Let's clarify, re: winning.

The Initiative isn't about winning or losing. It doesn't indicate who is winning or losing, and doesn't automatically go to who is winning or losing. (Heck, on those rare occasions when neither side has the Initiative, one could still be winning. See Prokhorovka.)

The Initiative belongs to the side who is forcing the enemy to react to his choices. Who is disrupting his enemy's plans, time and again. Who is choosing when and how to attack, and watching the enemy flailing desperately as he tries to respond.

Winning an engagement only necessitates killing the enemy, capturing them, or driving them off. But Seizing the Initiative only ever happens when one side changes the terms of the engagement, by succeeding at some gambit that surprises, stuns, shocks, disorients, demoralizes, confuses, or otherwise unnerves or overwhelms their enemy.

This requires new tactics, an unexpected attack, a surprising and effective counter-attack, anything that forces the enemy to lose control of the combat. When one side disrupts the enemy's plans, and causes him confusion and consternation, they have Seized the Initiative.

It’s a separate issue from who wins or loses.

Let us suppose that, despite having the Initiative, you're getting your ass kicked. The enemy is just too strong numerically, and you're dying.

If you have the Initiative, you can retreat in good order, instead of routing (fleeing in disorganized panic). You withdraw, and the enemy can't stop you.

Even if you "lose", you lose on your terms. You maintain your force and can return to fight another day.

The Initiative is part what makes it possible to win (along with smart tactics, large numbers, good training, and good equipment). It isn't a prize for winning.

Which is why those Knight's don't have it, even at the end. They're still reacting to a situation their enemy set up.

And if the enemy is losing, he can retreat on his terms. The Knights can only react.

(Which is, again, cinematic. The Party kicks ass, then the Bad Guy slips away and lives to fight another day. Thats... perfect for an action movie game.)

Quote from: The Traveller;593902Or maybe cap the maximum number of mooks that receive the benefit, its open ended rules like this which crack under pressure.

Here's the problem: conceptually and mechanically, I don't see the need. If one side "gets there the fastest with the mostest", then they're doing their job. And if they Seize the Initiative, they should get the benefit.

I understand the idea of 100 orcs attacking a party of 4 players, each orc having a +5 bonus, can be frightening. It should be. You're fighting 5 centuries of orcs! And doing so while demoralized, disorganized, disoriented, overwhelmed, stunned, shaken, or surprised.

That's not a hole, that's a natural consequence of the actual in-game situation. People with hordes at their commands are going to kick all kinds of ass.

And if the players can contrive to be the ones with the horde... well, good on them. They've done a great job. They should see the benefits from it.

Players have done that to me before, unexpectedly gaining resources and using them well. I applaud such moves, it's when I have the most fun as GM. Players should be rewarded for that.

Quote from: The Traveller;593902Not just that, I'd have a look at the mechanics of how the intitiative is gained

Absolutely. Foremost in my mind.

Quote from: The Traveller;593902given the amount of options available in any given combat, its not easy to create a few categories and call them "winning" or "losing" in the middle of battle, but that's what you have to do in order to make it work without potential exploits.

This part confuses me. I'm not sure what you mean by it. Please feel free to clarify the above, or identify any other holes (or corner cases) you see.

BTW, the Reinforcements issue was definitely a hole. My current idea is that, if reinforcements were participating in the battle, just not on the field yet, they are fully affected by the Advantage bonus.

If, on the other hand, they are a wholly new addition to one side they have 1 round of actions where the Advantage doesn’t count against them. They can attempt to Seize, or do whatever. If they fail to Seize, after that round they are fully affected by the Advantage.

(The alternative is tracking Advantage separately for each group. Which is a “hells no”. That’s just way too complicated.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;594103This part confuses me. I'm not sure what you mean by it. Please feel free to clarify the above, or identify any other holes (or corner cases) you see.

Well I mean specifically which actions by which involved parties lead to gaining the intiative. Is it just the highest roll on any vaguely combat related skill used on the enemy by one member of a group? I may have picked it up wrongly, but if so it does seem to be exploitable, given the huge number of potential combat related rolls that could be made, some of which will probably end up being counterintuitive, especially when you factor magic into the picture.

It might be safer to have certain events which trigger an initiative change, then categorise actions within these trigger events. A particularly heroic action for example, or a hard core of fighters that refuse to move - they may not have rolled higher than anyone but they aren't dying, and as such rally everyone else around them, allowing the intiative to be regained. Again the system may already encompass this concept, do clarify if so.

Some corner cases a game designer might never come across with a few playtesters, but when released to the wider population become not just an issue but emblematic of the system, there are some famous examples from popular games, which I might add didn't unduly affect the popularity of the games. In engineering we call it a "murder board", where your peers gleefully try to kick the hell out of your theories and designs. Development forums like this one should work the same way really.

