum of fuss.
Older Shadowrun let characters take multiple actions (One for every 10 points of "initiative" they rolled), but every that was a little clunky (Doesn't solve the problem of remembering your initiative numbers), and would be better handled with a battle wheel. Feng Shui has the shot clock, which is similar to Shadowrun, but... clunkier.
Quote from: Catelf;639959I am curious about that "wheel" in Exalted that is referred to.
It's kinda like a clock, with the big hand starting at 12. Battle starts, everyone gets moved to their starting points depending on their initial initiative roll, with acting sooner being better than acting later. Then the hour hand moves on to 1, anyone in that space takes their action, and then gets moved on a number of spaces depending on how long it took. Different actions can take different amounts of time, and thus move you different amounts of spaces forward when you take them.
When everyone's done, it moves to 2. Take actions, move the wheel onwards, etc. Repeat until everyone is done fighting. New combatants can join in in the same way as originally, roll for their initial initiative and get placed that number of spaces away from "now".
Quote from: Ladybird;639967If you can work out a better way, you'll affect game design for years to come, but the battle wheel does it's job well, with a minimum of fuss.
Older Shadowrun let characters take multiple actions (One for every 10 points of "initiative" they rolled), but every that was a little clunky (Doesn't solve the problem of remembering your initiative numbers), and would be better handled with a battle wheel. Feng Shui has the shot clock, which is similar to Shadowrun, but... clunkier.
It's kinda like a clock, with the big hand starting at 12. Battle starts, everyone gets moved to their starting points depending on their initial initiative roll, with acting sooner being better than acting later. Then the hour hand moves on to 1, anyone in that space takes their action, and then gets moved on a number of spaces depending on how long it took. Different actions can take different amounts of time, and thus move you different amounts of spaces forward when you take them.
When everyone's done, it moves to 2. Take actions, move the wheel onwards, etc. Repeat until everyone is done fighting. New combatants can join in in the same way as originally, roll for their initial initiative and get placed that number of spaces away from "now".
How about Initiative tokens?
You get tokens equal to initiative, and as you perform actions, the longer time they take, the more tokens you use.
If the initiative values as a standard is between 1 - 8 or less for all characters in the game, (like storytelling system), then one may have numbered tokens, that then also represent the initiative for that action, but an action may still require more than one token to use ...
Quote from: Catelf;639981How about Initiative tokens?
You get tokens equal to initiative, and as you perform actions, the longer time they take, the more tokens you use.
If the initiative values as a standard is between 1 - 8 or less for all characters in the game, (like storytelling system), then one may have numbered tokens, that then also represent the initiative for that action, but an action may still require more than one token to use ...
I understand what you're going for with this, but it's clunkier; you're passing a lot of tokens around the table, and potentially (Depending on how quickly the ruleset plays) doing this very quickly. It's also kinda dependent on everyone being sat at a table together, to make token-passing easier.
You'd still have to process some means to replenish otherwise everything grinds to a halt.
The Battle Wheel idea is a good idea. But for me, it's an exceptionally daunting design prospect: havign to cost actions and balance is not going to be easy.
Most such systems are inside fantasy games, like Exalted, and there is, if simplistically, less complexity. If your setting includes vehicles, spaceships, heavy weapons, as well as guns and melee combat, then you have a lot of complexity.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;640038Most such systems are inside fantasy games, like Exalted, and there is, if simplistically, less complexity. If your setting includes vehicles, spaceships, heavy weapons, as well as guns and melee combat, then you have a lot of complexity.
I use it for everything from fantasy to cyberpunk to science fiction, once the central idea that different actions take different lengths of time is understood it's just a matter of assigning values to the main ones and modifying them by situation.
A small light person isn't going to be quick at swinging a six foot long two handed sword, but a towering troll will be able to flick it around like a knife - as quickly as a troll can do that, which mightn't be too quickly. Unless it was a highly skilled troll. It's great, you can make the results as finely grained as you want based on a variety of factors, each resulting in a very different combat outcome, which really gives a flair to battle. The way I have it set up, the highly skilled are the ones most to be feared, which seems fairly realistic to me.
I use a modified battle wheel with different combat rules to simulate ship to ship mapless 3D combat, but it's still the same core concept.
