TheRPGSite

Whats the single rule that you hate in a given RPG system? The one that ruins or almost ruins a set of rules that you otherwise like?

For example, I detest "Attacks of Opportunity", it almost ruins my experience of any D20 game that uses them.

RPGPundit

Any rule that says a particular class absolutely cannot wear a type of armor or use a type of weapon at all under any circumstance.  Not that they suffer some kind of penalty for doing so, but they have absolutely no ability to use the item or equipment whatsoever, it is just impossible.

Rifts' megadamage rule was so awkward that I just couldn't get into the game - though that wasn't the only reason.

Anything that complicates matters for no reason - ie most of Exalted.

The base rule is fine, X + Y + Z = Dicepool vs. Difficulty or opponent.

Then you get all the restrictions and book keeping for attacks, combos etc.

Maybe I'm just bad at maths....

Worst rules for me:

Personality mechanics. Alternately, anything with merits and flaws where you can take like.. color blind or "Irrational Attraction to Cheese" or something in exchange for something else.


(I on the other hand love Attacks of Opportunity, because that's where the bulk of the tactical part of the game is- setting up and avoiding AoO's through player determined tactics).

Most autofire rules...

I hate overly complicated rules for firearms use, especially in a cinematic game.

I have disliked the called shot rules in every edition of Shadowrun to date.

Most hit location systems and many systems that try to overcategorize damage types (slashing, impaling, blunt, lethal, non-lethal). Hit location systems get in the way of my enjoyment kind of like AoO for RPGPundit - either they wind up being really weird ("Okay, you rolled a critical hit and you hit him in...the foot. Yeah, you're 6'6" tall and he's 4'5" tall, you hit him in the foot") or they wind up being convoluted to make up for the shortcoming ("Ok, you're taller than he is so we roll on the hit location table and add 2 to compensate for the difference.") The overcategorized damage usually tries to put some kind of weird logic in place that winds up making one type of damage way more effective than another ("Piercing attacks do double damage when they penetrate armor because they penetrate deeper...bashing attacks fill up bruise boxes until they overflow and start doing lethal damage.")

If it's a "cinematic" game, just use random damage and hit points or something. If it's a "grittier" game, just have three levels (Hurt, More Hurt, and Dead) and leave it at that. The Synergy system in Blue Planet summed it up nicely when it basically said that the idea of "non-lethal damage" (as in damage that can never kill) is an illusion and that all "damage" has the capability of killing; the same goes for hit locations with the illusion that it's "more okay" to get stabbed in one location than another. I prefer more generalities that give us a chance to actually narrate the wounds and their effects in a way that makes sense given the circumstances.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhats the single rule that you hate in a given RPG system?

The initiative rules in CORPS really hurt what is otherwise an amazing game. What the fuck was Greg Porter thinking there?

Not a single rule but the rolling under mechanic really hurts Tri-Stat games, especially during combat.


By far, the worse rule ever has to be the initiative system in FVLMINATA but that's alright because the rest of the game sucks ass too. The designer of that game makes Raven McCracken look like a genius.

FVLMINATA?

Quote from: Consonant DudeThe initiative rules in CORPS really hurt what is otherwise an amazing game. What the fuck was Greg Porter thinking there?

I haven't gotten that far in CORPS yet, but how bad is it? I understand that it  is tied to the skill level of the person taking the action and at least that makes a lot of sense to me.

I'm with The Pundit on this one:

AoO, I hate them.:muttering:

Our group loves them, but we've got a bunch of guys that started out as wargamers.

Quote from: James McMurrayFVLMINATA?

Rome develops gunpowder in the wake of Pompeii.

Quote from: James McMurrayFVLMINATA?

Google it.

It was a roleplaying game taking place in ancient rome with some fantasy elements added. It was released by a small company (I hesitate to use the term "indie" as some dumbass is sure to associate this with the FORGE) around 2000, I think.

Initiative was in order of social class. So a crippled noble would get the jump on a well-trained gladiator every time.

I've never seen anything so fucking stupid.

Quote from: WilI haven't gotten that far in CORPS yet, but how bad is it? I understand that it  is tied to the skill level of the person taking the action and at least that makes a lot of sense to me.

Yeah, it's one of those things that takes time to clarify. The basic principle, which you mention, is absolutely fine. It gets bad in the way it super-micro-manage time.

The combat example takes six pages. That's out of 140-something rulebook, IIRC! People battle it out with several actions in a single second. The way you determine all this becomes extremely tedious.

I can't even explain it anymore because it's so crazy. Just check it out. It should be noted that I love the game and I have great admiration for Porter and several of his designs. But time handling/initiative in CORPS is just not for me.

Quote from: Consonant DudeInitiative was in order of social class. So a crippled noble would get the jump on a well-trained gladiator every time.

That definitely wins the stupidest rule ever contest hands down. And if it doesn't win, I shudder at what would be worse than that.

