Quick recap: I'm an amateur game designer, building my own RPG (the Destiny Gaming System). Because there's a critical shortage of both, don't you know.

This is the first actual post of mechanics from the game. The nice, sane, sensible part of my brain says I should start with the basics: what dice I use, attributes, skills, etc.

The gonzo parts says that's boring, people won't give a shit, and nobody will bother to read your damn posts. You want an audience, so you can get feedback. Post something with some novelty value, at least. Draw people in, give them a reason to read your rambling forum posts.

Yeah, Gonzo won. So, here's the initiative system.

Initiative

Initiative in RPG's is all about who goes first. Shadowrun's "roll every round", d20's "roll once for the whole combat" and Torg's "flip a Drama Deck Card". Sometimes it's individual, sometimes a group. But it's all about who goes first.

So far, so standard. Here's where it gets weird.

Initiative, in real-world combat, is about this: making decisions faster than your enemy, taking actions to press your advantage, keeping them off balance, and using their confusion to defeat them.

Bill Whittle, on two pilots in a dogfight:

QuoteBoth pilots observe, orient, decide, act. But Blue is faster. [He has the Initiative.]

While Red is still orienting himself, Blue has already chosen a maneuver and executed it. This renders Red’s previous orientation useless: Blue is no longer where he was a moment before.

Red must re-orient so he can make a new decision. Out of rising panic he commits to an action that may have been appropriate [moments] ago, but which is now – no other word for it – obsolete.

Blue sees the confusion and delay. He decides and acts again. His advantage increases.

To Red, Blue appears psychic, magical, demonic: able to read his mind, anticipate his every move. The more this goes on the more rattled, confused and demoralized Red becomes.

Blue owns the initiative, and he will never give it back.

That is how conflict works. The Initiative isn't about who goes first, it's about who is in control of the conflict. One side is making decisions and acting, the other reacting. Those reacting will eventually lose.

The same principles apply to individual duels, mass battlefield maneuvers, an entire war, even business conflicts. And these principles are reflected in the game's mechanics.

Initiative Mechanic

In open conflicts (assume combat for now), the participants are divided into heroes (the PC's and allies) and villains (bad guys and their allies.) At any given point in time, one side can have The Initiative, the other can, or neither can.

The Initiative can switch back and forth at any point, but once you have it, you keep it. Until you relinquish it voluntarily (in return for unique bonuses) or the enemy manages to Seize the Initiative and take it away from you.

The Initiative represents having taken control of the pace of the combat. You are on the attack, you are making decisions and acting, and the enemy is reacting to your decisions.

Each combat round, one group acts first (as a group), the other second. At its most basic, The Initiative is the right to chose which phase you will act in: first or second.

Each round you keep The Initiative, your enemy will grow more demoralized and more confused. This is represented by an Advantage bonus (as you have the Advantage in the engagement): each round you Press the Attack (manage to affect the enemy directly), you gain a +1 bonus to all attacks next round and a +1 bonus to your defense.

This bonus is cumulative. If you Press the Attack for two rounds, on round three you have a +2 bonus. However, if you let a round go without Pressing the Attack, the bonus decreases by 1.

Here's an example:

Round 1: You have the Initiative. Advantage bonus of +0. Succeed in an attack (thus successfully "Pressing the Attack").
Round 2: Advantage bonus of +1. Succeed in an attack.
Round 3: Advantage bonus of +2. Fail to Press the Attack (all attacks fail).
Round 4: Advantage bonus of +1.

Even if your Bonus drops to 0, you still keep The Initiative. The only way for the enemy to gain The Initiative is to Seize it or for you to voluntarily relinquish it.

There are other associated mechanics, on Seizing the Initiative and Counter-Attacking, but I want to address a question.

Why?

It isn't about "realism." In RPG's, that usually denotes more complex mechanics that seek to ever-more accurately depict the physical laws governing firearm discharge, swordplay, and other such events.

Instead, this rule (and many others in the system) is about presenting players with mechanics that represent the psychological realities of situations they are likely unfamiliar with, such as the experience of disorientation and confusion caused by being ambushed.

The intent isn't to inflict those states on the players, but to give them mechanics which represent what the characters are experiencing. When the PC's have Initiative and press the attack, their advantage in the engagement grows and grows. The enemy is confused and can't seem to shoot straight (bonus to PC's defense), meanwhile the PC's know where they are or will be and can target them with pinpoint accuracy (bonus to PC's attack).

