I've been seeing a lot of games lately that are heavily structured around very specific arrangements of scenes. First you have a Dramatic Scene, then a Fighting scene, then an Intermission scene, then back to a Dramatic Scene...
Ok, so obviously I'm not singling out any particular game with that really bad dramatization of the structure, but you get the picture. I've commented somewhat lightly on this in the past with Burning Empires, which I think was my first exposure to this sort of structured play (that was... ten years ago, more or less??), and since then I had mostly seen it in Japanese RPGs, which admittedly appear to be mostly translated and introduced to American game markets by Storygamers, so perhaps some selection bias.
But I'm seeing it more, and at last I think I have better grasp on why this irritates me so much.
Its regressive.
This is one of those 'big' innovations in game design that the story-games crowd loves to pull, but its not an innovation at all. Its not a 'new thing' its a step back, an old, largely forgotten thing... not unlike the barter-gift economy that is supposed to replace money in Eclipse Phase. Good job wiping out thousands of years of social development in the name of progress!
This isn't so drastic as all that, but perhaps I should start at the beginning.
Games, as you probably know, evolved from Wargames, from the players of said Wargames, to whit EGG and Dave Arneson and co. looking at their armies with their cool hero-leaders and deciding to explore 'what if I just had this one dude and how did he get his cool sword'... and the very first iteration was very true to its wargaming roots. I'm not familiar with Chainmail itself, but I know it is more wargame than RPG, and I can assume that it had a strict turn structure like a wargame.
By the time we get to D&D, and in what appears to be parallel development, Traveller, RPGs were absolutely not Wargames. Turns structure combat, almost by necessity, but play virtually no other role in teh game.
And it worked. It works still. One of the fundamental appeals of this sort of 'open' game design is that it allows you to... oh god, I'm going to use an ideologically corrupted word... Immerse yourself in the world. You might expect to delve into dungeons, but you know... if you don't and you still have fun, that's actually cool too.
Like a vast number of gamers, I was introduced to D&D via the mechanism of a Tavern, an old guy in a hooded cloak, and a short trip to a cave that turned out to be the entrance to a dungeon. Its a cliche, but like so many players, I lived it long before i knew it was a cliche. But no where in the rules did it say I needed to visit the old guy in teh tavern to get the dungeon quest. THat's video game logic, which RPGs never needed, because they ran with human imagination as the primarly operating system.
I have had many game sessions, as a player and more rarely as a GM, where 'nothing happened', and yet the group had fun. I recall joining a game and one of the very first sessions we just hung out in town, in one of the PC's monastery, doing shopping and chilling 'in character'. A bit weird, I suppose, certainly not an ideal game session, but no one was upset. More recently, in my first 5e game, shortly after leaving the dungeon the rest of the session was spent hiring a donkey cart to go back and retrieve a cool looking statue I'd seen there. Half the party decided to join in, while the other half did.. stuff.. in town. No one was upset or bored, and these were players who had only just moved on from pure League style play and were still getting their traditional gamer legs.
Now, a defense of rigidly structured scene 'play' was that you can DO all of that with the rigidly structured scenes. Maybe the statue recovery is a 'downtime scene' (EP 2e actually has that, the only scene structure in the entire game, I belive...).
And sure, you CAN do stuff like that with a highly structured format... but why should you have to 'make it work'?
My point is that this 'innovation' is first, a return to the wargaming structure that was abandoned for good reasons when the game became 'roleplaying' instead of 'warplaying'.
And second that it amounts to forcing the GM and the Group to adopt a play style that is probably artificial for them. THe more coded into the rules this play style is, the less flexible the game is by nature. It trying to force 'advice' into 'laws', and that sucks on general principle.
Structuring everything into scenes, and having a schedule for the scenes to follow, isn't necessarily a bad idea in and off itself. There are many groups and many GMs that can benefit from having a format to follow. Its training wheels for them, and some people really do benefit from having training wheels. But when you force everyone to use the training wheels they become an obstacle, in some cases for the actual game itself, and I think increasingly that experienced players and groups will start avoiding games that force (with rules) this structure on them, simply because it increasingly gets in the way, but maybe I'm being optimistic.
THe most interesting element of all of this, to me, is that to design a game where every single moment of play is structured and codified, where every possible action must be accounted for in a flow chart of action, rather than simply allowing players to interact freely and organically with open ended tools, must actually be harder to design. It provides an additonal point of failure in the design, an additional way for the game to go wrong. It is extra work for no real return other than the twisted satisfaction of controlling how complete anonymous strangers play your game.
Have you expressed similar criticisms regarding 10 minute turns in AD&D?
It is necessary to divide games into discrete units of play for the same reason novels are divided into paragraphs. Those units could be turns, rounds, phases, encounters, innings, downs, etc. Your problem is that some games use scenes as their unit of play, but do you have a problem only with that specific kind of unit?
Quote from: Cave Bear on September 26, 2020, 01:59:43 AM
Have you expressed similar criticisms regarding 10 minute turns in AD&D?
It is necessary to divide games into discrete units of play for the same reason novels are divided into paragraphs. Those units could be turns, rounds, phases, encounters, innings, downs, etc. Your problem is that some games use scenes as their unit of play, but do you have a problem only with that specific kind of unit?
I distinctly recall referencing D&D turns in said essay. In thirty five years I have never played a game of D&D where a GM has said to a player "Ok, you are shopping this turn, now I'm going to focus on the Monk for what he is doing this turn'. That sort of thing only comes up in Combat, and tends to include the whole party, and is arguably unavoidable.
