Quote from: GrimGent*cough*

Until someone can seriously blow me away with the impressiveness of a diceless game, I'll stick to my shiny polyhedrons, thank you very much.

Clash, how does initiative in Starcluster work?

Redfox, how does Cine Unisystem do it?

Quote from: algaubleClash, how does initiative in Starcluster work?

Redfox, how does Cine Unisystem do it?

In the StarCluster system, the only dice used are percentiles, so that everything is on the same scale. Initiative is rolled on percentiles for any time-dependent task, including combat. The player can take a penalty on init and get a corresponding bonus to chance/to hit and/or quality/damage, and vice versa.

Example - the PC has a 45% chance to hit and his weapon does %dice +15. The player rolls a 35 for init. He can go later in the round by moving back - say - 20 points for a 55, taking more time to aim. He can then put that 20 points to chance of success, raising the TN to 65, or increase his quality by 20 to %d+35, or put 10 to chance of success and 10 to quality for a TN of 55 and a quality of %d+25.

The PC could alternatively rush his init by twenty, going on 15, most likely before the enemy. Then he can take a 20% reduction on chance, for a TN of 15, reduce his quality/damage by 20, for %d-5, or reduce both chance and quality by a lesser amount, so long as the total is the same.

Taking out init thus reduces tactical options for the player.

BTW, you can do this in any system where init, chance, and quality are on the same scale. You can, for example. run the SC system just fine with a d20, if you prefer that.

Also, this ends the problem of chances of success greater than 100%, as the player can pump up quality of success or go faster in initiative - or both - with the excess points.


-clash

Quote from: RedFoxHonestly I don't think it's a universal axiom, just something I've been thinking of doing for my BESM game because I've felt at the table that it's interrupted the flow of combat and something more loose (ala how Cinematic Unisystem does it) might work better for that game.

Sounds like your initiative system is either broken or not being implemented properly.

[Old Geezer Mode]
[Run-on Sentence]
Why, back in the days of AD&D, that's 1st ED, not that whipper-snapper 2nd ED, with it's glossy artwork and Devil-may-care attitude about characters, I mean, sure, garage kits are nice, but characters kits- that's just silly- now then, as I was saying, back in the ancient of days. . .
[/Old Geezer Mode]
[/Run-on Sentence]

To be serious for a second.  I've always felt that Initiative effectiveness depends largely on how the GM uses it.  For instance I used to have my players declare group order.  Iniative would be rolled to determine which side had the upper-hand (meaning who got to attack first) then I pretty much just let the melee work itself out, per the order of battle.

Of course, IIRC, initiative in AD&D was also tied into surprise.  At least I seem to dimly recollect having players rolling surprise and, if they failed their roll, they automatically lost the initiatve; meaning they were ambushed.

So it can be useful.

In 3.5, initiative matters because of casters. Getting your time stop or limited wish SLA off before the other guy is key. You randomise it to give everyone a chance.

I don't think people have to roll initiative enough in games. If I had my way all my players would have to roll initiative before they do anything whether or not it matters.

Red Fox already read my take on initiative, but I'll throw it in here:

At the beginning of combat initiative shouldn't be rolled for until it is absolutely necessary. That means that you don't interrupt two characters "having words" with "roll initiative" just because things might get violent.

Initiative, to me, should always be about timing and perception. Raw reaction time can save your ass from getting hit by a Buick but it won't help you decide when to slip a lunge in on an opponent. As a result, I prefer initiative systems like CORPS' (where the skill being employed is used to determine initiative), SilCore (where initiative is determined by rolling against a Combat Sense skill that is not based on agility, but rather perception) or some combination. Failing that, I prefer no initiative rolls at all and instead just going around the table clockwise or something.

Quote from: Garry GI don't think people have to roll initiative enough in games. If I had my way all my players would have to roll initiative before they do anything whether or not it matters.

Rolling whether it 'matters' or not? To what end?

I have run several games where I simply go around the table, like most family games.  Seemed to work just fine.

Quote from: jrientsI have run several games where I simply go around the table, like most family games.  Seemed to work just fine.

Curious here. Do you have people jockying for seats and do you change up where you start at the table from time to time?

Also what games are these?

The games were one-shots, mostly Risus and other light fare with either no initiative mechanic or one that could be ignored without affecting other rules.  No one tried to get to a better seat, because I would change from combat to combat where I started at the table and which direction we would go around.

Quote from: jrientsThe games were one-shots, mostly Risus and other light fare with either no initiative mechanic or one that could be ignored without affecting other rules.  No one tried to get to a better seat, because I would change from combat to combat where I started at the table and which direction we would go around.

In some situations, it actually makes more sense to determine what order people go in based on positioning, prior actions, tactical decisions, etc. than a random roll. The only pitfall I can see with that is accidentally assing people out too many times in a row.

I usually do use initiative, but there are times when for whatever reason I use my judgement as GM and decide that it makes sense for one side or the other to go first, or just let the PCs go first.

One thing I almost always do, if the PCs are facing more than two or three opponents who are basically the same statblock, then they all act on the same initiative.

RPGPundit

I will say removing initative from a game that has it can be troublesome.  Particularly if done without prior notice for the players.

Consider, say, Silcore, where you have a balance issue. Perception is important for combat (to remove munchkining stat points) and a seperate skill is needed... a fairly major investment for a combat worthy character.  That guy is gonna be PISSED when you just handwave away the Combat sense checks and declare he goes 'whenever'.

D&D is less problematic, though a high dex fighter with improved initative feats is gonna be less useful than he was (fighter, rogue, whatever....)

A lot of games include initiative as a low power gimme to represent a 'gain' in skill that is less drastic.


Now, designing a game from scratch or using a lighter ruleset... not so problematic. I've done round robin initiative as a player and never questioned it. GURPS uses a fixed initative stat, and recommends 'around the table' seating to reflect it.  Just be aware of what game you are using when you decide to monkey with the system...:what:

Quote from: SpikeNow, designing a game from scratch or using a lighter ruleset... not so problematic. I've done round robin initiative as a player and never questioned it. GURPS uses a fixed initative stat, and recommends 'around the table' seating to reflect it.  Just be aware of what game you are using when you decide to monkey with the system...:what:

That's the gist of it. If the game was built around an initiative then there is a good chance hickups will occur so you'll either have to pull something else out or change it around. That's not really any different for any rule, but if initiative is in the game it tends to be part of the foundations that a lot of things sit on top of.