Conversely, when the enemy has the Initiative and Presses the Attack, the players will find them harder to hit and will find the enemies can hit them easier. This motivates the PC's to Seize the Initiative, to be aggressive, to take charge of the combat and take the fight to the enemy.

That's what combatants should be experiencing. They should want to attack the enemy and press the attack until the enemy is defeated.

The mechanics reflect what happens to combatants, and encourage players to take the mindset of people in combat. (Remember, Destiny is an action-movie game. Gun-battles are par for the course. Of course, the Initiative applies in situations other than just combat.)

This is the "realism" of Destiny: trying to make the fictional game world seem real. Trying to present a vivid experience.

I want to engage people's imaginations and emotions. I want the game to be vivid, visceral, and memorable.

The mechanics of the game are intended, as much as possible, to reflect experiential reality, to reinforce it. To help the players understand what people in similar situations might see, hear, and feel.

This extends even to unrealistic events:

• What is it like to touch a sleeping dragon?
• What does it feel like to cast a thunderstrike spell?
• What is it like to commune with a living god?

The game doesn’t focus on being a comprehensive physics simulator (though the mechanics do reflect physical realities). Instead, the game focuses on aiding players and GM’s in creating and depicting a fictional world, helping them to imagine what it might feel like to live in such a place. It encourages them (by example, mainly) to use their own imaginations to describe to themselves and each other what the fictional world is like, and what it's like to live in it.

Vividness, not complexity is the goal.

Which is why the Initiative system has nothing to do with who goes first, and everything to do with what it's like to try and take control, and keep control, of a single combat, whole battle, entire war, or any number of other, similar situations.

Is that gonzo enough for you?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;500233In open conflicts (assume combat for now), the participants are divided into heroes (the PC's and allies) and villains (bad guys and their allies.) At any given point in time, one side can have The Initiative, the other can, or neither can.

How would your system deal with a conflict involving more than two "sides"? At the moment, your list of initiative states is:

* Heroes have initiative
* Villains have initiative
* Nobody has initiative

If we introduce a third side into the mix, do they have to be lumped in with one of the other two sides (In other words, your system specifically says "no, such a conflict is impossible") or does your list of possible initiative states become:

* Heroes have initiative
* Villains have initiative
* Neutral side has initiative
* Nobody has initiative

If your system can cope with multiple (3+) groups in a conflict, how do Initiative Advantage bonuses work, and how does the turn sequence work - the side with initiative would get the first / second / third choice, but who gets first pick of the remaining two options?

("My design doesn't allow for that!" is a perfectly valid answer, by the way, as long as you've thought about how that will affect how the game plays.)

Quote from: Ladybird;500256How would your system deal with a conflict involving more than two "sides"?

First, it's a good question. It's a reasonable question. It's one I hadn't thought about.

My instinct is to go with the most straightforward ruling. In any conflict, only 1 side has the Initiative. Everyone else is reacting.

Thus, if there are 3 or 4 or more factions, only 1 will have it and only they gain the Advantage. Everyone else acts in the other half of the round.

So, if there are Heroes, Villains, and Peasants (who don't care who wins, they just want the violent buggers gone), only one of them has the Initiative.

Suppose it's Heroes. They can choose to go first or second. The other two groups act simultaneously. (Technically, the rule is "in descending order of Dexterity", but that was a detail the above mechanical description didn't need.)

So, if you don't have the Initiative, combat is a bloody mess. (In the American sense of the word.) Things are happening all around you, it's confusing, and nobody seems to be in charge.

Applied this way, you could handle, say, a 7 on 1 duel, Gladiator-style. Each combatant is on his own "side". At any given moment, only 1 of the 8 has the Initiative, and the others are trying to Seize it or kill the guy. He acts when he wishes, the others all act in the other half of the round, in descending order of Dexterity.

Quote from: Ladybird;500256If we introduce a third side into the mix, do they have to be lumped in with one of the other two sides

It's not that they join the other side. The Peasants, for example, don't have to team up with the Villains. It's that the Peasants and Villains act simultaneously, in the same half of the round. Which is chaotic, and apt.

(And neither side having the Initiative is just as chaotic. Everybody, Heroes and Villains, acts at the same time, in descending order of Dexterity.)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;500262My instinct is to go with the most straightforward ruling. In any conflict, only 1 side has the Initiative. Everyone else is reacting.