I cut out the desire to use an example of traveller re-written in this sort of 'scene' based game design, where you would perforce have to include a Jump Scene in every session, implying that PCs were going to Jump from one star system to another in ever single game session, which is unnatural and possibly unpleasant.... and unfortunately not at all an exaggeration of how some of these 'scene' based games tend to be written.
Quote from: Spike on September 26, 2020, 01:40:53 AM
By the time we get to D&D, and in what appears to be parallel development, Traveller, RPGs were absolutely not Wargames. Turns structure combat, almost by necessity, but play virtually no other role in teh game.
And it worked. It works still. One of the fundamental appeals of this sort of 'open' game design is that it allows you to... oh god, I'm going to use an ideologically corrupted word... Immerse yourself in the world. You might expect to delve into dungeons, but you know... if you don't and you still have fun, that's actually cool too.
Turns are not immersive at all for me. Too boardgamey.
Quote from: Spike on September 26, 2020, 01:40:53 AM
Like a vast number of gamers, I was introduced to D&D via the mechanism of a Tavern, an old guy in a hooded cloak, and a short trip to a cave that turned out to be the entrance to a dungeon. Its a cliche, but like so many players, I lived it long before i knew it was a cliche. But no where in the rules did it say I needed to visit the old guy in teh tavern to get the dungeon quest. THat's video game logic, which RPGs never needed, because they ran with human imagination as the primarly operating system.
Quantum caves.
Quote from: Spike on September 26, 2020, 01:40:53 AM
I have had many game sessions, as a player and more rarely as a GM, where 'nothing happened', and yet the group had fun.
If a memorable story comes from such a session, that is great stuff.
The thing I don't like about such a structure is that it forces the players into a particular approach. In a good RPG, the gamemaster presents the situation and the players decide what type of encounter it's going to be. It might be a fight, social interaction, a chase, a stealth encounter, comedy relief, high drama and tragedy, whatever. If the game is structured as you described, the approach is chosen for them, greatly limiting player agency and hence (for most players I know) limiting the fun.
Quote from: Mishihari on September 26, 2020, 03:54:40 AM
The thing I don't like about such a structure is that it forces the players into a particular approach. In a good RPG, the gamemaster presents the situation and the players decide what type of encounter it's going to be. It might be a fight, social interaction, a chase, a stealth encounter, comedy relief, high drama and tragedy, whatever. If the game is structured as you described, the approach is chosen for them, greatly limiting player agency and hence (for most players I know) limiting the fun.
Yep. I understand the need for structure in gaming, but it's possible to have too much structure, or to use a structure that doesn't fit what's happening in the game. I think the idea of beating the game into a specific type of storytellng scene is that.
If I try to find an upside (or at least a non-down side) to this I think about two examples.
First, framing a session or series of sessions like scenes in a movie or TV show is one way to look at how to structure an adventure. It doesn't make any sense for random dungeon crawls or spur of the moment in-game shopping, but it might make some sense for a quest-type, mission-based, or other targeted adventures. And if I think of older examples of this TV/movie/novel structure, the play examples and published adventure supplements for West End Games Star Wars D6 used movie language. Published adventures from first and second editions had a 1 page Adventure Script which the GM was expected to customize to suit their group. The adventure was structured into numbered episodes. Episodes included specific events (analogous to scenes). And the suggestions to the GM in the rules and other published materials framed the GM's task as making the game session like the movies. Even film techniques like the cutaway was suggested or provided. So it's not as if literary/film structure for adventure design is a brand new thing.
That's the most benign light I can put on the sort of structure you describe. A lot of the time the WEG structure works for Star Wars. It would probably work about equally well for similar mission based adventures where play was expected to emulate some sort of media. It's probably not a coincidence that James Bond 007 and WEG Star Wars D6 were among the earlierest examples of games that used a type of meta currency benny. I imagine that many, if not most, of the modern games targeted at structured media genre emulation also use some type of meta currency.
From experience and preference, using some kind of framing, some of the time works for me. But it doesn't work all of the time. Mandating a specific framing, all of the time would really annoy me to the point where I just wouldn't do that or GM a game that needed me to do that for the game to work.
Secondly, a rigid mandated adventure structure reminds me of the way D&D has evolved into a game where the designers attempt to explicitly describe all attributes of spells and combat maneuvers and where a 5' grid is expected, almost necessary, to fully use some of the feats, abilities, and spells that characters have in combat. 5E, far more than any other RPG I've read, is written in an attempt to rule out ambiguity and uncertainty. The rules try to define all of what is allowed, rather than suggesting what is allowed and describing what is forbidden and relying on the DM to handle any corner cases and anything not defined. And that's not new to 5E. From what I've heard, 4E was similar and similarly expected combat to be grid-based. A grid may be helpful. I find some type of map is always helpful. Having some notion of scale on the map is also helpful. But necessitating a rigid grid structure for combat to function is something I don't see as helpful in a roleplaying game with a human GM. It's too rigid and it just encourages (almost forces) the GM to restrict locations for combat to a previously drawn or selected grid. That's something that I find too restrictive as a mandate.
I have no particular opinion on whether any of these differences are progress or regress. I just know what do and don't I prefer.
Quote from: Bren on September 26, 2020, 03:36:13 PM
If I try to find an upside (or at least a non-down side) to this I think about two examples.
First, framing a session or series of sessions like scenes in a movie or TV show is one way to look at how to structure an adventure. It doesn't make any sense for random dungeon crawls or spur of the moment in-game shopping, but it might make some sense for a quest-type, mission-based, or other targeted adventures.