Really though the only one qualified to pick them out in advance is the designer, but you need to aggressively tackle and try to destroy your own system by the numbers, not with reference to historical events. The minor issues I've mentioned here are just from my basic understanding of the methods applied, there may be no other issues or there may be something else.

The reward for this irritating work burdening those at the edge of unusual mechanics of course is a graceful and smooth new system that's a joy to use in all situations.

Quote from: The Traveller;594219Well I mean specifically which actions by which involved parties lead to gaining the intiative. Is it just the highest roll on any vaguely combat related skill used on the enemy by one member of a group?

No. The usual array of attacks count, but so do 5 specific Combat Interaction skills.

Those skills, and only those skills (except in extreme circumstances, GM's call), count for Seizing the Initiative, Pressing the Advantage, and Countering a Press.

The CI skills are:

Attribute - CI Skill
Strength - overbear
Dexterity - maneuver
Endurance - none
Intellect - trick
Influence - taunt
Spirit - intimidate

Why have CI skills?

1.) Cinematic moments. They encourage players to taunt their enemies, to try and trick them, to intimidate them. These are more interesting than hack and slash, and more cinematic.

Every action-movie fight is broken up with people making fun of each other, trying to scare the other guy ("Do you feel lucky? Well, punk, do ya?"), and so forth. By making them combat-viable options, such actions are encouraged.

2.) Everyone has a weakness. That villain? Temper. Taunt him, and he will freak out and attack. The Vizier? Secretly a coward. Intimidate him, and he will give himself away.

No one has super-levels in CI skills, so everyone has a weakness. If you can suss it out.

3.) Encourage non-lethal strategies. Not all combats have to be a fight to the death. CI's mean non-lethal strategies can work.

4.) Synergies with physical attacks. But, often enough, non-lethal strategies work best in concert with physical attacks. Trick the bad guy, keep him monologuing, until you're in position to attack. Then kick the shit out of him.

5.) Give non physical characters ways to contribute in combat. Super-scientist, but klutzy? Use your intelligence to trick the bad guys into giving themselves away, or look the wrong way, or make some other mistake.

6.) Discourage dump-stats. Charisma (Influence, in my game) is useless, right? Doesn't do shit for you. Dump all the points and put them into Dexterity or Strength. Only... without Influence, you are easily taunted. Oops. Now you're the weak link.

Those are the game design reasons. But all these skills have real-world application as well. Trick's are a constant in war (Patton's fake army). Intimidation is potent — take the Rebel Yell, the Stuka's siren, or Mongol tactics.

Again, cinematic and realistic are compatible. And, since they're realistic, they are not distantly related skills, but 5 specific non-lethal skills chosen to play an important part in Initiative.

Quote from: The Traveller;594219A particularly heroic action for example, or a hard core of fighters that refuse to move - they may not have rolled higher than anyone but they aren't dying, and as such rally everyone else around them, allowing the intiative to be regained.

Those are definitely potential examples that fall under GM's Call. Any event, so long as it qualifies under the criteria I posted in the earlier message, can be an opportunity to Seize the Initiative.

(And a "Rally the Troops" moment, using the leadership skill, might be a good example to include. Makes Influence important for a leader, makes high-Influence characters more likely to become leaders.)

Do I need better guidelines? Sure. But, as I go through my looming Alpha playtest I hope to be able to explain and formulate those guidelines better.

In this case, I'm afraid, it will take testing and experience.

Quote from: The Traveller;594219Some corner cases a game designer might never come across with a few playtesters, but when released to the wider population become not just an issue but emblematic of the system

Glass-Jaw Ninja. 'Nuff said.

Quote from: The Traveller;594219In engineering we call it a "murder board", where your peers gleefully try to kick the hell out of your theories and designs. Development forums like this one should work the same way really.

I'm currently putting together my Alpha Test document, and I have an entire Author's note urging participants to do just this:

It’s time to be brutal. What Destiny needs, what I’m asking for from the Alpha Playtesters, is to tear this shit up. Criticize it. Condemn it. Beat it down and tear it apart.

Kick its ass. You’ll be doing me a favor.

Quote from: The Traveller;594219Development forums like this one should work the same way really.

When I finish the Alpha Test rules, I intend to post them here, to get feedback. After 2 weeks of that, it's on to the playtest.

Quote from: The Traveller;594219The reward for this irritating work burdening those at the edge of unusual mechanics of course is a graceful and smooth new system that's a joy to use in all situations.

Well, the best I can do is the best I can do. I'm starting a playtest, hopefully within the next month, so we'll see how it goes.

But rest assured, I am doing my best to think shit through.