Gotcha! That totally works, and in the case of the villains and peasants being in the same initiative block, you've got a great chaotic situation if the two fight each other (Although in this situation, if both the villains and peasants are under the GM's control, you should think of this in how you design combat actions; you don't want the GM to be spending too much time purely interacting with himself, as opposed to interacting with the other players).

What about if some members of the side with initiative want to act before the side(s) without, and some want to act after? Your system effectively has three "action phases" in a combat round (Initiative side can act, non-initiative side acts, initiative side acts if they haven't already), but you can relatively simply convert that to:

* Phase 1: Characters in the side with initiative have the option of acting, in high to low Dex order
* Phase 2: Characters in the side(s) without initiative have the option of acting, in high to low Dex order
* Phase 3: Characters in the side with initiative who have not acted in phase 1 have the option of acting, in high to low Dex order

It's less important when the groups are smaller, but for a group of PC's you're looking at 4 - 6 characters (Generally) each controlled by their own player with their own plan. It also reinforces the control that the initiative side has over the situation.

This lets the side with initiative do things like draw their opponents into ambushes (Some characters set up suppressive fire in phase 1, targets flee in phase 2, ambushing characters act in phase 3).

Quote from: Ladybird;500293What about if some members of the side with initiative want to act before the side(s) without, and some want to act after?

That's actually handled by a different rule: the "Hold Action" action. Everybody else in the Heroes side (say) goes first, and those who want to wait hold their action until later in the round. So you can do this:

1. Heroes go first. They taunt the bad guys and run away.
2. Villains run after them, around a corner.
3. As soon as the other Heroes, in hiding, see the Villains, they shoot.
4. Surviving villains can take their turn.

A Held Action is, in effect, an "interrupt." The character can take action at any point during the other half of the round, even interrupting a Villain's action. ("If he goes for his gun, I lasso him.") There's no penalty for this, the character just declares that it's what they're going to do. Instead of acting in the normal phase, they just wait.

Again, this is the simplest, most direct rule and it enables a host of complex strategies, without itself being a complex rule.

QuoteBill Whittle, on two pilots in a dogfight:

Both pilots observe, orient, decide, act. But Blue is faster. [He has the Initiative.]

While Red is still orienting himself, Blue has already chosen a maneuver and executed it. This renders Red’s previous orientation useless: Blue is no longer where he was a moment before.

Red must re-orient so he can make a new decision. Out of rising panic he commits to an action that may have been appropriate [moments] ago, but which is now – no other word for it – obsolete.

Blue sees the confusion and delay. He decides and acts again. His advantage increases.

To Red, Blue appears psychic, magical, demonic: able to read his mind, anticipate his every move. The more this goes on the more rattled, confused and demoralized Red becomes.

Blue owns the initiative, and he will never give it back.

That is exactly how initiative in my air combat rpgs work. Until one side gains the advantage, both sides are blind, and submit written maneuvers on paper simultaneously. Once one player has the advantage, he can wait and see what the other guy is doing, then match it to retain advantage, or break off.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;500306Once one player has the advantage, he can wait and see what the other guy is doing, then match it to retain advantage, or break off.

In the game terms of this system, he holds his action until he sees the enemy begins there's, then interrupts it. Waiting to see that they will do, then fouling it up, is a strong option granted by Having the Initiative.

And having the same done to you sucks balls. Which encourages aggressive attempts to Seize and Maintain the Initiative, as wll as increase your Advantage bonus.

Quote from: flyingmice;500306That is exactly how initiative in my air combat rpgs work.

And here's the secret: that's how Initiative works in all forms of combat and conflict.

• On the western front, the Hero generals gather men and material, taking their time until they have assembled a huge invasion force. Just when the cache of gasoline and shells is assembled, their opponent, a wily Villain bastard, attacks at a time unanticipated, breaks through, and captures the supplies. Repeat four or five times, until the enemy Villain general is recalled to the capitol and executed for treason.

[Game terms: act second, keep initiative, strike when enemy has amassed supplies.]

• Our Hero, a tramp starship captain is goaded into a sword duel with a much more experienced opponent (and the captain knows nothing of how to use a sword). He makes a valiant effort to attack, and the opponent lets him attack, easily parrying or dodging his blows, just to mock him. Then he strikes, wounding the captain in a precise spot intended to cause him to bleed out, weaken, and faint.

[Game terms: mock enemy, pressing the attack with a taunt, keeping the initiative and increasing their advantage. Strike when the bonus is high enough.]