I agree. In fact I just reviewed Shinobigami, which makes use of this sort of structure to its advantage, though weakly.
But by its nature it is also restrictive. Burning Empires, where I first really saw this sort of structured play, was about fighting alien body-snatchers, building defenses and alliances. The problem there was that you could only really play it the way the writer wanted you to, adversarially and as a long-term, season based game.
Now, from what I know, Pendragon makes excellent use of just this structure.
On the other hand, I've got the second edition of Part Time Gods, and I find the abstraction and scene structure, while less rigid than, say, Shinobigami, actually interferes with the core premise of the game. Its an artificial imposition on immersion, and creates a point of failure that otherwise wouldn't exist... and in PTG... it fails. Not miserably, not with a bang but a whimper... but it failed, whereas more 'naturally' structured play might have served to reinforce the theme of the game.
Quote from: Spike on September 26, 2020, 05:35:16 PM
But by its nature it is also restrictive. Burning Empires, where I first really saw this sort of structured play, was about fighting alien body-snatchers, building defenses and alliances. The problem there was that you could only really play it the way the writer wanted you to, adversarially and as a long-term, season based game.
Now, from what I know, Pendragon makes excellent use of just this structure.
I can't speak to those other games. Pendragon does tell you to use a structure with only one adventure per season, or even per year. There's nothing mechanically preventing the group from trying to play more adventures than that. Of course if the knights take damage, slow rates of healing may prevent the group from
succeeding in playing out any more adventures per season as some of them are spending weeks healing up.
The only structural rigidity is that the experience increase occurs during Winter season (which could be easily changed) and domain economics and family events are decided over the Winter season. Altering both of these might alter the tone away from the generations of Mallorean Knights of the Round Table that the game tries to emulate. And there really isn't a very compelling reason in the setting to determine economics and family events at shorter intervals of time. After all you are trying to be Knights of the Round Table, not Clerks of the King. ;D
Quote from: Bren on September 26, 2020, 11:38:08 PM... of Mallorean Knights of the Round Table ...
"Mallorean" ... is that a David Eddings reference, or is there some meaning to the word that I don't know? That's an honest question, not a snide remark, just to be clear.
Quote from: Mishihari on September 27, 2020, 03:50:10 AM
Quote from: Bren on September 26, 2020, 11:38:08 PM... of Mallorean Knights of the Round Table ...
"Mallorean" ... is that a David Eddings reference, or is there some meaning to the word that I don't know? That's an honest question, not a snide remark, just to be clear.
I assumed it was a reference to Thomas Malory and Le Morte d'Arthur.
Quote from: Naburimannu on September 27, 2020, 05:07:40 AM
Quote from: Mishihari on September 27, 2020, 03:50:10 AM
Quote from: Bren on September 26, 2020, 11:38:08 PM... of Mallorean Knights of the Round Table ...
"Mallorean" ... is that a David Eddings reference, or is there some meaning to the word that I don't know? That's an honest question, not a snide remark, just to be clear.
I assumed it was a reference to Thomas Malory and Le Morte d'Arthur.
Your assumption is correct. :)
I would also postulate, that removing initiative from earlier editions of D&D also makes combat more immersive.
Quote from: Nerzenjäger on September 29, 2020, 05:24:05 AM
I would also postulate, that removing initiative from earlier editions of D&D also makes combat more immersive.
Or from any edition of any game. "Initiative" is the most unnecessary rule in RPG history, and one of the biggest sacred cows. It's clunky, unrealistic and you don't actually need it to run combat, so it doesn't even serve a purpose from a strictly "it's a game" point of view.
You can just declare order of actions based on readiness and character proximity to their target (or whatever "makes sense" based on circumstance), and just resolve enemy actions at the same time that PCs attack them (assuming that they're ready/able to counter-attack the PCs), treating all actions from ready combatants as roughly simultaneous. And combatants that need to make preparations (slow reloading weapons like crossbows, getting into position before attacking, etc.) may have their actions interrupted by combatants who were ready at the start of the round (fast loading weapons like bows, melee already in melee reach, etc.).
That eliminates one useless roll at the start of combat and ensures everyone pays attention rather than look at their phone while their character is frozen in time waiting for their "turn".
"Roughly simultaneous" works fine in an inflating hit point system like D&D where PCs aren't usually going to end up with a simultaneous kill of PC and NPC combatant.
Roughly simultaneous doesn't work very well in a fixed hit point system. That's one reason early Runequest used a strike rank system. (Apologies if you meant a strike rank like mechanical means of figuring out who hit first when you said, "just declare order of actions." Totally with you though on the oddity of systems using any form of freeze-tag initiative.)
And roughly simultaneous totally sucks ass in a game like Boot Hill where the point is to play characters like Wild Bill Hickok or The Man with No Name* where you can gun down three bad guys before they've finished clearing leather.
* Actually his name is Joe.
Quote from: Bren on September 29, 2020, 02:26:56 PM
"Roughly simultaneous" works fine in an inflating hit point system like D&D where PCs aren't usually going to end up with a simultaneous kill of PC and NPC combatant.
I don't have an issue with this. People killing each other roughly simultaneously is something that happens in real life. The idea of "winning" initiative so you can kill your enemy before they kill you is largely a game construct. It's something that only happens in real life if you manage to decapitate your enemy, shoot them in the head or somehow incapacitate them completely first. Otherwise there's always a chance that they might get a final strike in before dying from your attack.
