Quote from: jhkimNow, there are realism problems with using rank as initiative -- but I think there are big realism problems with using Dexterity as well, which is a common RPG mechanic.

You're reaching. The problems are just bigger with rank, as it has no fucking connection whatsoever to initiative.

Quote from: jhkimDexterity means that ballet dancers and/or locksmiths have the edge over veteran soldiers, essentially treating combat as a physical activity which everyone is drilled in.

Dude.

1-We'd have to speak in terms of specific systems here. But a lot of systems use the "dexterity" misnomer to define all things related to speed, reflexes, general agility and dexterity.

2-We're talking about who goes first, here. Not what happens next. Even if a super quick ballet dancer has fast reflexes, it doesn't mean he'll be drilled in physical combat (most games have hit resolution, weapon skills, etc...)

Quote from: jhkimWargames more often have initiative based on command structure, which I think is more sensible as a general abstraction.  Yes, this isn't right because there are times when a lower-ranked person will be more quick to judge in combat than their superiors (i.e. the grizzled sarge vs. the green lieutenant), but I think it's no worse than many other abstractions.

This isn't a wargame and FVLMINATA's protagonists aren't necessarly officers on the field. This rule is still fucking stupid no matter what you say.

It's worse than many other abstractions because it detracts from the stories one will try to tell more often than most other rules. At least it did when we tried that extremely lame game.

The only good thing about this rule is that it induces laughter at the expense of its moronic creator. Which is a small consolation when you've paid for the crappy book.

Quote from: Consonant Dude

Quote from: jhkimWargames more often have initiative based on command structure, which I think is more sensible as a general abstraction. Yes, this isn't right because there are times when a lower-ranked person will be more quick to judge in combat than their superiors (i.e. the grizzled sarge vs. the green lieutenant), but I think it's no worse than many other abstractions.

This isn't a wargame and FVLMINATA's protagonists aren't necessarly officers on the field. This rule is still fucking stupid no matter what you say.

Well, I may be beating a dead horse here, but I'm not making a claim that it's a good rule, just that I don't see a basis for it being the worst rule ever.  

I guess my issue here is that on the basis of realism, I dislike Dex-based initiative, and prefer initiative to be based on command structures or if not then arbitrary.  Wargames use command structures as the basis for initiative for a reason -- they represent the reality that even soldiers who are quick on their feet won't be quick to take new action on the battlefield.  RPGs tend to toss out wargame concepts like command and morale, generally at the expense of realism.  Add to this that RPG players often ignore historical social rank -- so a soldier character does whatever he feels like regardless of what the duke says.  

I'd probably prefer an initiative stat which is based on both combat experience and rank.  However, while it might not be implemented well, I see the point of using rank as an abstraction.

Wargames use command structure as the basis for initiative? Sort of. Really depends on the game. The closest I can think of are the Great Battles of History series (GMT) and some card-driven games like We the People and Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage. But...not exactly. Did you have any particular examples in mind?

I won't try and convince you that it's the worst rule ever. In my opinion it is, but I know better than to try and change someone's opinion over the internet. That's especially true when that person thinks social rank for init and dexterity for init are even slightly similar. At least in a dex based game the quadrapalegic prince is still going to go dead last.

Quote from: Dominus NoxWell, in the stargate SG1 rules I hate the way criticals are handled, in that a critical hit/success isn't one unless someone spends some sort of point to 'activate' it, that sucks.

That's excellent. It keeps the dramatic action in the hands of the major heroes and villains, and keeps you from being aced by a random mook with a lucky shot.

Isn't that also in some other game? Spycraft?

Quote from: Elliot WilenIsn't that also in some other game? Spycraft?

Probably.  Although I've never read Spycraft, I understand that Stargate is simply Spycraft ported to the job of handling the series.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWargames use command structure as the basis for initiative? Sort of. Really depends on the game. The closest I can think of are the Great Battles of History series (GMT) and some card-driven games like We the People and Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage. But...not exactly. Did you have any particular examples in mind?

Is that the one used in Men of Iron (also GMT) that's a roll under (IIRC) mechanism where you roll a d10? You roll against a command stat for one of you commanders (potentially modified by command distance?).  If you succeed your commander can give their orders. If you fail your opponent gets a free command automatically, then he has to roll to keep initiative. You can also try to sieze initiative from your opponent by rolling in their place, but failure gives them an automatic command.

Quote from: jhkimWell, I may be beating a dead horse here, but I'm not making a claim that it's a good rule, just that I don't see a basis for it being the worst rule ever.  

I guess my issue here is that on the basis of realism, I dislike Dex-based initiative, and prefer initiative to be based on command structures or if not then arbitrary.  Wargames use command structures as the basis for initiative for a reason -- they represent the reality that even soldiers who are quick on their feet won't be quick to take new action on the battlefield.  RPGs tend to toss out wargame concepts like command and morale, generally at the expense of realism.  Add to this that RPG players often ignore historical social rank -- so a soldier character does whatever he feels like regardless of what the duke says.

I'll put some final thoughts and try to be a little more constructive about it.

I don't know, John. Most modern games either have a larger view of what the term Dex means in their game or they use methods such as highest skill or other methods.

You keep on bringing back wargames and that simply is of no interest to me and most of the roleplayers I know. There are just glaring examples in FVLMINATA where this rule clashes with what the game tries to accomplish.

If FVLMINATA was an abstract wargame, you might have a point (I personally don't play them)

Anyway, I don't think roleplaying games are about realism. They're more about drama, accomplishing things and figuring out stuff. The init rule of FVLMINATA hinders the game from my experience. But let's agree to disagree.

Re:  FVULMINATA.

Okay, it looks like a stupid, unrealistic, initiativie rule. The point I was trying to make earlier is that it is also a rule that can be changed by editing one word without any fallout anywhere else in the game. Change "rank" to "agilitas"  or "highest combat skill" and you have your "realistic" combat initiative system.

It may be a nonsensical rule, but since changing the rule doesn't require changing the entire system because everything hinges on it, I fail to see how it can be the "worst rule ever". Could you houserule AoO in half a second?

Yep: "No AoOs." There, done. I've invalidated some feats and made spellcasting easier to get away with, but it only took a second and the game doesn't fall apart without AoOs in it.

Quote from: apparition13It may be a nonsensical rule, but since changing the rule doesn't require changing the entire system because everything hinges on it, I fail to see how it can be the "worst rule ever".

I won't claim it's the most problematic rule, just that it redefines the word "stupid"

My problem is that it really highlights shitty design and, unsurprisingly, the rest of the game system is gimmicky, annoying and ultimately was a flawed and forgotten effort.

It's too bad but from what I knew of the background/setting, the game could have been interesting.

Quote from: apparition13Could you houserule AoO in half a second?

Been done. From now on, common sense and description dictates who and when you get AoOs. Works wonders for many people who don't want to use maps/positioning.

Quote from: James McMurrayYep: "No AoOs." There, done. I've invalidated some feats and made spellcasting easier to get away with, but it only took a second and the game doesn't fall apart without AoOs in it.

Yeah, certainly it can be played like that but I didn't like it. We felt like we were messing with balance a little too much. YMMV.

We don't play that way either. It's probably not the best option (especially where it affects casting). I wasn't saying that. I was just saying it's easy to do and that AoOs, while taking up a lot of space in the book, aren't such an integral part of the game that removing them breaks everything.

THAC0

Made D&D 2 completely unplayable for me.