Quote from: James McMurrayOur group loves them, but we've got a bunch of guys that started out as wargamers.

yeah, thats where I started too... but I like to keep my RPing and Minis in seperate piles. :D

Lots do, and I won't fault you for it. :)

Quote from: Consonant DudeInitiative was in order of social class. So a crippled noble would get the jump on a well-trained gladiator every time.

I've never seen anything so fucking stupid.

I actually read this book ages ago, but I don't recall: did they give any reason why this was so?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Consonant DudeYeah, it's one of those things that takes time to clarify. The basic principle, which you mention, is absolutely fine. It gets bad in the way it super-micro-manage time.

The combat example takes six pages. That's out of 140-something rulebook, IIRC! People battle it out with several actions in a single second. The way you determine all this becomes extremely tedious.

I can't even explain it anymore because it's so crazy. Just check it out. It should be noted that I love the game and I have great admiration for Porter and several of his designs. But time handling/initiative in CORPS is just not for me.

I love that game book, one of those games that I will never ever get to play, but would dearly love too.

And you have hit the nail on the head why.  I can make characters all day long, grasp wether or not I succeed at a typical skill use fairly simply... but I'll be damned blasted if I can make heads or tails of the combat system and I have the advantage of a well illustrated combat example to use!  I think I had a few other minor issues with it as well, but combat really broke it for me. If i can't grok it, I don't play it.

Quote from: SpikeI love that game book, one of those games that I will never ever get to play, but would dearly love too.

And you have hit the nail on the head why.  I can make characters all day long, grasp wether or not I succeed at a typical skill use fairly simply... but I'll be damned blasted if I can make heads or tails of the combat system and I have the advantage of a well illustrated combat example to use!  I think I had a few other minor issues with it as well, but combat really broke it for me. If i can't grok it, I don't play it.

The killer for CORPS is the multiple actions in a single second based on skill.  So you can do multiple actions as long as you keep accepting a -2 to your skill.  It's confusing.  Still, I don't think that remotely qualifies as the worst RPG rule ever.  

It's got competition like the unarmed combat rules from AD&D1.  Or to pick a more recent example, the "Stun Effects" rule from the Lord of the Rings RPG -- where if you're good with a sword, you're much better off hitting with the flat of the blade instead of the edge.

Quote from: RPGPunditFor example, I detest "Attacks of Opportunity", it almost ruins my experience of any D20 game that uses them.

Ditto. Some games make them easy to ignore, but in many d20/OGL games, they're an integral part of the system.

Re: FVLMINATA. . .

I recall this game being fairly well received at the time of its release. Is it worth $5 for a peek (I ask, 'cause I know where there's copy I can trade some stuff for).

I thought AoO's were a pain in the but until my local druid started turning into a bear and grappling everything in site.  The grappling rules in 3.5 are a much bigger pain in the ass, IMHO.

Quote from: jrientsThe grappling rules in 3.5 are a much bigger pain in the ass, IMHO.

They're nearly a verbatim port of the painfully bad AD&D 1e grappling rules that John Kim mentions above. Of course, they have 3e verbiage grafted on in place of 1e terminology. That didn't fix the actual confusion, amazingly :rolleyes:

The World of Synnibarr had a rule that if the players caught the GM "cheating" - fudging a diceroll, misapplying or ignoring a rule, contradicting himself or deviating from his/her adventure notes - the GM had to rewind the action back to the point where the cheating occurred. Everyone reverted back to the state they were in at that time (although I think there was an XP award for the person who pointed it out).

And all adventure notes had to be handed over to the players after the adventure, so they could check that the GM hadn't cheated.

I don't know if I've been lucky or smart in the games I know best, but I don't seem to have anything worse than 1e grappling. I had to grapple (hur) with those in my first few months of GMing, and they were a major pain.

Um, the fatigue rules in RQ3 are really dumb! I think I remember exactly one occasion when they had any mechanical effect.

Quote from: droogUm, the fatigue rules in RQ3 are really dumb! I think I remember exactly one occasion when they had any mechanical effect.

Funny, if anything I remember them being too effective. I.e., someone wearing what would be reasonable soldier's panoply (equivalent to a Greek hoplite) would fatigue way too quickly in battle, or so it seemed. But I bow to your experience with the system.

The AD&D1e grappling rules are awful by popular acclaim. Funny thing is, the example in the book was pretty cool.

I remember hating the Top Secret 1e martial arts rules. By our analysis, it was always best to give the other guy a finger in the eye, and that was extremely deadly.

Quote from: Elliot WilenFunny, if anything I remember them being too effective. I.e., someone wearing what would be reasonable soldier's panoply (equivalent to a Greek hoplite) would fatigue way too quickly in battle, or so it seemed. But I bow to your experience with the system.