• A lawyer is interrogating a hostile witness. She asks question after question, which he cannot answer. Then, when he is at his most confused, she goes in for the kill: "You did kill her, didn't you?" Confused, desperate, on the verge of tears the witness confesses.

[Game terms: Has the initiative, keeps the witness off balance with unexpected questions ("pressing the attack"), until their Advantage bonus is so big, they can "kill" the witness by getting him to confess.]

• A small, but nimble company with a devoted fanbase releases a new device into the market. It is 2-5 years ahead of the competition, and they rush to sell their own clones. By the time their devices have reached market, the nimble company has released a new version, upping the ante both in specs and features. Again, they are a year behind. The bad thing is, it wouldn't be enough just to match the next year's offering; they'd have to produce something so compelling, it disrupts the marketplace like the nimble company did. Until then, they are treading water, vulnerable to the next innovation or product the nimble company introduces.

[Game terms: Nimble company seized the Initiative, and the other companies are trying to keep up. Until they can succeed well enough to Seize the Initiative on their own, the best they can do is prevent the Advantage bonus from growing bigger.]

Initiative is the key to all (or nearly all) conflicts. Not just in the game, in the real world. Sports. Negotiations. Business competition. Individual duels. Interrogations. (Good cop/Bad cop? Keep the suspect off balance, keep Pressing the Attack and increasing the Advantage bonus.)

It's called the OODA loop, developed by Col. "Forty Second" Boyd and it depends on agility (the ability to make and implement decisions quickly) and aggressiveness. (Hence the title of the post.) It is the key to commanding the battlespace.

This mechanic will be the basis for all conflicts, from hostile social interactions to global-scale war. And it's suited for them. That's why I like it.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;500319It's called the OODA loop, developed by Col. "Forty Second" Boyd and it depends on agility (the ability to make and implement decisions quickly) and aggressiveness. (Hence the title of the post.) It is the key to commanding the battlespace.

This mechanic will be the basis for all conflicts, from hostile social interactions to global-scale war. And it's suited for them. That's why I like it.

My air combat rpgs are all built on Boyd's theories - both OODA and ACM.

-clash

Interesting--I like the idea, but it seems complex, how do you manage to do this and handle it "simply?"

I've found (for my groups) complexity doesn't offer any reward for being complex that simpler methods could achieve and give similar enjoyable results, faster.

I for one don't like to track round to round initiative in any game, I prefer to get one side going first the entire combat, unless something significant changes.

Quote from: Silverlion;500370Interesting--I like the idea, but it seems complex,

I believe the mechanics are simple enough in concept. I could be wrong. It is exactly as complex as this:

One side has Initiative and chooses when to act, until the other seizes it. I intend to reflect this with a physical token, an actual something that can be passed back and forth. Which side has the Initiative is obvious: they have the token.

Also, the side with Initiative can gain an Advantage bonus, if they press the attack. I intend to use a d10, 0-9, to represent this. (Perhaps one of the comically large ones, if I can find it.)

Round 1, the dice reads 0. Each round they press the attack, it goes up by one and the DM turns the dice to 1, 2, 3. If they lose a point, the DM turns the dice back.

Both those rules are simple in concept and able to be represented in visually obvious ways. There is no need to consult complex tables, or ask which is which.

The key is this: Simple rules which are obvious to use, that allow for (but don't mandate) complex strategies if the players wish.

(To the maximum extent possible, this is my design mantra. Simple rules, obvious to use, that allow for complex options.)

I concede this may be too complex for some people. That's a matter of taste and I'd have to be the biggest jerk in existence to insist that my personal taste is perfect or objectively correct.

IMHO, it's much less complicated than, say, 1e Shadowrun (which I loved) and other systems. YMMV.

Quote from: Silverlion;500370I've found (for my groups) complexity doesn't offer any reward for being complex that simpler methods could achieve and give similar enjoyable results, faster.

This may be too complex for some people. I accept that. But I know of no system that gives similar rewards, either mechanically or experientially.

(RPG's exist to provide an experience. In the main, being able to experience a fictional world. The mechanics of the game encourage different experiences.)

Quote from: Silverlion;500370I for one don't like to track round to round initiative in any game, I prefer to get one side going first the entire combat, unless something significant changes.

YMMV. That is quite common in, I believe, FATE. If that's what you prefer, go for it.

Your game, your rules, your fun. Screw anybody else.