Besides, getting killed (as a PC) cuz your enemy rolled higher initiative, so you were frozen in time without being able to get a strike in, isn't any preferable to both characters (PC & NPC) killing each other.
My general feeling on this is that whether one or both characters end up killing each other should all be left up to attack success (which is still random, but made as part of an actual action) rather than order of actions from initiative.
Quote from: Bren on September 29, 2020, 02:26:56 PM(Apologies if you meant a strike rank like mechanical means of figuring out who hit first when you said, "just declare order of actions." Totally with you though on the oddity of systems using any form of freeze-tag initiative.)
I'm not familiar with RuneQuest, but based on descriptions I've seen in comments before about its strike rank mechanic, I'd say I was referring to something similar. Basically the idea that certain actions or types of attacks may take extra preparation or grant you an edge over some opponents (such as long reach weapons, like spears, vs short melee weapons, like daggers) that allow some characters to act "first" due to circumstantial factors. I think that order of actions should be based around those types of factors (like a type of phased initiative) rather than random initiative.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 29, 2020, 03:22:05 PM
My general feeling on this is that whether one or both characters end up killing each other should all be left up to attack success (which is still random, but made as part of an actual action) rather than order of actions from initiative.
The attack roll is still in there. If you miss the other guy gets his chance. Just like he would with simultaneous initiative.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 29, 2020, 03:22:05 PMI'm not familiar with RuneQuest, but based on descriptions I've seen in comments before about its strike rank mechanic, I'd say I was referring to something similar. Basically the idea that certain actions or types of attacks may take extra preparation or grant you an edge over some opponents (such as long reach weapons, like spears, vs short melee weapons, like daggers) that allow some characters to act "first" due to circumstantial factors. I think that order of actions should be based around those types of factors (like a type of phased initiative) rather than random initiative.
I'll use RQ2 as an example. There are 12 strike ranks (SR) in a round. (A round is 6-12 seconds . Either 6, 10, or 12. It's been more than 35 years since I ran RQ2 so I can't recall which it is.) Weapons have a SR based on length--longer is better. Better is lower. So the best weapon, a pike or lance, is SR= 0, a long spear might be SR=1, and a A 1 handed sword might be SR=2. Characters have a base strike rank based on Dex and (I think) their Size (simulating longer reach). I very high Dexterity might be SR=1 and human size might be SR=1 (I'm spitballing that part). So all else being equal a Pike armed opponent will always get to strike before a sword armed opponent. Which makes sense.
Drawing and firing an arrow is +5 SRs. So if I've readied an arrow I can fire once on my DEX strike rank, then again 5 strike rates later. So first arrow on SR=1, second one on SR=6. If I'm not a very high DEX person, my DEX strike rank would be SR=2 or SR=3. I could still get off 2 arrows in one round if one is already prepared, but my shots come after than high DEX Aldryami archer.
Spells take the same time as an arrow - except you add in 1 SR for every magic point in the spell (usually in the 1-4 point range, but you might stack extra magic points if you think you need to break through a defensive spell). So you know what the SR is when the archer hits, whether he can shoot the spell wielder before they get off their spell, and when that guy with a 2-handed spear charging you will hit.
Strike Ranks take getting used to the number crunching, but your SR for each weapon is written on your character sheet so it isn't any harder than checking your initiative bonus in 5E. So with practice it goes faster than rolling initiative each round and it avoids the freeze until's your turn.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 29, 2020, 11:49:01 AM
Quote from: Nerzenjäger on September 29, 2020, 05:24:05 AM
I would also postulate, that removing initiative from earlier editions of D&D also makes combat more immersive.
Or from any edition of any game. "Initiative" is the most unnecessary rule in RPG history, and one of the biggest sacred cows. It's clunky, unrealistic and you don't actually need it to run combat, so it doesn't even serve a purpose from a strictly "it's a game" point of view.
You can just declare order of actions based on readiness and character proximity to their target (or whatever "makes sense" based on circumstance), and just resolve enemy actions at the same time that PCs attack them (assuming that they're ready/able to counter-attack the PCs), treating all actions from ready combatants as roughly simultaneous. And combatants that need to make preparations (slow reloading weapons like crossbows, getting into position before attacking, etc.) may have their actions interrupted by combatants who were ready at the start of the round (fast loading weapons like bows, melee already in melee reach, etc.).
That eliminates one useless roll at the start of combat and ensures everyone pays attention rather than look at their phone while their character is frozen in time waiting for their "turn".
I could not possibly disagree more. "Going first" actually happens, it makes a big difference, and there is an element of chance. A video was posted here not too long ago showing sword vs spear work. Spear guy always usually got first poke, but not always. Or look at old west gunfighting. If both guys are accurate, then the faster guy wins. You say that getting rid of a roll makes the game quicker, but tracking states like you're talking about sounds like a lot more work and time.
Re: Initiative:
Wow, talk about derailing the thread... Initiative rolls are useful if both sides are surprised or if there is obfuscation of which side should go first. Rolling for anything all the time is useless - not just init.
Re: Dramatic Scene Structure - the point of this thread:
As a GM/DM/Ref, I never liked the idea of breaking a game session(s) up into discrete forms and rules. Way back in the day, I avoided the newer Modules (like Dragonlance) because I found it took agency away from both the players and myself, and placed it into the hands of the authors of the thing. This is detrimental to the type of play we all liked. HOWEVER: When running CoC, Paranoia, and Toon I used a 2-Act structure and made sure to leave a type of buffer between "Story Agency" (meaning, the plot's requirements) and the "Player's Agency" (meaning, the PC's requirements) which my players called "The Unnecessary Event".