For all the tracking, it's very rare for anybody to lose enough fatigue to get into significant penalties in the time it takes for a combat. So you end up ignoring it.

Quote from: James McMurrayThat definitely wins the stupidest rule ever contest hands down. And if it doesn't win, I shudder at what would be worse than that.

I've looked hard. I've never found anything that could top it. Not in any intentional way at least.

Quote from: RPGPunditI actually read this book ages ago, but I don't recall: did they give any reason why this was so?

RPGPundit

Some incoherent ramblings about "genre emulation"  and perfectly capturing the essence of rome, where social classes prevail above everything else.

Quote from: jdrakehDitto. Some games make them easy to ignore, but in many d20/OGL games, they're an integral part of the system.

Re: FVLMINATA. . .

I recall this game being fairly well received at the time of its release. Is it worth $5 for a peek (I ask, 'cause I know where there's copy I can trade some stuff for).

I paid more than $5, and I was happy with it. It's not up to the level of Sengoku as a "historical" sourcebook, but it's chock full of Roman goodness.

(I just looked. Initiative goes by Rank first, if Rank is tied, then Pietas is used. On the other hand, that's pretty much it for the rule. Substituting another attribute, or even varying the attribute according to the nature of the conflict, would be dead easy.)

RPGs have to be balanced.

(Regarding initiative in FVLMINATA)

Quote from: Consonant DudeI've looked hard. I've never found anything that could top it. Not in any intentional way at least.

Er, seriously?  I don't get it.  It's clear, workable, and doesn't cause any clear game problems that I can see.  The worst that you can say about it is that it isn't realistic -- and it sure as hell doesn't top the list of most unrealistic rules.  

The start and end of turns is usually an abstraction which often don't matter.  For example, I often do initiative by just going around the table clockwise (i.e. based on where the player is seated), which is even less realistic to what's in-game than the rank rule.  At least rank has some sense in the abstraction, deriving from wargame rules where officers go first, and lower-rank men go afterwards since the officers are expected to lead.  

For example, the Lord of the Rings RPG Stun Effects rule isn't just nonsensical (i.e. striking with the flat of the blade being more incapacitating than striking with the edge) -- it serious mucks up the combat balance.  If you just wade into a bunch of trolls striking with the flat, you might not knock them out -- but they'll be so hampered by penalties that they're unable to hit or defend.

I really dislike the Appearance stat in oWoD and Exalted. It's fucking retarded. I was able to accept it as a mechanical artifact of a previous system in Exalted 1e, but keeping it for 2nd ed. was an awful design choice, especially since nWoD's stats were already designed, and they would have allowed social combat (one of the big talking points about 2e, if you recall) to rely on the basic mechanics of the system rather than requiring an arcane subsystem of little merit.

Quote from: WarthurThe World of Synnibarr had a rule that if the players caught the GM "cheating" - fudging a diceroll, misapplying or ignoring a rule, contradicting himself or deviating from his/her adventure notes - the GM had to rewind the action back to the point where the cheating occurred. Everyone reverted back to the state they were in at that time (although I think there was an XP award for the person who pointed it out).

And all adventure notes had to be handed over to the players after the adventure, so they could check that the GM hadn't cheated.

I never heard of World of Synnibarr until jrients mentioned Raven c.s. McCracken a couple of weeks ago... Hmm. :)

I also reserve a special loathing for rules that "work" (that is, they're not nonsensical Murphy's Rules) but that also subtly warp the fabric of the game around them in ultimately unpleasent ways.

Attacks of opportunity, Palladium's MDC/SDC, Extra Attacks in BESM, the superior value of Dexterity-type attributes in many games, etc.

Quote from: YamoI also reserve a special loathing for rules that "work" (that is, they're not nonsensical Murphy's Rules) but that also subtly warp the fabric of the game around them in ultimately unpleasent ways.

I don't think I'd call these "rules that work" so much as I'd call them "imbedded sub-systems that impact other aspects of the game" (based on your example, anyhow). Any rule that isn't flat-out broken technically "works". I don't know about you, but I very much prefer rules that work to those that dont ;)

Quote from: WarthurThe World of Synnibarr had a rule that if the players caught the GM "cheating" - fudging a diceroll, misapplying or ignoring a rule, contradicting himself or deviating from his/her adventure notes - the GM had to rewind the action back to the point where the cheating occurred. Everyone reverted back to the state they were in at that time (although I think there was an XP award for the person who pointed it out).

And all adventure notes had to be handed over to the players after the adventure, so they could check that the GM hadn't cheated.

That's not a stupid rule, that's the single coolest idea Raven c.s. McCracken ever had.  Only a GM with balls of steel would run a Synnibarr campaign by the book, because the game expects you not to take the thousand little shortcuts most GMs use ever session.  I wish I were hardcore enough to give it a try.

