Quote from: Bren;773329So are they rolling attacks every other round or are they both rolling attacks in each round?

I may be misinterpreting what you intended, but in the latter case it would seem to make PvP combat resolve in fewer rounds than PvNPC.

* World combat doesn't go in "rounds" or "initiative". The MC determines which character is likely to go first, asks the player what they do, resolves it, moves on and asks someone else, etc. sequence is purely determined by what seems right, and who seems most worth checking on right now. The game never really leaves "conversation" mode, unlike other games with explicit combat systems; at any time, a character's actions might necessitate using a different set of mechanics. A "fight" is just a section where the characters are actively doing fighting.

The way the combat mechanic works is that a character makes some violent action towards another character who is actively fighting back, and then rolls.  There are three possible results:

* The attacker is successful, and gets to do what they want - generally, inflict damage
* The attacker is mostly successful, but leaves an opening for the defender to make a move (* World slang for "do something") as well - could be damage, could be something else, depends
* The attacker fucks up, and the defender gets to make a move unopposed

...so in usual PvNPC combat, the NPC's don't get an explicit turn themselves, because the combat system assumes they're fighting back and taking advantage of openings the characters make. If they aren't fighting back, it's not a combat, it's just the same "what are you doing, okay, this happens, what do you do now" conversation.

For PvP, the same mechanics work just as well. I'd probably let the character who drew or otherwise initiated the conflict get the first move, and then probably alternate between them until one side stops fighting for some reason, going to the rest of the party occasionally to see if they're doing anything. The one time this came up for me though, it was a "stab in back, they dead" situation, so it didn't touch combat at all.

Quote from: Ladybird;773413* World combat doesn't go in "rounds" or "initiative". The MC determines which character is likely to go first, asks the player what they do, resolves it, moves on and asks someone else, etc. sequence is purely determined by what seems right, and who seems most worth checking on right now. The game never really leaves "conversation" mode, unlike other games with explicit combat systems; at any time, a character's actions might necessitate using a different set of mechanics. A "fight" is just a section where the characters are actively doing fighting.

The way the combat mechanic works is that a character makes some violent action towards another character who is actively fighting back, and then rolls.  There are three possible results:

* The attacker is successful, and gets to do what they want - generally, inflict damage
* The attacker is mostly successful, but leaves an opening for the defender to make a move (* World slang for "do something") as well - could be damage, could be something else, depends
* The attacker fucks up, and the defender gets to make a move unopposed

...so in usual PvNPC combat, the NPC's don't get an explicit turn themselves, because the combat system assumes they're fighting back and taking advantage of openings the characters make. If they aren't fighting back, it's not a combat, it's just the same "what are you doing, okay, this happens, what do you do now" conversation.

For PvP, the same mechanics work just as well. I'd probably let the character who drew or otherwise initiated the conflict get the first move, and then probably alternate between them until one side stops fighting for some reason, going to the rest of the party occasionally to see if they're doing anything. The one time this came up for me though, it was a "stab in back, they dead" situation, so it didn't touch combat at all.

Interesting. I will have to play that game and see how it feels to me in practice. I can see some players bitching if they can't 'roll initiative' and crap like that, but I definitely want to try it out.

Quote from: Bren;773329I guess you mean just the PvP part, because what you said about how Cinematic Unisystem handles NPC vs. NPC supports that the system considers NPC only action to be not very interesting or to not need a roll.

Yes, I was speaking about the PvP part. Strict players-only roll does mean that you can't generally use blow-by-blow mechanics for NPC-vs-NPC. Instead, GMs have to use alternative resolution. As I said, I don't consider that inherently a bad thing.

(Re: Apocalypse World and variants)

Quote from: Bren;773329So are they rolling attacks every other round or are they both rolling attacks in each round?

I may be misinterpreting what you intended, but in the latter case it would seem to make PvP combat resolve in fewer rounds than PvNPC.

While in the former case, each player would act only in alternate rounds.