Can you show me this system? Is it your own idea?
I used to own Exalted, but I don't think I made it as far as the combat rules before I gave up (3e might excite me, but that's nother topic).
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;640055Can you show me this system? Is it your own idea?
I used to own Exalted, but I don't think I made it as far as the combat rules before I gave up (3e might excite me, but that's nother topic).
I posted about it a fair bit when I first joined, I can't find those posts now though as history only goes back 250 posts and the keywords are too generic. It borrows concepts from a lot of different systems and ideas, mixed in and refined with my own experience and gaming.
It's a roll high skill+stat+d10 game, using the battle wheel and rolls to hit and dodge, not damage (that is set for each weapon and modified depending how high you roll over the target). The time actions take are modified by your skill level which can have a huge effect on combat - victory can easily hinge on the difference between taking 3 ticks and taking 2 ticks to attack, it can be a real white knuckle ride even for experienced players.
I'm pretty happy with it and plan to release it one of these days, I'll send you on a copy when I get round to organising it.
Quote from: The Traveller;640056It's a roll high skill+stat+d10 game, using the battle wheel and rolls to hit and dodge, not damage (that is set for each weapon and modified depending how high you roll over the target). The time actions take are modified by your skill level which can have a huge effect on combat - victory can easily hinge on the difference between taking 3 ticks and taking 2 ticks to attack, it can be a real white knuckle ride even for experienced players.
I'm pretty happy with it and plan to release it one of these days, I'll send you on a copy when I get round to organising it.
It sounds like an elegant solution, I'd really like to see it too.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;640038The Battle Wheel idea is a good idea. But for me, it's an exceptionally daunting design prospect: havign to cost actions and balance is not going to be easy.
You may be overthinking this. Does your system include rules that could be applied to resolving actions fast-but-poor, slow-but-accurate, and average-but-average?
Well, set a baseline time cost (Say, 4 ticks), and slot everything else in around that, say, 2 - 6 ticks. Add some sort of skill-based way to go faster or slower (Like, if you succeed by x points, your next action goes 1 tick faster, or let characters punch their opposition back to later ticks. If you've played the old JRPG Grandia, you might be familiar with the concept - can't remember if FFX had it, or anything more recent than that).
Slot your kewl kombat powahz in where they'd belong in relation to regular attacks; because timing system is pretty coarse anyway, the exact details aren't insanely important, as long as it feels right.
Quote from: Ladybird;640069It sounds like an elegant solution, I'd really like to see it too.
Not a bother, one for everyone in the audience!
My discussion on Story Games threw up an interesting point regarding these systems; that they give more 'screen time' to quicker characters. Though a slower lumbering Zangief type might do more damage when he gets to hit with his big attack or heavy weapon, he gets to act much less. It's a fair point...?
How about a system that gives the player, eg, a couple of actions per turn (4k does this, two simple actions or a full action). So a quick attack can be followed by something equally quick, while a big swing from your might warhammer takes a full action. More or less the same time for the characters involved.
Yeah I was reading that thread, fairly nasty bunch over there.
Thing is though, regardless of what system you use a combat god is going to dominate combat. 'Screen time' is a proxy for 'importance' here, so you'll have a sliding scale with two ends in most situations. Unless the system specifically forbids any kind of specialisations or makes them unimportant, this is unavoidable.
Which brings us to the next point, namely if combat is such a central feature of your campaign that combat gods dominate the whole game, odds are every character is going to be so optimised, either that or you should look at emphasising other possible solutions to conflicts.
Not to be a broken record but in my system it is possible to be that guy who can kill four men before anyone else has a chance to pull a sword, an Olympic gold medallist swordsman with ten years battle experience, and you can be that right out the starting gate, from chargen.
Even at that level of competence however combat is still a risky proposition. Multiple simultaneous attacks on you apply a severe cumulative defence penalty; four guys down and the remaining eight dogpile the combat god, chances are someone's going to do some damage. Worse if they have longarms and worse yet if they have bows. Guns, forget about it, it ends up looking like (and more importantly feeling like) that shootout scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxO7xoexI_4) from Enemy of the State, 7:30 to 7:50. Shit gets wild when violence erupts.