AD&D 1e no swords for clerics. This rule really pissed me off as a kid. Especially because everyone agreed it was crap, but for some reason none of our DMs could bring themselves to ditch it due to the idea that it might create some sort of game imbalence.
IMO, AD&D 1e always seemed full of rules specifically designed to limit  enjoyment.

QuoteThat's not a stupid rule, that's the single coolest idea Raven c.s. McCracken ever had.

Heh.  Good to see some people like this kind of thing.  Somewhat similar to what I'm working on... ;)

Quote from: jhkim(Regarding initiative in FVLMINATA)


Er, seriously?  I don't get it.  It's clear, workable, and doesn't cause any clear game problems that I can see.  The worst that you can say about it is that it isn't realistic --

The worse I can say is that it's the dumbest idea I ever saw in a roleplaying game, barring unintentional bad design, of course. It's not a matter of lack of realism. It's a matter of stupidity.

Quote from: jhkimThe start and end of turns is usually an abstraction which often don't matter.  For example, I often do initiative by just going around the table clockwise (i.e. based on where the player is seated), which is even less realistic to what's in-game than the rank rule.

I agree that taking turns might not matter much. That's no excuse for making a shit rule that insults intelligence.

Quote from: jhkimAt least rank has some sense in the abstraction, deriving from wargame rules where officers go first, and lower-rank men go afterwards since the officers are expected to lead.

The problem is, FVLMINATA is not a wargame, nor a game that strictly focuses on military conflicts. The rule sucks the minute it is used in play and doesn't add anything positive, be it realism, genre-emulation or drama.

I'd actually prefer complete randomness. I'd know the designer was just lazy instead of being a hopeless moron.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhats the single rule that you hate in a given RPG system? The one that ruins or almost ruins a set of rules that you otherwise like?

For example, I detest "Attacks of Opportunity", it almost ruins my experience of any D20 game that uses them.

RPGPundit

Well, 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.

The one rule in gurps I don't like is the way shotguns have a recoil of 1, same as no recoil at all. I know they did it for the autofire hit reasons, but still in cases where the ACTUAL recoil of a weapon might matter a lot, like firing one in zero G, that would be a major problem.

Quote from: jdrakehI don't think I'd call these "rules that work" so much as I'd call them "imbedded sub-systems that impact other aspects of the game" (based on your example, anyhow). Any rule that isn't flat-out broken technically "works". I don't know about you, but I very much prefer rules that work to those that dont ;)

Is that like every application actually works as designed? ;)

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.

As I understand it, that is a rule in place to keep criticals in the realm of the Heroes/PCs/Major Villains.  Otherwise, the PCs would simply fall to the much more likely criticals of the cannon fodder baddies.  That was one of the flaws of Star Wars d20.

Quote from: WilIs that like every application actually works as designed? ;)

Well, Yamo didn't say that he disliked rules that fail to work as conceived or designed. He said that he disliked rules that that iwork (and the definition of that word coupled with the context in which it was used includes all working rules). I'm sure that isn't what he meant, though (of course, what he did mean was totally unclear).

Quote from: jdrakehWell, Yamo didn't say that he disliked rules that fail to work as conceived or designed. He said that he disliked rules that that iwork (and the definition of that word coupled with the context in which it was used includes all working rules). I'm sure that isn't what he meant, though (of course, what he did mean was totally unclear).

*All* rules work as designed. It just depends on if they do what they were intended.

For me, it is those blasted personality mechanics. D&D alignment can be an useful shorthand (although it is too often taken too far, including otherwise respectable game designers), but when it becomes an actual, quantified thing, the game immediately loses its appeal to me. I recognise why others like it, but me? Never, ever.

Stun rules in Star Wars. Ditch your saber, buy a stun blaster.
Knockout % in AD&D2ed. So I can knock you out with my fists, but no with a club?
Oh, and about that Roman iniative shite, if you were a roman gladiator, would you jump on a noble without at least the possiblity to say he punched you first :p ?

Most od AD&D I hated... for instance:

* The utterly incoherent thief skills adjustement for wearing armor. I mean, one should expect that a naked thief should get +0% (I mean, that's "ground level"). But no: a thief not wearing armor, got a plus of-if I remember correctly-+5%!! :confused: Shitty rule.
* The level limits and class restrictions on races were as lame as they could be. I especially remember the oh-so-green elves not being allowed to walk the druid path:D

There are LOADS of rules from the Storyteller sys I would put here, but I've found some VTM fans tend to engage in flame wars over this, so I'd better not. Let me just get this off: the whole combat system is incredibly pathetic.

Quote from: Ordo DraconisMost od AD&D I hated... for instance:

* The utterly incoherent thief skills adjustement for wearing armor. I mean, one should expect that a naked thief should get +0% (I mean, that's "ground level"). But no: a thief not wearing armor, got a plus of-if I remember correctly-+5%!! :confused: Shitty rule.

