So, inspired by Clash, here is my take on init for Zombipocalypse. Opinions? Clash, what did I do wrong?

Thanks,
Bill

QuoteInitiative
Initiative is the means the group has of determining who goes first. Everyone starts at 0 initiative. They may spend time getting a bonus to their skill checks or they may rush themselves and take a minus to go first. Highest initiative goes first followed in order by slower initiative. For instance, a 1 initiative goes before a 0.

Example: Dirk Lance rushes to fire on the vine before it can strike the little girl Rosy Blatzowitz. He takes a -1 to his Ranged Combat skill taking it from a total of 10 to 9.  This has his actions going on an init of 1. He rolls 3d6 and gets a total dice roll of 14 plus his skill of 9 for a total of 23.

Alternatively, a character could wait and build up a bonus by dropping theire initiative.

Example: Dirk waits, adding 4 to his Ranged Combat skill in order to be sure he will not miss. His skill would go from a total of 10 to 14.

A character may not add or subtract more than 5 in one round. If the opportunity (determined by the GM) is present for an action to span multiple rounds they may add an additional 1 per round after the first one. Total bonuses or penalties cannot exceed 18 in either direction.

Quote from: HinterWelt;271058So, inspired by Clash, here is my take on init for Zombipocalypse. Opinions? Clash, what did I do wrong?

Thanks,
Bill

Nothing wrong. I like it. I do have a suggestion, though. I would switch init order so that lowest goes first, so that the init matches the penalty or bonus - rush a shot to -2, you get a penalty of -2. Hang back to 4 and get a +4. Just makes it simpler.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;271072Nothing wrong. I like it. I do have a suggestion, though. I would switch init order so that lowest goes first, so that the init matches the penalty or bonus - rush a shot to -2, you get a penalty of -2. Hang back to 4 and get a +4. Just makes it simpler.

-clash

Sounds good. So, do you think there should be any other component? My concerns are that init becomes a bit predictable. Also, should I be concerned about people spending to one up the next guy? So, Bobby says I spend 1 to go first. Jenny says Nahuh, I spend 2. Bobby says No way, slut, I spend 3! They pull out knives and go at each other and I get blamed for making an init system that is inherently violent....or, should I just go with a) a secret bid, b) a stat base c) a random base (roll d6) d) none of the above.

Thanks,
Bill

I like the bidding aspect. Seems to me essentially them aiming at the quick draw. Who flinches first as the second hand reaches the top of the clock and they can both draw...

Quote from: HinterWelt;271096Sounds good. So, do you think there should be any other component? My concerns are that init becomes a bit predictable. Also, should I be concerned about people spending to one up the next guy? So, Bobby says I spend 1 to go first. Jenny says Nahuh, I spend 2. Bobby says No way, slut, I spend 3! They pull out knives and go at each other and I get blamed for making an init system that is inherently violent....or, should I just go with a) a secret bid, b) a stat base c) a random base (roll d6) d) none of the above.

Thanks,
Bill

I went through this when I first began developing alternate task resolution sub-systems for StarCluster games. My players prefer a random base, so that's what they got, but I have no real preferences. Here's how I see each option:

a) Secret Bid

Plusses: Secret bid is interesting mechanically, and players have a lot of choices.
Minuses: It slows down the game considerably, and you need another mechanism for NPCs.

b) Random Base

Plusses: Traditional and comfortable, as well as unpredictable. Usable by PCs and NPCs.
Minuses: Sometimes it makes no sense at all.

c) Stat Base

Plusses: Tied to the character, good variation. Usable by PCs and NPCs.
Minuses: Predictable.

d) Common Base (what you have now - i.e. base zero.)

Plusses: Intitiative is the modifier.
Minuses: Predictable. Need other mechanism for NPCs.

You could also lay these choices out for the group and allow them to choose.