Quote from: Ladybird;773413For PvP, the same mechanics work just as well. I'd probably let the character who drew or otherwise initiated the conflict get the first move, and then probably alternate between them until one side stops fighting for some reason, going to the rest of the party occasionally to see if they're doing anything. The one time this came up for me though, it was a "stab in back, they dead" situation, so it didn't touch combat at all.

Ladybird - the issue that Bren is suggesting is how timing of the PvP happens compared to PC-vs-NPC. This could come up if, for example, one PC is with a group of opposing NPCs - so you could have PC-vs-NPC fights at the same time as PC-vs-PC. If every PC gets rolls at an equal rate, then the PC-vs-PC fight would resolve twice as quickly. (Note that many PC moves in the various AW-based games don't have a by-the-book way of working unopposed.)

I can see what you're saying, Bren, but I don't see it as a major issue either way.

Quote from: jhkim;773426Ladybird - the issue that Bren is suggesting is how timing of the PvP happens compared to PC-vs-NPC. This could come up if, for example, one PC is with a group of opposing NPCs - so you could have PC-vs-NPC fights at the same time as PC-vs-PC. If every PC gets rolls at an equal rate, then the PC-vs-PC fight would resolve twice as quickly. (Note that many PC moves in the various AW-based games don't have a by-the-book way of working unopposed.)

I can see what you're saying, Bren, but I don't see it as a major issue either way.

You exactly captured my question. Apparently my speak AW is in the <20% range. Thanks for translating.

I don't know that I would describe it as a major issue but the differences feel awkward to me since I prefer symmetrical mechanics for PCs and NPCs. That is probably compounded by the fact that I don't perceive any benefit to my group in using an asymmetrical system where the player does all the rolling. Logistically the player side of the combat is the bottleneck when I GM, so player facing doesn't speed up or simplify the slow part of the equation for my groups. And as a GM or player I like rolling dice.

Quote from: Bren;773427You exactly captured my question. Apparently my speak AW is in the <20% range. Thanks for translating.

I don't know that I would describe it as a major issue but the differences feel awkward to me since I prefer symmetrical mechanics for PCs and NPCs. That is probably compounded by the fact that I don't perceive any benefit to my group in using an asymmetrical system where the player does all the rolling. Logistically the player side of the combat is the bottleneck when I GM, so player facing doesn't speed up or simplify the slow part of the equation for my groups. And as a GM or player I like rolling dice.

You're welcome for the translation. :-)

If you like rolling dice, then by all means keep doing it. Likewise, if you prefer symmetrical mechanics for PCs and NPCs as an aesthetic, then player-only-roll systems don't work for you. However, I don't think that the difference you speak of significantly affects the outcome in games.

That is, for a GM who doesn't particularly like rolling dice and doesn't care about PC/NPC symmetry as an aesthetic, they can resolve PC-vs-PC conflicts without any problems.

Quote from: jhkim;773426Ladybird - the issue that Bren is suggesting is how timing of the PvP happens compared to PC-vs-NPC. This could come up if, for example, one PC is with a group of opposing NPCs - so you could have PC-vs-NPC fights at the same time as PC-vs-PC. If every PC gets rolls at an equal rate, then the PC-vs-PC fight would resolve twice as quickly.

Right. Well, ultimately, this would be up to the GM - again, no formal initiative system, the combat move isn't blow-by-blow, so how often the PC vs PC fighters are asked "what are you doing" would determine the pace of their conflict.

Personally, I'd be quite happy with the PC vs PC fight being shorter and bloodier than the ongoing PC vs NPC fights, but the mechanic would work just as well either way.

Quote(Note that many PC moves in the various AW-based games don't have a by-the-book way of working unopposed.)

In a lot of circumstances, if nothing is obstructing the PC, or if the PC is doing something that doesn't seem appropriate for any of the mechanics, they'd just get to do whatever, or not (GM's call; does it seem reasonable, is it the sort of thing the PC has experience in, etc).

Quote from: Bren;773427I don't know that I would describe it as a major issue but the differences feel awkward to me since I prefer symmetrical mechanics for PCs and NPCs. That is probably compounded by the fact that I don't perceive any benefit to my group in using an asymmetrical system where the player does all the rolling. Logistically the player side of the combat is the bottleneck when I GM, so player facing doesn't speed up or simplify the slow part of the equation for my groups. And as a GM or player I like rolling dice.