No. That's actually a genre-defining rule. It creates a psychological incentive in many players to have their thief wear leather, thus creating the leather-clad thief archetype. It doesn't slow down play, does't hinder the game in any way and thus, is a good rule.

Quote from: Ordo DraconisThe level limits and class restrictions on races were as lame as they could be. I especially remember the oh-so-green elves not being allowed to walk the druid path

The elves/druid thing are design decisions. That would be like saying the lack of a Necromancer class was a "bad rule". It's quite obvious with the "true neutral" limitations and racial limitations that they the Druid concept they were going for was quite rigid. I'll conceded it was not to everyone's liking, though.

I think that, especially with 3rd edition, WotC have realized that all "races" are basically humans (short, bearded, with pointy ears, tiny or big and ugly) because that's the way people will play them. They've also abandoned the idea to structure classes too much and let us come up with the limitations.

After all, Paladin are lawful good fighters and that's pretty much what a Dwarf is. I can't say I blame them for removing all the restrictions but at the same time, I think that was part of the charm of older editions. The strategic ramifications of choosing a race and then a class.


Don't forget that AD&D was still at the beginnings of this hobby. Yes, the game has glitches but they didn't have all that much to build on. They were pretty much inventing this stuff as they went along with few examples if any on how to achieve color, mechanical efficiency or fun. Considering all this, the game is a miracle, although I wouldn't play it nowadays.

I still vote for the class based initiative rule. It doesn't bother me that it's not realistic. RPGs are overflowing with rules that aren't realistic. What bothers me is that it's anti-realistic. It goes out of its way to ensure that the combat won't make any sense.

Bandits: Kill them all!

Nobleman: Pardon me, but I think you should let me walk over there and stab you before you take that shot. I'm Caesar's son's girlfriend's dog's former owner.

Bandit: Oh, I'm sorry sir, I didn't realize...

Quote from: Consonant DudeNo. That's actually a genre-defining rule. It creates a psychological incentive in many players to have their thief wear leather, thus creating the leather-clad thief archetype. It doesn't slow down play, does't hinder the game in any way and thus, is a good rule.

No, it is not. It's about as good as stating that "elves must have levels in wizard" just because the Fair Folk are a magical race in my setting. Rules MUST make sense, not only be useful, or people will ignore them, as was the case with level restrictions. And AD&D being the granddaddy doesn't make it "unotuchable" or less of a bad game as it certainly was. Which doesn't go to say I didn't play it a LOT.:D

Quote from: MelanFor me, it is those blasted personality mechanics. D&D alignment can be an useful shorthand (although it is too often taken too far, including otherwise respectable game designers), but when it becomes an actual, quantified thing, the game immediately loses its appeal to me. I recognise why others like it, but me? Never, ever.

Alignment is okay when it is simple.  Like the Law/Neutral/Chaos access in Basic D&D.  As it originally appeared in OD&D, alignment was little more than what side you would fight on.

But alignment languages was one of the worst ideas ever.

Quote from: Ordo DraconisNo, it is not. It's about as good as stating that "elves must have levels in wizard" just because the Fair Folk are a magical race in my setting. Rules MUST make sense,

What does that have to do with the armor rules for thieves? How are they not making sense? Or did you quote the wrong thing?

Quote from: Ordo Draconisor people will ignore them, as was the case with level restrictions.

That's bizarre. I never though of level restriction as "not making sense". What the fuck does that mean to the large majority of us who do not pretend to know the real deal about elves?

I'm not even going to debate that part anymore, as I find that level of geekiness unealthy and creepy and prefer to live in the real world. I'm still here for the thief discussion if you'd like.

Quote from: jrientsBut alignment languages was one of the worst ideas ever.

Yea, but luckily it was one of those things that was easy to drop without affecting the rest of the game.

Quote from: jrientsBut alignment languages was one of the worst ideas ever.

Yeah, I guess if they had fleshed it out, it could have been a weird, perhaps sustainable idea but as is, they were bland and sucked.

Quote from: jrientsBut alignment languages was one of the worst ideas ever.

With alignment spells and alignment based enchantments close on the heels. The silly thing is that similar things could have been done in a much cooler way.  Magic keyed to the target's native plane? Sure.  Cryptic languages of small, focused secretive cabals? Rocking!

Quote from: James McMurrayI still vote for the class based initiative rule. It doesn't bother me that it's not realistic. RPGs are overflowing with rules that aren't realistic. What bothers me is that it's anti-realistic. It goes out of its way to ensure that the combat won't make any sense.

Bandits: Kill them all!

Nobleman: Pardon me, but I think you should let me walk over there and stab you before you take that shot. I'm Caesar's son's girlfriend's dog's former owner.

Bandit: Oh, I'm sorry sir, I didn't realize...

WTF is "anti-realistic" except not matching reality?!?  English!!  If you want, say that it's more unrealistic than other rules, but don't make up words just for this.  