-clash

Quote from: Silverlion;271139I like the bidding aspect. Seems to me essentially them aiming at the quick draw. Who flinches first as the second hand reaches the top of the clock and they can both draw...

Thanks, it really is all Clash though. I always liked this about his games so I thought I should shamelessly stea...ah, borrow it.

Quote from: flyingmice;271143I went through this when I first began developing alternate task resolution sub-systems for StarCluster games. My players prefer a random base, so that's what they got, but I have no real preferences. Here's how I see each option:

a) Secret Bid

Plusses: Secret bid is interesting mechanically, and players have a lot of choices.
Minuses: It slows down the game considerably, and you need another mechanism for NPCs.

b) Random Base

Plusses: Traditional and comfortable, as well as unpredictable. Usable by PCs and NPCs.
Minuses: Sometimes it makes no sense at all.

c) Stat Base

Plusses: Tied to the character, good variation. Usable by PCs and NPCs.
Minuses: Predictable.

d) Common Base (what you have now - i.e. base zero.)

Plusses: Intitiative is the modifier.
Minuses: Predictable. Need other mechanism for NPCs.

You could also lay these choices out for the group and allow them to choose.

-clash

I might offer it as optional but just my design preference here, I think folks generally like direction. They want a default. I think I will just go with the common base as the default. Since everything in this game is d6 based, it should be easy for folks to jump to the random base.

Another question, what do you think of the extended actions rule? The thing where they can build up pluses over multiple rounds. I worry that may not really be a good idea as it could be used for some sort of crafting of uber weapons or other skills that normally take a long time to do. So, you have a weapon forging skill and you, quite reasonably, say you will wait for the +18 to bet the mega bonus and then have a big success.

Ideas for a solution:
1. Make the caps lower. The top end for a skill right now is 6. We could set it there. Alternatively, we could set it at whatever the skill is. So, you have a 3 in Ranged Combat then your max is 3.

2. Differentiate between quick actions and prolonged ones. So, Ranged Combat is a quick action but pottery is a prolonged one.

Those are the ones I have. Thoughts?

Thanks guys,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;271164Thanks, it really is all Clash though. I always liked this about his games so I thought I should shamelessly stea...ah, borrow it.

And I really stol... borrowed and modified the idea from David Johansen. He used it in his Galactic Adventures game for trading points between chance of success and quality of success, and I extended it to initiative as well.

QuoteI might offer it as optional but just my design preference here, I think folks generally like direction. They want a default. I think I will just go with the common base as the default. Since everything in this game is d6 based, it should be easy for folks to jump to the random base.

Sure. It actually would be pretty easy to change to any of these concepts from another. I like the common base for its simplicity. NPCs can just roll randomly, or be stat based.

QuoteAnother question, what do you think of the extended actions rule? The thing where they can build up pluses over multiple rounds. I worry that may not really be a good idea as it could be used for some sort of crafting of uber weapons or other skills that normally take a long time to do. So, you have a weapon forging skill and you, quite reasonably, say you will wait for the +18 to bet the mega bonus and then have a big success.

I used cumulative quality rolls to build up over time to a specific total, making extended actions just like combat. Since you don't have quality rolls outside of combat (AKA damage) you do need some other mechanism.

My suggestion is to go ahead with your building up of bonuses idea, but give a time limit in rounds. This would serve as a cap. This would work for short-term multi-round actions, but wouldn't suffice for longer term actions.

QuoteIdeas for a solution:
1. Make the caps lower. The top end for a skill right now is 6. We could set it there. Alternatively, we could set it at whatever the skill is. So, you have a 3 in Ranged Combat then your max is 3.

I like setting max movement equal to skill.

Quote2. Differentiate between quick actions and prolonged ones. So, Ranged Combat is a quick action but pottery is a prolonged one.

Those are the ones I have. Thoughts?