The Unnecessary Event is to rectify what needs to be going on with what has occurred to derail/bring it off-topic. For example: In Toon, we had a fight sequence in a hospital, but one of the PCs had the unfortunate circumstance of having her character's leg in a cast. Her Zip was toast. But the next 'scene' was a chase scene (the climax). Therefore, I used the bright idea of the PCs being introduced to a Doctor Wu, who had his nurses carry him throughout the hospital (from ward to ward) via a rickshaw. The event which the PCs witnessed was to stress they could USE the rickshaw for the damaged PC (I know, PCs aren't supposed to be damaged in Toon like this, but that was the group's insistance... as always.) Therefore, it became an entire 20 minute thing. (BTW: They did manage to steal the rickshaw, chase the insane doctor on foot across the jungle, and the damaged PC used their good leg to power the thing... why I loved Toon as a GM!)
In closing, I hate hate hate the idea of taking agency away from the players and PCs, and would much rather like to see this 'trend' die the ignoble death it deserves... mostly. Depending...
Quote from: Bren on September 29, 2020, 04:10:21 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 29, 2020, 03:22:05 PM
My general feeling on this is that whether one or both characters end up killing each other should all be left up to attack success (which is still random, but made as part of an actual action) rather than order of actions from initiative.
The attack roll is still in there. If you miss the other guy gets his chance. Just like he would with simultaneous initiative.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 29, 2020, 03:22:05 PMI'm not familiar with RuneQuest, but based on descriptions I've seen in comments before about its strike rank mechanic, I'd say I was referring to something similar. Basically the idea that certain actions or types of attacks may take extra preparation or grant you an edge over some opponents (such as long reach weapons, like spears, vs short melee weapons, like daggers) that allow some characters to act "first" due to circumstantial factors. I think that order of actions should be based around those types of factors (like a type of phased initiative) rather than random initiative.
I'll use RQ2 as an example. There are 12 strike ranks (SR) in a round. (A round is 6-12 seconds . Either 6, 10, or 12. It's been more than 35 years since I ran RQ2 so I can't recall which it is.) Weapons have a SR based on length--longer is better. Better is lower. So the best weapon, a pike or lance, is SR= 0, a long spear might be SR=1, and a A 1 handed sword might be SR=2. Characters have a base strike rank based on Dex and (I think) their Size (simulating longer reach). I very high Dexterity might be SR=1 and human size might be SR=1 (I'm spitballing that part). So all else being equal a Pike armed opponent will always get to strike before a sword armed opponent. Which makes sense.
Drawing and firing an arrow is +5 SRs. So if I've readied an arrow I can fire once on my DEX strike rank, then again 5 strike rates later. So first arrow on SR=1, second one on SR=6. If I'm not a very high DEX person, my DEX strike rank would be SR=2 or SR=3. I could still get off 2 arrows in one round if one is already prepared, but my shots come after than high DEX Aldryami archer.
Spells take the same time as an arrow - except you add in 1 SR for every magic point in the spell (usually in the 1-4 point range, but you might stack extra magic points if you think you need to break through a defensive spell). So you know what the SR is when the archer hits, whether he can shoot the spell wielder before they get off their spell, and when that guy with a 2-handed spear charging you will hit.
Strike Ranks take getting used to the number crunching, but your SR for each weapon is written on your character sheet so it isn't any harder than checking your initiative bonus in 5E. So with practice it goes faster than rolling initiative each round and it avoids the freeze until's your turn.
Yeah, that's basically what I've seen posted before, I think. It's a bit more complex and granular than I probably would prefer for game play purposes, but seems more accurate than random initiative. I tend to just reduce it to just Ready, Standard and Delayed actions.
Ready: Anyone who may act immediately at the start of the round (loaded ranged, melee within reach, etc.).
Standard: Anyone that needs minor preparations (move into position, drawing weapons, load fast loading weapons, etc.).
Delayed: Anyone who needs lengthy preparation (full move distance, full round actions, crossbow, etc.).
And treat long reach weapons like a weapon property that grants attack of opportunity against opponents attacking them with shorter reach weapons. That way if a spearman is set to meet a long charge their action still takes place at the end of the round (since their opponent must move their full move distance to get there), but they may still attempt an attack before their opponent due to a weapon-specific advantage. So orders of action don't get entirely skewed around weapon reach, but reach is still a factor.
Quote from: Mishihari on September 29, 2020, 07:22:58 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 29, 2020, 11:49:01 AM
Quote from: Nerzenjäger on September 29, 2020, 05:24:05 AM
I would also postulate, that removing initiative from earlier editions of D&D also makes combat more immersive.
Or from any edition of any game. "Initiative" is the most unnecessary rule in RPG history, and one of the biggest sacred cows. It's clunky, unrealistic and you don't actually need it to run combat, so it doesn't even serve a purpose from a strictly "it's a game" point of view.
You can just declare order of actions based on readiness and character proximity to their target (or whatever "makes sense" based on circumstance), and just resolve enemy actions at the same time that PCs attack them (assuming that they're ready/able to counter-attack the PCs), treating all actions from ready combatants as roughly simultaneous. And combatants that need to make preparations (slow reloading weapons like crossbows, getting into position before attacking, etc.) may have their actions interrupted by combatants who were ready at the start of the round (fast loading weapons like bows, melee already in melee reach, etc.).
That eliminates one useless roll at the start of combat and ensures everyone pays attention rather than look at their phone while their character is frozen in time waiting for their "turn".