If the game turn order caused people later in the turn order to behave in screwy ways, then I'd have a much bigger problem with it.  But I have used arbitrary turn order (around the table clockwise) for most of my games with absolutely no problem, so I can't see what your problem is.  

Turn order is inherently an unrealistic abstraction.  It's not really true that one character acts while the other one sits still and bares their stomach, then the second character starts moving while the first one sits still and bares their stomach.  

Now, 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.  Dexterity 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.  Wargames 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.

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" :p

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.

Quote from: KrakaJakTHAC0

Made D&D 2 completely unplayable for me.

Quick question: had you played pre-THAC0 versions of D&D?  Because THAC0 made D&D much easier for my group.

Can I get a clarification, because I never played 2e? Isn't THAC0 just a number from which you derive the chance to hit other ACs? What's so hard about that?

Quote from: droogCan I get a clarification, because I never played 2e? Isn't THAC0 just a number from which you derive the chance to hit other ACs? What's so hard about that?

Some folks find subtracting negative numbers a real drag.

I blame the education system.

Quote from: jrientsQuick question: had you played pre-THAC0 versions of D&D?  Because THAC0 made D&D much easier for my group.

That's probably the most disturbing part about THAC0, it was an improvement. :o

Quote from: blakkieIs 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.

Yes, that's pretty much the system as I remember it. I didn't like GBoH, basically because I thought the initiative system was excessively gamey and unrealistic, at least as of the second game in the series, SPQR. So I sold off what I had of the series. But that's not entirely relevant.

The thing is, aside from the fact that both GBoH & the strategic card-driven systems that I mentioned require commanders to move troops, it's really not the same as using a command structure in an RPG, whose combat system is basically a version of a individual-level skirmish wargame. At that level, a wargame would be very wrong to have men move according to rank, or to have soldiers act each turn only after being "activated" by a commander. None of the games I know work that way, though. Instead I think it's more common for command to be treated separately from action. In other words, orders are given subject to command-control, and then a separate initiative system is used to determine when each unit carries out its orders. The sole exception is I do vaguely remember GBoH having a rule where a superior officer could activate a subordinate and then the subordinate could issue commands of his own. But again, GBoH is a bad example in my opinion.

There are ways I think "command" can be incorporated in skirmish-level initiative but not by having the Captain move first followed by Lieutenants then Sergeants then Privates.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYes, that's pretty much the system as I remember it. I didn't like GBoH, basically because I thought the initiative system was excessively gamey and unrealistic, at least as of the second game in the series, SPQR. So I sold off what I had of the series. But that's not entirely relevant.

I'd heard that, that a relatively small string of lucky/unlucky rolls could make a huge impact on the battlefield. The person mentioning it went on to say you might be able to partially justify that by the relatively poor communication and disipline in the armies of the day. But some of the artificats of losing initiative lead to wierdness such as units geting stuck midway on a long straight march to a easily identifiable goal. The units just don't aren't given the autonomous control they would realistically have had.

QuoteThere are ways I think "command" can be incorporated in skirmish-level initiative but not by having the Captain move first followed by Lieutenants then Sergeants then Privates.

Shadowrun 3 had that, the former not the later. Going off foggy memory here, but there was a Skill, Small Arms Tactics or something that a team member with a view of the fight and a communication link to teammates could give those teammates a bonus to their initiative rolls. There was also a cyberware implant and battle tech system that improved the aid the commander could give and also allowed a 2-way video/data link ala Aliens. IIRC it also brought in potential for feeding someone indirect firing aiming data via Smartlink, but that might have been a house rule?

EDIT: Agreed though, I'm definately of the "that kind of initiative just don't freakin' make sense" opinion.

No book to check to make sure, but I'm pretty sure that SR4 also has the skill. The Battle-TAC computer / cyberware isn't out yet, but presumably will make its appearance in Augmentation.

Quote from: blakkieBut some of the artificats of losing initiative lead to wierdness such as units geting stuck midway on a long straight march to a easily identifiable goal. The units just don't aren't given the autonomous control they would realistically have had.

This is one of the big problems. Markus Stumptner has probably done the best job of arguing the case against the system; a collection of some of his posts is here (http://patriot.net/~townsend/GBoH/gboh-critique.html).

QuoteShadowrun 3 had that, the former not the later. Going off foggy memory here, but there was a Skill, Small Arms Tactics or something that a team member with a view of the fight and a communication link to teammates could give those teammates a bonus to their initiative rolls.

Yes, this is pretty much what I'm thinking, though it could be expressed and justified in various ways depending on exactly how the initiative/action system works.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThere are ways I think "command" can be incorporated in skirmish-level initiative but not by having the Captain move first followed by Lieutenants then Sergeants then Privates.