And that's just the human enemies, what about a frost giant? Dude is taller than an average suburban home and stocky with it, hardened steel shatters on their icy hides, he's effectively swinging an i-beam at your torso, with a bad attitude to boot - were there ever warriors that could go one on one with things like that? It is doable of course, wouldn't be much of an adventure otherwise, but combat is much more dangerous without it being a group effort.
And of course then we have non combat situations, which should normally outnumber the combat situations by a large factor. If you've optimised to that extent for combat, you haven't optimised for anything else.
The point I guess is that the value of 'screen time' given to each character by tick systems varies wildly depending on the backing system and campaign you're running, but even then is not a factor unique to tick systems.
The idea is appealing.
I could call it the Combat Oracle and design it to look like a Pakua compass with 8 spaces. I'm not sure how many spaces you would need to make it work.
I'd say eight is fine. I use ten because the main dice in the game is a d10 so it works in that way. If you need more you could always put in an outside track or maybe some kind of yin-yang spiral design, there's no rule to say it has to be a circle.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;640283My discussion on Story Games threw up an interesting point regarding these systems; that they give more 'screen time' to quicker characters. Though a slower lumbering Zangief type might do more damage when he gets to hit with his big attack or heavy weapon, he gets to act much less. It's a fair point...?
Not really, it's artificial and gamey.
Sure, it works in a tournament fighter, but there everything about your character is bundled together, because everyone is a pregen and there are so few other factors to balance with. There's no twiddling with their stats, you just have to learn the character as-is, and the speed difference between a fast and slow character is nowhere near that of, say, an RPG where Ryu is acting 1.5 times as often as Zangief.
In an RPG, though, Zangief's player has already made tradeoffs for his huge strength (And, in RPG terms, both Ryu and Zangief would come under "combat gods"). We don't need to penalise him again every combat round for that choice; it's probably best to make that a choice for Zangief's player, which means making it a standard part of the combat system... essentially, as we have discussed, implementing these tradeoffs on a per-attack basis. So if Zangief wants to keep heavy-hitting, sure, but that's an option, not the sole possibility for him.
Steal from BRP?
So actions are performed in DEX order counting down. That's for PCs and GM characters.
BUT BEFORE then, intentions are stated in INT order, counting UP.
So the dumb ones state their intentions first, the smartest ones last.
Then the fastest do them first and the slowest last.
There has to be a penalty for changing your action, or simply refuse it.
Of course if you don't like fixed initiative then roll 1d20 plus DEX modifer for the DEX element.
Believe you me, it makes life so much easier but adds a nice tactical twist.
At the risk of being awkward, I don't like the idea of using a single specific stat for Initiative. I'm dealing with very competent characters who are able to react with all manner of skill: a kung fu chef is jsut as quick as the Chief Strategist of the Battle of Red Cliff, who isn't per se a swordsman. Of course if you allow the PC's to pick any of their stats/skills to use as Initiative they will end up with the same initiative which is rather self defeating.
Quote from: Ladybird;640574In an RPG, though, Zangief's player has already made tradeoffs for his huge strength (And, in RPG terms, both Ryu and Zangief would come under "combat gods"). We don't need to penalise him again every combat round for that choice;
Do i have to point out that one of those tradeoffs is that he is Slower than, for instance, Ryu?
And that it do mean that he is slower Each Combat Round?
It isn't "penalizing again", it is bringing the rules to bear ....
He is still at least as fast as a regular human, just that Ruy is even faster.
Ok, what is the best way to resolve the initial placement on the 'combat oracle' (i love that phrase even if noone else will). There seem two ways:
1) everyone produces an initiative value (which will be 1-8) and that is their starting step.
2) everyone prodcues a value and the highest starts at the first step in order with everyone deriving their starting step by subtracting their value from the highest and placing a number of steps from the first equal to that difference.
If you want a system where a warrior can kill four guys before anyone else can finish drawing their swords, 2) is best for you. Keep in mind though that if there are big enough differences between the highest possible score and the lowest possible score it can end up overrunning (as in say someone has 9 less than the highest and so moves into tick 1 rather than being on tick 8) and you'll have to remember which ones overran.