Really, I don't think * World would work for you. The rules are pretty much all player-facing; there aren't mechanics for "can this NPC do something to a PC", they're "can this PC avoid the consequences of NPC doing something". If you want to roll dice to see if the NPC's can do things, great, but you'd need to write your own rules for that as the mechanics don't support it.

Combat is pretty fast, and sound tactics will win fights just like in other games (Get high ground, cover, flanking, etc); but that's because the GM is expected to run the game and think through the consequences of actions and apply rules accordingly.

If you're interested in Dungeon World, though, it's officially available online, for free.

"Only players roll"

Sounds like a gimmick; plus, I like random.

Quote from: jhkim;773436You're welcome for the translation. :-)

Frankly it's unusual enough on the Internet for someone who I am in agremeent with to fully understand the point I was making that I thought it really deserved noting and thanking you for that.

Quote from: Ladybird;773437Really, I don't think * World would work for you.

Oh I'm pretty sure it could work. It just wouldn't be my preference for the reasons I mentioned.

One problem I have with * World is that I find the approach to compartmentalize actions isn't... natural to me.

Though I haven't played it, and maybe it'd work better in actual play for me.

(I have a similar issue with Fate, actually -- while I love it, I have this suspicion that I'd find the whole flow of Fate points really clunky)

Quote from: Will;773508One problem I have with * World is that I find the approach to compartmentalize actions isn't... natural to me.

It's not so much that actions are compartmentalized, but the rules are very compartmentalized and give clear guidelines as to exactly when they apply. Characters still have just as much choice of action as in any other RPG, and the GM still has authority.

If the rules don't apply to a situation, they don't get used, and trying to jam them in won't work. When you run out of rules, the GM has to make a call, but that's cool because that's what GM's are meant to do.

The weird thing about "Players Roll" is that it's touted as being this great GM timesaver.  It's got nothing to do with player empowerment, or GM disempowerment of course, and nothing to do with providing a "player's interesting, npcs uninteresting" special snowflake spotlight focus.

Yet...what games use it?  The ones that are light enough already that the GM rolling isn't even a factor.

Quote from: CRKrueger;773556The weird thing about "Players Roll" is that it's touted as being this great GM timesaver.  It's got nothing to do with player empowerment, or GM disempowerment of course, and nothing to do with providing a "player's interesting, npcs uninteresting" special snowflake spotlight focus.

Yet...what games use it?  The ones that are light enough already that the GM rolling isn't even a factor.

In DW, how does it handle this:

Type 5 demon teleports next to a pc and savages them with six weapons and a tail.

My guess is the gm declares the demons intent and the victim pc rolls something?

Quote from: Bill;773561In DW, how does it handle this:

Type 5 demon teleports next to a pc and savages them with six weapons and a tail.

My guess is the gm declares the demons intent and the victim pc rolls something?

GM:" A Type 5 demon suddenly appears right next to you and is about to slice you up with six weapons and a tail. What do you do?"

Player: "Holy FUCK! I try to get the hell out of the way by doing a duck and roll!"

GM: "Sounds like you're using the move: Defy Danger. Roll Dex."

Player rolls and fails.

GM: "Ha ha you're cut up by multiple blades and stabbed in the gut by a tail. Roll 2d6+10 damage with Piercing 2."

Player rolls damage and weeps over his/her character's diced up corpse.

CRKrueger: I THINK Unisystem either has it or has it as an optional rule/suggestion.

Quote from: Bill;773561My guess is the gm declares the demons intent and the victim pc rolls something?

Why would the GM declare the demon's intent? The character has no way of knowing that information. All the character knows is demon appeared, blades occurred. It's up to the player / character to parse that and decide what to do next. Maybe they ask the demon what it thinks it's doing! Then they might get to know it's intent. Or not.

And who did the PC piss off that demons start appearing to attack them, anyway?

Also, yes, Unisystem Cinematic uses only-players-roll.