Any suggestions?  It's hard for me to judge here, because I don't know what you're comparing it to.  For me, even arbitrary turn order is better than the Dex-based standard of many RPG systems (such as D&D/D20, Hero, and many others) at least as far as realism goes.  So I'd be interested to hear other ideas.

I dunno about any kind of command ability, but my preferred baseline for initiative is skill or awareness/perception (or both).

While not great, Thac0 was a big improvement.  No chart to remember.  Just know one data point and calculate from there.  D20 is pretty much the same but they reversed AC to get rid of negative AC and now you remember BAB (which, at lower levels is 20 - rolled needed to hit AC 20, the equivalent of old AC 0).

Quote from: jhkimAny suggestions?  It's hard for me to judge here, because I don't know what you're comparing it to.  For me, even arbitrary turn order is better than the Dex-based standard of many RPG systems (such as D&D/D20, Hero, and many others) at least as far as realism goes.  So I'd be interested to hear other ideas.

Well there is the one I gave above from SR3 where there is a separate command & control skill that can supplement each inidivual's. I checked into what James said about the Skill being there in SR4, and it doesn't seem to be there yet.  There is a Leadership in the core SR4 book, with a Tactics specialization (which is one of the specializations that there is only the name for, absolutely no explaination). But the Small Arms Tactics isn't there yet, I'd expect that to come out in a supplement.

Actually now that you mention it SR has long used a combination of "dex" and mental accuity, and implantations of course, for an initiative.  For example in SR4 it is based on Intuition (this is basically a perception stat, and is one of two stats split from the old INT) + Reaction (this 1/2 of the old DEX stat, the other being Agilitiy).  Neither of which impact how many actions you get, just who goes first.

Thanks, I forgot to check. But I could sewar I remember reading rules for someone using a skill to give others bonus initiative dice. I may have looked up the SR3 rules while thinking about an SR4 house rule though, and just confused the two.

Quote from: jhkimAny suggestions?  It's hard for me to judge here, because I don't know what you're comparing it to.  For me, even arbitrary turn order is better than the Dex-based standard of many RPG systems (such as D&D/D20, Hero, and many others) at least as far as realism goes.  So I'd be interested to hear other ideas.

What is it about Dex that you don't like?

Quote from: apparition13What is it about Dex that you don't like?

I don't know about jhkim, but personally dexterity (reflexes, reaction time, etc.) is not most important determinant of who acts first (or more importantly, most effectively) in combat. The ability to keep your head, maintain tactical awareness, anticipate events and know when the best time to act are much more important.

Quote from: WilI don't know about jhkim, but personally dexterity (reflexes, reaction time, etc.) is not most important determinant of who acts first (or more importantly, most effectively) in combat. The ability to keep your head, maintain tactical awareness, anticipate events and know when the best time to act are much more important.

Which is why I also suggested highest combat skill as an option in post 70. Personally, I like simultaneous opposed roles, which elimintates initiative entirely.

Quote from: apparition13Which is why I also suggested highest combat skill as an option in post 70. Personally, I like simultaneous opposed roles, which elimintates initiative entirely.

I actually prefer for there to be a skill - call it Combat Sense, Coolness Under Fire, whatever. Acting effectively in a combat situation is a skill just like any other that can be taught and improved upon. There are natural talents that can increase that effectiveness, for sure, but the base training or experience needs to be present.

Quote from: WilI actually prefer for there to be a skill - call it Combat Sense, Coolness Under Fire, whatever. Acting effectively in a combat situation is a skill just like any other that can be taught and improved upon. There are natural talents that can increase that effectiveness, for sure, but the base training or experience needs to be present.

That's actually why I specified highest combat skill.

Look at it this way. The NFL tends to grade quarterback in terms of arm strength, speed of release, accuracy and so forth. While those are significant, what really seperates successful from unsuccessful quarterbacks is their ability to read defenses, both before the snap while audibling, and after when reading coverages, identifying blitzes, seeing who is open, and making throwing decisions.  You don't need a seperate "field vision" stat, because you can't be a top quarterback without it.

The same thing applies to combat. Your 14th level fighter wouldn't have survived that long if he didn't have combat specific situational awareness, that situational awareness is subsumed in the skill level. (On a related note, this is why I also can't stand Perception attributes.)

Quote from: WilI don't know about jhkim, but personally dexterity (reflexes, reaction time, etc.) is not most important determinant of who acts first (or more importantly, most effectively) in combat. The ability to keep your head, maintain tactical awareness, anticipate events and know when the best time to act are much more important.

Much as hand-to-eye coordination has more to do with how good a bow/gun/sling shot you are in RL (said coordination is more a function of perception than physical agility). Most RPGs aren't about modeling reality in exact terms, they're about providing a playable facsimile.

Quote from: jdrakehMuch as hand-to-eye coordination has more to do with how good a bow/gun/sling shot you are in RL (said coordination is more a function of perception than physical agility). Most RPGs aren't about modeling reality in exact terms, they're about providing a playable facsimile.