One way round this is to just stack overunning counters at tick 8, with the quickest on the bottom and slowest on the top, then play them from the bottom. I do that anyway when there is more than one counter on a tick. It's like a three dimensional battle wheel. Or, have more tick spaces.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;640598At the risk of being awkward, I don't like the idea of using a single specific stat for Initiative. I'm dealing with very competent characters who are able to react with all manner of skill: a kung fu chef is jsut as quick as the Chief Strategist of the Battle of Red Cliff, who isn't per se a swordsman. Of course if you allow the PC's to pick any of their stats/skills to use as Initiative they will end up with the same initiative which is rather self defeating.
Let them use whatever skill, for initiative purposes, they want to use for action purposes. If they're multiple-actioning, use the worst skill they're using.
Or give them some kind of join-battle skill, for initial initiative, and add a system for spectacular successes knocking a tick or so off your action's cost.
There's a cowboy rpg called Aces & Eights that has a similar but perhaps easier to manage system where you just accumulate a total, rather than go around a wheel. Maybe this would be better?
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.
Quote from: TristramEvans;643638I'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.
In fact, the entire hobby is based on rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice, as one set of actions leads to another set of actions. It's the stupidest quote I've ever heard, and that believe me takes some doing.
Whatever about not liking random initiative which could arguably be a matter of taste rather than objective badness, not liking rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice in this business is the hallmark of a moron, obviously diceless randomisers excluded.
I therefore assume you were being more than a little tongue in cheek when you said it.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;639844I cannot see any way past sequential ordering. Every other idea i've found or read about seems certainly no quicker. There's no point being clever for the sake of clever.
"Simultaneous moves" is in my experience quicker.
Why? Because there's no issue of dawdling for several minutes, watching what else is happening, before even starting to make a decision (then spending another fraction of a minute pondering it).
There's little issue of not being able to do mechanical labor for resolving this or that yet because a dozen or twenty other things must be done first; things can be worked out at the same time!
What I saw in 4E D&D games -- which supposedly simulate a mere 6 seconds per turn, IIRC! -- took "initiative order" slowdown to a ludicrous extreme.
Simove is quick: GM decides NPC actions, then goes around the table in any order to get PC actions. Dawdling can mean your
character is waffling about, or you might get a second chance after the others have spoken.
Then everything gets worked out in whatever order is convenient. Sometimes in the course of that, one event clearly must precede another. In other cases, there's an important question who will be quicker; a toss of the dice can settle that easily.
Quote from: The Traveller;643641In fact, the entire hobby is based on rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice, as one set of actions leads to another set of actions. It's the stupidest quote I've ever heard, and that believe me takes some doing.
Whatever about not liking random initiative which could arguably be a matter of taste rather than objective badness, not liking rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice in this business is the hallmark of a moron, obviously diceless randomisers excluded.
I therefore assume you were being more than a little tongue in cheek when you said it.
Glib, though not tongue in cheek.
I'm rather amused that you misused the word "hallmark" in the course of your pedanticism.
Personally I'd say the "the hobby is based on rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice" is a much stupider comment.
Quote from: TristramEvans;643649Personally I'd say the "the hobby is based on rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice" is a much stupider comment.
Suit yourself. Might want to consult a dictionary too, just a word in your ear.
Quote from: The Traveller;643652Suit yourself. Might want to consult a dictionary too, just a word in your ear.
I did, which is how I noticed that you misused that word.
Quote from: TristramEvans;643654I did, which is how I noticed that you misused that word.
Oh okay hallmark (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hallmark): "a distinguishing characteristic, trait, or feature", or to put it in the context of my sentence, "not liking rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice in this business is the distinguishing characteristic, trait, or feature of a moron".
And this is why I always regret taking people off ignore. I should really learn to trust my own judgement.
Buh bye now.
Quote from: The Traveller;643658Oh okay hallmark (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hallmark): "a distinguishing characteristic, trait, or feature", or to put it in the context of my sentence, "not liking rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice in this business is the distinguishing characteristic, trait, or feature of a moron".
So this thing you've, according to just a few posts ago,
never heard of (people not liking to roll for initiative) , except for apparently some random woman on rpgnet, is a "characteristic feature" of something? Yeah, you can ignore me in the same way you ignore
syntax.