I could not possibly disagree more. "Going first" actually happens, it makes a big difference, and there is an element of chance. A video was posted here not too long ago showing sword vs spear work. Spear guy always usually got first poke, but not always. Or look at old west gunfighting. If both guys are accurate, then the faster guy wins. You say that getting rid of a roll makes the game quicker, but tracking states like you're talking about sounds like a lot more work and time.
A guy with a sword striking a spearman first is a outlier, and largely a matter of skill, not chance. A random initiative roll does not take any of this into account. Most systems don't even acknowledge reach outside of "you can strike someone 10 feet away". And people in gunfights can kill each other as well. If they don't get shot in the head they might even get one out before dying even after being shot.
All of these factors are better handled through attack rolls. If the spearman fails his attack, but swordsman hits, maybe the spearman couldn't angle his spear into position in time and the swordsman managed to slip by his side and sneak one hit in. If a dueling gunman hits by a wide margin, causing enough damage to mortally wound their opponent, and the other fails by a wide margin as well, maybe the winning gunman struck before the other one even shot.
And tracking order of actions through phases is extremely simple through GM fiat. I just have to resolve actions in whatever order I want to as GM. Who goes when is usually a matter of common sense, and I can use the guidelines I mentioned in the reply above to keep it consistent. I don't even have to note down who goes when or who rolled what, and players don't have to know. They just have to be ready for when I call out to resolve their action.
Quote from: VisionStorm link=topic=42740.msg1149039#msg1149039
Quote from: Mishihari link=topic=42740.msg1149022#msg1149022I could not possibly disagree more. "Going first" actually happens, it makes a big difference, and there is an element of chance. A video was posted here not too long ago showing sword vs spear work. Spear guy always usually got first poke, but not always. Or look at old west gunfighting. If both guys are accurate, then the faster guy wins. You say that getting rid of a roll makes the game quicker, but tracking states like you're talking about sounds like a lot more work and time.
A guy with a sword striking a spearman first is a outlier, and largely a matter of skill, not chance. A random initiative roll does not take any of this into account. Most systems don't even acknowledge reach outside of "you can strike someone 10 feet away". And people in gunfights can kill each other as well. If they don't get shot in the head they might even get one out before dying even after being shot.
All of these factors are better handled through attack rolls. If the spearman fails his attack, but swordsman hits, maybe the spearman couldn't angle his spear into position in time and the swordsman managed to slip by his side and sneak one hit in. If a dueling gunman hits by a wide margin, causing enough damage to mortally wound their opponent, and the other fails by a wide margin as well, maybe the winning gunman struck before the other one even shot.
And tracking order of actions through phases is extremely simple through GM fiat. I just have to resolve actions in whatever order I want to as GM. Who goes when is usually a matter of common sense, and I can use the guidelines I mentioned in the reply above to keep it consistent. I don't even have to note down who goes when or who rolled what, and players don't have to know. They just have to be ready for when I call out to resolve their action.
I'm a bit confused. You seem to be arguing both for eliminating initiative from games and for handling initiative by fiat. Those are mutually exclusive positions. Perhaps you could clarify?
Sure you can handle initiative through attack mechanics and then create the fiction to include order of attack, but I prefer to match the mechanics of a game a bit closer to the fiction. Also removing initiative eliminates some tactical depth, which I generally prefer not to do. And for me, the most compelling argument was my experience switching from D&D 2E to 3E. I found 3E combat much less interesting exciting, and the biggest reason was switching from rolled initiative to cyclical.
Regarding: Initiative,
"Han Solo shot simultaneously." Just doesn't work. Striking first is a real world tactic, both on the battlefield and in personal combat. Numerous innovations have come i to being to ensure that a combatant can land the first blow, such as longer weapons (pikes, spears, rapiers) to lighter weapons (smallswords, spadroons), quick-draw holsters, even conbat techniques like the fencing lunge and Iai-Do. What most initiative systems get wrong, is oftimes opponents will hit each other simultaneously. With disasterous results.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 30, 2020, 07:11:30 AM
Regarding: Initiative,
"Han Solo shot simultaneously." Just doesn't work. Striking first is a real world tactic, both on the battlefield and in personal combat. Numerous innovations have come i to being to ensure that a combatant can land the first blow, such as longer weapons (pikes, spears, rapiers) to lighter weapons (smallswords, spadroons), quick-draw holsters, even conbat techniques like the fencing lunge and Iai-Do. What most initiative systems get wrong, is oftimes opponents will hit each other simultaneously. With disasterous results.
Removing the initiative roll doesn't remove "striking first". It just makes combat faster and wraps these things into the attack rolls made.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 30, 2020, 12:41:16 AMYeah, that's basically what I've seen posted before, I think. It's a bit more complex and granular than I probably would prefer for game play purposes, but seems more accurate than random initiative. I tend to just reduce it to just Ready, Standard and Delayed actions.
Yes, we seem to agree in principle with any disagreement about how segments to divide the round into for deciding who acts before whom.
Especially in a level-based, inflating hit point system like D&D your division into Ready, Standard, and Delayed seems workable. I think I'd like this better than the initiative the DMs of seen are using in 5E.
I have a question on your procedure. In what order are actions declared. Often there's an advantage if I know what my opponent is trying to do before I decide what I'm going to try.