Yeah, but the RPGs that I enjoy tie ranged weapons to Perception anyway (and have a Combat Sense skill for determining initiative). I admit it does depend on the goal of the rules and I always avoid using the world "realistic" when describing game systems. I prefer "returns results that are expected" ;)

G.I.Joe Rule, if Gabriel didn´t mention it already.

Quote from: WilI actually prefer for there to be a skill - call it Combat Sense, Coolness Under Fire, whatever. Acting effectively in a combat situation is a skill just like any other that can be taught and improved upon. There are natural talents that can increase that effectiveness, for sure, but the base training or experience needs to be present.

In Cyberpunk 2020 the SOLO class has a specialty skill called Combat Sense.  Basically it's added into their initiative roll.  The explanation was pretty much exactly like what has been talked about.  Being aware of the situation and knowing how to deal with it.

Quote from: peteramthorIn Cyberpunk 2020 the SOLO class has a specialty skill called Combat Sense.  Basically it's added into their initiative roll.  The explanation was pretty much exactly like what has been talked about.  Being aware of the situation and knowing how to deal with it.

One of CP2020's biggest failings is the existence of Roles, luckily they are  easily removed.

Quote from: jhkimAny suggestions?  It's hard for me to judge here, because I don't know what you're comparing it to.  For me, even arbitrary turn order is better than the Dex-based standard of many RPG systems (such as D&D/D20, Hero, and many others) at least as far as realism goes.  So I'd be interested to hear other ideas.

Others have made good suggestions so far. Depending on how you've handled "action sequencing" in the first place, I'd mainly think of handling "command" by offering a bonus to the side (or individual characters on that side) which has better training/leadership factors among its members. This could be justified through a combination of assuming some amount of in-combat communication and also that the group would have practiced their "plays" and discussed contingencies at various times before the combat.

Bearing in mind that the overall command/initiative/action system needs to be looked at wholistically, here's an idea off the top of my head. I'm assuming a fairly tactical game in the spirit of miniatures & wargames--even if space is somewhat abstracted.

1. At the start of each turn, every character chooses an action secretly, either writing it down or using a card placed face-down. Typical actions: close, withdraw, react, shoot, disengage, stand & fight, etc. Unless the group wants to be really strict about things, it's perfectly okay for players on the same "side" to share their plans with each other.

2. Each side gets a number of chits equal to the number of characters it has. The chits are placed in a cup. Each side also gets bonus chits for leadership factors. I haven't quite worked out whether characters who choose "stand & fight" or "react" should contribute to the chit pool.

3. Chits are drawn one at a time and the side whose chit comes up moves one character. Moving only applies to unengaged or disengaging characters and includes using a missile weapon. Melee attacks are not resolved until movement is done. Characters can only move once/per turn, so extra chits simply mean you're more able to move early in the turn. You can also pass on a chit, which gives more flexibility to the side with better leadership. Characters which shoot more than 1/turn is a little tricky. Maybe have a "second fire" phase at the end of the turn, or let them throw their chit back in after shooting.

4. Characters with the "react" command can move up to half their movement when an enemy comes with a certain distance, provided they can roll less than their "battle awareness". Reacting characters with missile weapons can similarly shoot at any enemy who moves into a hex within their normal (not extreme) range, provided they roll their "battle awareness". Reacting interrupts enemy movement. Not sure if you can react to a reaction. Whether or not you make your "battle awareness" roll, you're done for the turn.

5. Characters can try to "react" even if they don't have the appropriate command but it's harder, and they can only do it if they haven't already taken an action.

6. Melee combat is only resolved once all movement is complete, and is conducted through a single resolution (not "I swing, then you swing", more like a contest of skill followed by the winner damaging the loser). Not sure about this--maybe it could be done as part of movement, which makes stuff like overbearing a little more interesting.

If you want to get a little tricker you could say that characters only contribute their full leadership bonus when not engaged; otherwise they're not going to be able to devote as much attention to observing the combat and shouting stuff to the other characters.

Quote from: YamoExtra Attacks in BESM

That was going to be my post.  Tri-Stat was never a mechanically strong system and extra attacks was just the biggest and most notable example of the system falling down.  During the Silver Age Sentinels "playtest", I sought and received confirmation from the designers that they knew what Extra Attacks did in the game and that was the way it was supposed to work.  I still believe that there's a good game buried under everything that is wrong with Tri-Stat, but I doubt that we'll ever get to see it.

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

Yes. Stargate was a spycraft 1.0 variant.

Here's one I should have posted:

Powers-for-roleplaying-disads

especially the subset

Powers-for-bad-attitudes

The old version of this is the AD&D 1e Cavalier and Barbarian. Newer versions pop up in "disadvantage mechanics". Basically, you end up rewarding players for making characters that disrupt the game.