I think the combination of being hyper-pedantic about my post while engaging in grosse hyperbole at the same time really isn't working for you.
Quote from: Phillip;643646"Simultaneous moves" is in my experience quicker.
except we can't resolve things simultaneously. Even if they happen that way on the game board, the GM still has to go through each action one at a time. So in that sense, having actions actually happen sequentially, in some order of quickness or alertness, is just refining that process - and rewarding the characters that are naturally sharper.
Yes, we can resolve things simultaneously; been doing it for decades.
Quote from: Phillip;643762Yes, we can resolve things simultaneously; been doing it for decades.
Perhaps you could elaborate on your preferred method of dealing with intiative, I mean are you talking about heavily abstracted systems or what?
Just bog standard simultaneous moves, except there's usually no need for players to write their moves since there's usually no reason to conceal them from each other (and obviously no concealment from the GM).
Quote from: Phillip;643771Just bog standard simultaneous moves, except there's usually no need for players to write their moves since there's usually no reason to conceal them from each other (and obviously no concealment from the GM).
Not to belabour the question, but you said ""Simultaneous moves" is in my experience quicker.
Why? Because there's no issue of dawdling for several minutes, watching what else is happening, before even starting to make a decision (then spending another fraction of a minute pondering it)."
Surely that's a factor of the combat system you're using rather than of simultaneous moves? As GW pointed out everyone has to have their go anyway, so if the underlying system is quicker it shouldn't matter what method you use as far as that goes.
No, doing 10 1-minute tasks sequentially takes 10 minutes; doing 5 in parallel takes only 2 minutes.
I alluded to this:
QuoteThere's little issue of not being able to do mechanical labor for resolving this or that yet because a dozen or twenty other things must be done first; things can be worked out at the same time!
Quote from: Phillip;643775No, doing 10 1-minute tasks sequentially takes 10 minutes; doing 5 in parallel takes only 2 minutes.
Do the players have access to all the stats of the monsters and work out the results of their actions by themselves, presenting them to the GM after 2 minutes? Also, do the monsters always respond passively, or do the players GM how the monsters choose to defend themselves? What about dogpiling and combined attacks? I'm genuinely not sure what you're describing here.
Traveller, I most often run old D&D these days because it's the crowd pleaser in my current circle. Otherwise, I tend to other old things such as RuneQuest (which I note has "strike ranks") and Traveller. Even more complex old games such as Chivalry & Sorcery work fine.
Among things published in recent years, I especially like Paul Elliott's Zenobia.
So, if you insist on using elaborations that require Igo-Hugo, or any other thing, naturally you take whatever bad may intrinsically go along with the good.
Quote from: Phillip;643779Traveller, I most often run old D&D these days because it's the crowd pleaser in my current circle. Otherwise, I tend to other old things such as RuneQuest (which I note has "strike ranks") and Traveller. Even more complex old games such as Chivalry & Sorcery work fine.
This isn't answering the question in any way. What actions can be done in parallel, can you give an example. Do you go through the players one by one and get their actions, as GM?
I already explained it in about as much detail as you might get in a rulebook short of a sequence of "phases" (already a step toward rigidifying abstraction, but an often handy one).
There's so much about so much on the Web, I'll bet you could catch up on basic hobby game practices that have been around since the 19th century.
This:
Quote from: Phillip;643646GM decides NPC actions, then goes around the table in any order to get PC actions. Dawdling can mean your character is waffling about, or you might get a second chance after the others have spoken.
Then everything gets worked out in whatever order is convenient. Sometimes in the course of that, one event clearly must precede another. In other cases, there's an important question who will be quicker; a toss of the dice can settle that easily.
is the exact same as running a normal initiative system on a timed basis, take too long to make your move and you lose out. It offers no intrinsic advantages beyond that. The battle wheel is better if you want a more believable game since it models the time it takes to do things rather than just giving one segment to each player and NPC, leading to both a more structured (in that you aren't flipping coins) and a more sophisticated (as opposed to complicated) experience.
The rest as I said is about the underlying system, if it's a slow clunky system neither the battle wheel nor simultaneous moves (and they really aren't) will speed things up.