I think this relates to part of the reason for why rolled initiative is so often seen. The GM can't hear if everyone talks at once, so someone needs to declare their action first, then second, and so on. Some people may be unhappy if the order of declaration is always the same, others may be unhappy if the order is unrelated to player action or character ability (e.g. player to the left of the GM declares first, then proceed clockwise), still others want an element of randomness to simulate the vagaries and uncertainty of combat. Rolling initiative (either each round or once for each combat) provides an order that isn't the same every single time and may partly satisfy the other desires.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 30, 2020, 07:11:30 AMWhat most initiative systems get wrong, is oftimes opponents will hit each other simultaneously. With disasterous results.
That's yet another advantage of strike ranks. ;) If, for example, if two opponents both hit on SR 8 then those attacks are simultaneous and a mutual wounding or kill may result.
Quote from: Mishihari on September 30, 2020, 06:35:10 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm link=topic=42740.msg1149039#msg1149039
Quote from: Mishihari link=topic=42740.msg1149022#msg1149022I could not possibly disagree more. "Going first" actually happens, it makes a big difference, and there is an element of chance. A video was posted here not too long ago showing sword vs spear work. Spear guy always usually got first poke, but not always. Or look at old west gunfighting. If both guys are accurate, then the faster guy wins. You say that getting rid of a roll makes the game quicker, but tracking states like you're talking about sounds like a lot more work and time.
A guy with a sword striking a spearman first is a outlier, and largely a matter of skill, not chance. A random initiative roll does not take any of this into account. Most systems don't even acknowledge reach outside of "you can strike someone 10 feet away". And people in gunfights can kill each other as well. If they don't get shot in the head they might even get one out before dying even after being shot.
All of these factors are better handled through attack rolls. If the spearman fails his attack, but swordsman hits, maybe the spearman couldn't angle his spear into position in time and the swordsman managed to slip by his side and sneak one hit in. If a dueling gunman hits by a wide margin, causing enough damage to mortally wound their opponent, and the other fails by a wide margin as well, maybe the winning gunman struck before the other one even shot.
And tracking order of actions through phases is extremely simple through GM fiat. I just have to resolve actions in whatever order I want to as GM. Who goes when is usually a matter of common sense, and I can use the guidelines I mentioned in the reply above to keep it consistent. I don't even have to note down who goes when or who rolled what, and players don't have to know. They just have to be ready for when I call out to resolve their action.
I'm a bit confused. You seem to be arguing both for eliminating initiative from games and for handling initiative by fiat. Those are mutually exclusive positions. Perhaps you could clarify?
Sure you can handle initiative through attack mechanics and then create the fiction to include order of attack, but I prefer to match the mechanics of a game a bit closer to the fiction. Also removing initiative eliminates some tactical depth, which I generally prefer not to do. And for me, the most compelling argument was my experience switching from D&D 2E to 3E. I found 3E combat much less interesting exciting, and the biggest reason was switching from rolled initiative to cyclical.
I treat Initiative and Order of Actions are as separate things. Order of actions refers to the order in which actions are resolved in combat. Initiative, as used in D&D and most systems, is a game mechanic that is used to randomly determine order of actions. It is not order of actions itself, but a mechanism used to determine order of actions.
The problem with the initiative mechanic is that it organizes actions randomly instead of based around the tactical circumstances actually unfolding in the game. You don't really get additional tactical options, you get a random order of actions that may actually mess with your tactics and get
told (by fickle dice gods) when you're allowed to resolve those actions, whether it makes sense or not. If you're already in the middle of a melee at the start of combat, but a guy charging from halfway across the room rolled higher "initiative" you get to wait your "turn"—inches away from your enemy—till the guy 60 feet away runs half the length of the room and cuts down the enemy right in front of you before you could. Somehow.
I've seen people use this sort of scenario as an opportunity to make up excuses to explain things in terms of initiative. A guy 60' away went first against an opponent inches away from you? Maybe you were distracted by the design of your enemy's cod piece and the other guy caught up! Someone always catches up when you're looking at someone else's dick, amirite? :p
I see it as an immersion breaking intrusion that interferes with game play and my ability as GM to manage combat how I want. I'm in a constant state of sucking it up and following the dictates of the dice gods rather than narrating WTF I think is going on in combat as the actual GM who's supposed be in charge of the whole thing.
Random initiative also assumes that actions can't occur or be resolved simultaneously, when in reality people can bash their heads at the same time, and telling players that are attacking the same group of enemies to make their attack roll at the same time (and the GM also rolling for those enemies) is perfectly doable as well. I don't lose track of WTF is happening in combat if I tell three players melee-attacking the same group of orcs to roll d20 at the same time. It's all part of the same engagement. It's really easy to parse.
Unless I have people doing different stuff, I don't need to break resolution into different slots to determine when I'm going to handle each action. And if that's the case, I don't need the dice telling me when I'm supposed to resolve those actions. I can figure that out on my own and handle it in whatever order I think it's appropriate based on whatever situation is going on, rather than at the moment the dice dictate that it should be.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 30, 2020, 07:11:30 AM
Regarding: Initiative,
"Han Solo shot simultaneously." Just doesn't work. Striking first is a real world tactic, both on the battlefield and in personal combat. Numerous innovations have come i to being to ensure that a combatant can land the first blow, such as longer weapons (pikes, spears, rapiers) to lighter weapons (smallswords, spadroons), quick-draw holsters, even conbat techniques like the fencing lunge and Iai-Do. What most initiative systems get wrong, is oftimes opponents will hit each other simultaneously. With disasterous results.
"Han shot first" is a surprise attack, not random initiative. Greedo failed to notice Han was lining up his gun and Han shot him first in the surprise round. Pretty much everything that people think could be explained as "initiative" is better handled through attack rolls, surprise or special weapon properties.