Thanks guys,
Bill

For longer-term multi-hour or multi-day actions, you could break the action into component-sized chunks. Make a monthly/weekly/daily/hourly check and you successfully complete 10% (or whatever) of the project. This wouldn't be in initiative, however, so maybe allow the player to state how much of the project the character is attempting per time unit. The smaller the chunk, the easier it is. So maybe assume 20% per chunk, with each 5% increment in chunk size giving + or - 1 to the chance. When all the chunks are complete, the project is finished. Your skill-based cap would work here too - a character with Skill 3 would be limitied to + 3 increments.

Hope that sparks some ideas!

-clash

/me notes interesting ideas.

Quote from: flyingmice;271184And I really stol... borrowed and modified the idea from David Johansen. He used it in his Galactic Adventures game for trading points between chance of success and quality of success, and I extended it to initiative as well.

Well, props to David then but I heard of it from you so there.

Quote from: flyingmice;271184Sure. It actually would be pretty easy to change to any of these concepts from another. I like the common base for its simplicity. NPCs can just roll randomly, or be stat based.

This is what I was thinking. I was going to base NPCs with a random roll. Something like a d6
1 = -2
2 = -1
3-4 = 0
5 = 1
6 = 2

That way it mixes things up.

Quote from: flyingmice;271184I used cumulative quality rolls to build up over time to a specific total, making extended actions just like combat. Since you don't have quality rolls outside of combat (AKA damage) you do need some other mechanism.

My suggestion is to go ahead with your building up of bonuses idea, but give a time limit in rounds. This would serve as a cap. This would work for short-term multi-round actions, but wouldn't suffice for longer term actions.

I will add this in.

Quote from: flyingmice;271184I like setting max movement equal to skill.

I do too. I wonder where I get these ideas.

Quote from: flyingmice;271184For longer-term multi-hour or multi-day actions, you could break the action into component-sized chunks. Make a monthly/weekly/daily/hourly check and you successfully complete 10% (or whatever) of the project. This wouldn't be in initiative, however, so maybe allow the player to state how much of the project the character is attempting per time unit. The smaller the chunk, the easier it is. So maybe assume 20% per chunk, with each 5% increment in chunk size giving + or - 1 to the chance. When all the chunks are complete, the project is finished. Your skill-based cap would work here too - a character with Skill 3 would be limitied to + 3 increments.

Hope that sparks some ideas!

-clash

I like this idea as it means you could have time pressure on the extended action and have the player taking shortcuts to get it done in time. This would probably be a better fit in the skills section.

Another question: What about ties? I think it is simultaneous action. Your thoughts?

Thanks Clash, this has been a big help.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;271252Well, props to David then but I heard of it from you so there.

Hitting that concept of David's was like opening the door to a whole different world. Abstract tactics fully in the player's control, without bother.

QuoteThis is what I was thinking. I was going to base NPCs with a random roll. Something like a d6
1 = -2
2 = -1
3-4 = 0
5 = 1
6 = 2

That way it mixes things up.

Perfect! Very much what I was thinking!

QuoteAnother question: What about ties? I think it is simultaneous action. Your thoughts?

Thanks Clash, this has been a big help.

Bill

I make ties = simultaneous, but you could roll off ties for which one goes first in that segment if it's important.

And you are very welcome! It's something which too many designers brush off IMO.

-clash

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;271215/me notes interesting ideas.

Feel free to plunder, Narf! These are basic concepts, not IP.

-clash

Just to note, I'm steal...Researching this for my combat supplement for CoatHanger.

...You posted too fast.

Quote from: flyingmice;271268Feel free to plunder, Narf! These are basic concepts, not IP.

-clash

This. It is always good to have the ideas flying and be able to pluck what you need from the ether.

Bill

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;271269Just to note, I'm steal...Researching this for my combat supplement for CoatHanger.

...You posted too fast.

Have you been talking to my wife? :O



-clash

Quote from: HinterWelt;271281This. It is always good to have the ideas flying and be able to pluck what you need from the ether.

Bill

Yep! I love this!

-clash