Initiative and gunfights

Ghost Whistler · February 03, 2013, 12:35:45 PM

FFS, i've cooked too much rice and the chicken's a bit underdone.

Anyway, I'm working on a system that uses the premise of deciding the order of actions based on the results of the action roll: so who score most successes goes first.

However, when it comes to gunfights, does this really make sense? It seems appropriate for two guys going toe to toe queensbury's rules, but for a couple of shootists doing the John Woo thing?

Brad J. Murray · February 03, 2013, 01:42:50 PM

The best I've come up with for this is to encode initiative into the dice, but not strictly related to success. This is easy to do with a dice system like ORE, for example, where the axis that determines who goes first doesn't need to be the same axis as the one that determines success (and for that matter another axis can code something again, like hit location).

(ORE rolls a mitt full of dice based on skill and stat and results are encoded in sets -- length of the set and value of the set, for example)

Ladybird · February 03, 2013, 02:10:04 PM

Sounds good. If you're using a skill check as your combat roll, part of a skill is learning how to react under particular stressful circumstances; that knowledge lets you take the initiative and react more decisively than those without the skill, who comparatively dither.

It means that you lose "he shoots first... he misses!", though. Is this an acceptable trade-off for your game?

It also makes fights a lot more deadly, if he who acts best acts first.

Ghost Whistler · February 03, 2013, 02:29:35 PM

the system for opposed rolls (like combat) proposes merely comparing successes. This of course means that both combatatns firing at each other will hit, unless one party gets no successes. Instead it's just who hits first. I'm not sure that reflects Inspector Tequila gunplay.

Ghost Whistler · February 03, 2013, 02:30:41 PM

Quote from: Brad J. Murray;624482The best I've come up with for this is to encode initiative into the dice, but not strictly related to success. This is easy to do with a dice system like ORE, for example, where the axis that determines who goes first doesn't need to be the same axis as the one that determines success (and for that matter another axis can code something again, like hit location).

(ORE rolls a mitt full of dice based on skill and stat and results are encoded in sets -- length of the set and value of the set, for example)

Yeah, i'm not sure that really appeals. ORE is just fiddly and lots of dice. Measuring heights and widths is not gaming, it's DIY.

Daddy Warpig · February 03, 2013, 03:53:25 PM

Quote from: Ladybird;624492It means that you lose "he shoots first... he misses!", though.

According to accounts of historical gunfighters, the person to draw first and shoot in a face-off was often the one who was rattled. He panics, draws, and shots in that state (likely missing). Then the calm guy draws and shoots.

All the time? No. But it did happen.

Ladybird · February 03, 2013, 04:53:18 PM

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624511According to accounts of historical gunfighters, the person to draw first and shoot in a face-off was often the one who was rattled. He panics, draws, and shots in that state (likely missing). Then the calm guy draws and shoots.

All the time? No. But it did happen.

It's not really a realism question, though. It's a question as to what makes a better game; there isn't a "right" or "wrong" answer, it will vary every time.

I'd also say that a firefight and a pistol duel are different situations, and deserve different mechanics. In a setting where duels were a common thing, I'd want the mechanics for them to be more detailed than the regular combat system, and to include that "rattled" element... which I probably wouldn't want in a regular firefight (Although I would maybe want morale).

Bill · February 05, 2013, 03:56:58 PM

I would want speed to be disconnected with accuracy. Some gunfighters might have both, but most would have different amounts of each.

Spinachcat · February 05, 2013, 06:41:07 PM

Quote from: Bill;625223I would want speed to be disconnected with accuracy. Some gunfighters might have both, but most would have different amounts of each.

Yes.

L5R 1e had a good system for speed vs. accuracy in katana duels.

jibbajibba · February 05, 2013, 08:12:06 PM

having played a lot of Boot Hill ......

From a game perspective the dual steps of draw and shoot make for a more tense game. In addition giving increase speed for decreased accuracy is a nice pay off.

If you are talking about trying to implement "For a Better Tomorrow 2" into a shoot out then the best way to generate that sort of chaos is a tick based initiative model that drops rounds.

Ghost Whistler · February 09, 2013, 11:28:55 AM

Quote from: jibbajibba;625327having played a lot of Boot Hill ......

From a game perspective the dual steps of draw and shoot make for a more tense game. In addition giving increase speed for decreased accuracy is a nice pay off.

If you are talking about trying to implement "For a Better Tomorrow 2" into a shoot out then the best way to generate that sort of chaos is a tick based initiative model that drops rounds.

something like feng shui then...

not a bad idea. But the problem I always had was with players that never paid attention to their shot, costs, and who could act when.