Quote from: Bren on September 30, 2020, 01:06:23 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 30, 2020, 12:41:16 AMYeah, that's basically what I've seen posted before, I think. It's a bit more complex and granular than I probably would prefer for game play purposes, but seems more accurate than random initiative. I tend to just reduce it to just Ready, Standard and Delayed actions.
Yes, we seem to agree in principle with any disagreement about how segments to divide the round into for deciding who acts before whom.
Especially in a level-based, inflating hit point system like D&D your division into Ready, Standard, and Delayed seems workable. I think I'd like this better than the initiative the DMs of seen are using in 5E.
I have a question on your procedure. In what order are actions declared. Often there's an advantage if I know what my opponent is trying to do before I decide what I'm going to try.
I think this relates to part of the reason for why rolled initiative is so often seen. The GM can't hear if everyone talks at once, so someone needs to declare their action first, then second, and so on. Some people may be unhappy if the order of declaration is always the same, others may be unhappy if the order is unrelated to player action or character ability (e.g. player to the left of the GM declares first, then proceed clockwise), still others want an element of randomness to simulate the vagaries and uncertainty of combat. Rolling initiative (either each round or once for each combat) provides an order that isn't the same every single time and may partly satisfy the other desires.
I ask everyone what they're going to do at the start of the round and advise them about possible consequences based on what going on and what they should be able know in those circumstances. If enemies are loading up a catapult or something and they're in view I let players know. If enemies are obscured I may ask for a Perception check or something, or PCs may have to move into a better vantage point (and potentially use up the round to gather intel) to see what's going on.
Once everyone's actions are declared, actions flow from there in whatever order I deem appropriate, letting players know ahead of time if their action is going to take longer due to extra preparations or having to move into position first, etc.
I recall sometime in 2nd edition initiative in some games became a mess based on weapon size/weapon speed etc; which I'm told made some logical sense but which I never bothered committing to memory and just went when I was told it was my turn, as I recall smaller weapons went before larger ones and that seems backwards to me due to reach.
I'm satisfied with the way it was handled in D6 Star Wars, episode/scene/round.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 30, 2020, 05:32:37 PM
I ask everyone what they're going to do at the start of the round...
Is that asked of all the players as a group or do you ask each player individually? What I'm trying to figure out is in what order the players announce their actions and what is the order based on.
Quote from: Slipshot762 on September 30, 2020, 06:16:04 PM
I recall sometime in 2nd edition initiative in some games became a mess based on weapon size/weapon speed etc; which I'm told made some logical sense but which I never bothered committing to memory and just went when I was told it was my turn, as I recall smaller weapons went before larger ones and that seems backwards to me due to reach.
Reach was handled IIRC with "set for charge" rules.
Quote from: Slipshot762 on September 30, 2020, 06:16:04 PMI'm satisfied with the way it was handled in D6 Star Wars, episode/scene/round.
That nomenclature always bugged me.
The published Star Wars adventures seem like they were intended to have about the same amount of action and varied locales as one of the Star Wars movies. The published adventures usually have 4-6 or so episodes. And a scene (sometimes labeled event) is about like one scene or event in the movie. So the visit to the Death Star would be one of what a published adventure would call an episode. The Death Star Run would be a different episode. When Luke and Leia are on the Death Star and they become trapped on the unextended walkway or ledge and he uses his grapnel to swing them both across the gap, that would be like an event or scene in a published adventure.
But, the movies each are labeled as an episode, e.g., Episode IV: A New Hope. It seems like what WEG called an adventure episode would be analogous to an act in play or movie terms.
In the most recent campaign I divided a named adventure into Chapters instead of Episodes. That bugged me less, but I don't know that any of the players (other than the GMs) in any of the campaigns cared what the subdivisions of an adventure were named.
Quote from: Bren on October 01, 2020, 12:39:01 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 30, 2020, 05:32:37 PM
I ask everyone what they're going to do at the start of the round...
Is that asked of all the players as a group or do you ask each player individually? What I'm trying to figure out is in what order the players announce their actions and what is the order based on.
Both basically. I layout the scene and what is going on, then ask what they're going to do in general, which may include their plans as a group, if they have an overarching strategy that requires coordination (such as a group of melee characters moving to block a path between the mountains from incoming enemies while a handful of ranged characters climb onto the surround higher terrain to snipe at the enemies from above, etc.), but also what each character does individually, even if there's some coordinated strategy involved (does your character climb into the mountains to go ranged or join the melee group blocking the path? And if he climbs up what side of the mountains does he take? etc.).
I collect the intended actions from all players first in whatever order they come up (whoever speaks first), then once I know what everyone is going to do (or at least
intends to do) the round starts and flows from there. I usually handle ranged attacks first if they're ready and within target range at the start of the round (unless they wanna hold off their attack for some strategic reason), then melee already in melee, which I usually assume happen roughly at the same time (melee may attempt to interrupt a ranged attacker if they're in melee reach; otherwise I tend to resolve ranged attacks first). Then I handle half moves (characters using their full movement that round move half their distance by this point), followed by actions requiring minor preparation (characters moving into melee or firing range, drawing out weapons, etc.). Then finally all actions taking up the whole round (full round actions, full moves, long charge attacks, etc.).
If something happens along the way that messes up a PC's planned action (enemy caster casted a wall of fire along the path they planned to take, perhaps) I may ask the player again mid-round what they're going to do, if they still have time to adjust their plans and do something else from their current position. Otherwise it just tends to flow from the actions declared before the round started.