Quote from: Phillip;643781I'll bet you could catch up on basic hobby game practices that have been around since the 19th century.
Oh internet sarcasm, that's me crushed. If only you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't need to use it.
Okay, here's my attempt to explain simultaneous moves to the non-grognard.
That entities are moving at the same time does not imply that they are moving at the same speed. We can explore this to whatever level of detail we wish (grade-school maths coming in handy). An approach that makes for a slow-paced game appears for instance in D&D Supplement III, Star Fleet Battles and Champions: divide the turn into a large number of segments and plot each piece's movement one of those small increments at a time.
For an example of a much more simplistic approach, consider the original D&D turn sequence. The D&D set itself presented no turn sequence at all, that being one of many matters for which the reader was expected to refer to the Chainmail booklet.
Note that this formalism was conceived for battle scale (1:10 figure:man) depiction.
The Simultaneous Moves System:
1. Both sides write orders for each of their units (groups of figures of like type), including direction of movement and facing.
2. Both sides move their units according to their written orders, making one-half of the move, checking for unordered melee contact due to opponent movement, and conducting split-moves and missile fire, and taking any pass-through fire; then the balance of movement is completed as ordered.
3. Artillery fire is taken.
4. Missile fire is taken.
5. Melees are resolved.
(There is a rule for "charge if charged" cavalry orders. Also, morale checks can occur during the fire and/or melee portions, depending on circumstances.)
This differs from the Move/Counter Move System only in movement per se being simultaneous. Shooting and melees are resolved simultaneously in both systems.
Now, in the typical conditions of a D&D adventure, I would have all missiles strike before completion of movement (as an arrow's flight is swifter than the charge of man or horse). In the dungeons, quarters are sometimes so close that only already prepared shots can reasonably be loosed.
One thing to note here is that we are not restricted to always following a program by rote!
A commonplace example is the commonsense switch from (say) a second-by-second reckoning during a detailed combat simulation to (say) an hourly, daily or even weekly one when attention turns to an extended journey.
Likewise, we can adjust our treatment of a fight to reflect whatever happen to be matters of significance on that occasion, without needing robotically to apply the same procedures when they do not reflect our interest.
Is it of real interest whether Event A occurs prior to Event B? How much interest? Depending on our answers in the particular case, what is warranted may range from no consideration at all, to a fair bit of careful accounting for factors.
Quote from: Phillip;643862The Simultaneous Moves System:
1. Both sides write orders for each of their units (groups of figures of like type), including direction of movement and facing.
2. Both sides move their units according to their written orders, making one-half of the move, checking for unordered melee contact due to opponent movement, and conducting split-moves and missile fire, and taking any pass-through fire; then the balance of movement is completed as ordered.
3. Artillery fire is taken.
4. Missile fire is taken.
5. Melees are resolved.
(There is a rule for "charge if charged" cavalry orders. Also, morale checks can occur during the fire and/or melee portions, depending on circumstances.)
This differs from the Move/Counter Move System only in movement per se being simultaneous. Shooting and melees are resolved simultaneously in both systems.
Now, in the typical conditions of a D&D adventure, I would have all missiles strike before completion of movement (as an arrow's flight is swifter than the charge of man or horse). In the dungeons, quarters are sometimes so close that only already prepared shots can reasonably be loosed.
Okay, thanks, that's a bit clearer. To briefly describe the battle wheel system in contrast:
1. Decide who goes first by whatever means you like, higher reflexes, sitting closer to the GM, quickdraw skills, drawing of straws, whatever.
2. Actions like melee, movement, missile fire all take place whenever anyone wants to take them. If shooting a bow takes 4 'actions', their counter advances by 4 around the wheel. They can take actions next when the 'clock hand' moves to their spot.
3. Two or more counters on the same place on the wheel are played from the bottom first, in other words whoever got there first.
That's it, that's the whole structure. No rounds, turns, segments, missile fire first or whatever.
It leads to good old fashioned chaos, a big mashup of melee, movement, missile fire and more with the right system behind it (not Exalted), anything can happen at any time. I'm fairly sure that's as quick as simultaneous initiative, although clearly it's different in many ways. My experience of it has been quite exhiliarating so far.