I prefer an initiative system that reflects combat psychology in a simple, but robust way and which also allows the conflict system to reflect many other situations besides straight up killin'.

Quote from: flyingmice;500351My air combat rpgs are all built on Boyd's theories - both OODA and ACM.

And they do. I didn't mean to slight your research or knowledge. Your mechanics match that theory and sound quite fun.

I was just trying to illustrate that the very same principles you (and I) have implemented underlie all (or nearly all) conflicts, not just the air-combat example I gave.

In fact, here's another real-world example. In this case, neither side had the Initiative:

Prokhorovka, July 1943. One of the biggest tank battles in history, involving 600 Nazi and Soviet tanks, started by accident when two maneuvering forces ran into each other while trying to get to other places.

Neither side tried to take control of the battle, they both were trying to disengage and get the hell away, but ended up shooting the crap out of each other anyway. Neither side had the initiative. Both had complete surprise.

Soviet General Rotmistrov:

"The Soviet tanks thrust into the German advanced formation at full speed and penetrated the German tank screen. The [Soviet] T-34s were knocking out [German] Tigers at extremely close range ... The tanks of both sides were in the closest possible contact. There was neither time nor room to disengage from the enemy and reform in battle order or operate in formation. ... Frequently, when a tank was hit, its ammunition and fuel blew up, and torn-off turrets were flung through the air over dozens of yards. ... Soon the whole sky was shrouded by the thick smoke of the burning wrecks. On the black, scorched earth the gutted tanks burned like torches.

"It was difficult to establish which side was attacking and which defending."

Total chaos. Utter confusion, neither side being organized or having any control over the pace or tactics of the battle, just reacting to events as they occur. Shooting at the same time, moving at the same time.

In game terms: all involved characters act in order of highest to lowest Dex. For example: Villain, then Hero, then Villain, then Hero, another Hero, last a group of Villains.

This isn't something that happens often, nor should it. Exhilarating, but deadly.

It only ends when everybody dies, everybody runs away, or one side successfully Seizes the Initiative.

This system works as a plausible simulation of reality and mechanically, it aids in creating a vivid experience.

I've finding it an interesting read, since I wasn't familiar with Boyd's theories previously. Still, I think you have to be careful overgeneralizing. Axiomatically having advantage means you're winning, but its also possible that many combats may not have a clear winner - just going first isn't enough, you also have to actually deliver a "surprise" to the loser?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;500461Still, I think you have to be careful overgeneralizing. Axiomatically having advantage means you're winning, but its also possible that many combats may not have a clear winner

I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean, but I'm going to try and respond to the general sense of it.

Not all conflicts have a clear winner or loser. That's true. But I think you're confusing the tactics and mindset integral to fighting a battle with the outcome of that same battle.

In an individual combat, in a battle, in a theatre, in a war, one side has the Initiative. It is key to winning the engagement.

"[T]he commander with the best agility [situation flexibility] gains the initiative. It is the commander who can fight his fight - that is, setting the terms of battle and not allowing the enemy to recover - who will be the winner. [G]aining and maintaining the initiative clearly the most important tenet [of battle doctrine]."

The Initiative can and does shift. In fact, that's integral to the gameplay of this system: Counter-attacking, so as to Seize the Initiative. (Those rules are omitted because, let's face it, it was a long enough post of a mechanic that radically re-envisions what "initiative" means to most gamers. I'll post those bits by and by.)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;500461just going first isn't enough,

Initiative doesn't determine who goes first. It determines who has the choice to go first.

And even that's a side-effect of its real meaning and purpose: forcing the enemy to react to your choices. Disrupting his plans, time and again. Chosing when and how to attack, and watching him flailing vainly as he tries to respond. You are in control of the tempo, venue, and possible tactics of the battle.

(How? By deciding how to attack, you limit their potential responses. If you attack via infowar, they must concentrate on computer-based tactics. If you attack at night, they fight at night. If you throw a grenade, they have to scatter. Your ability to make decisions drives the engagement. It gives you the power to attack where they don't expect, in ways they are not prepared to defend against. Keep it up, and they will become ever more disorganized, ever more confused, ever more panicked. They are your bitch.)

Initiative (and the associated mechanics) is about the struggle to achieve this control. Achieve it and maintain it, and reap the benefits, or take it away from your enemy, to neutralize their advantage.

Which is what "Initiative" actually means. Setting the pace, being clear-headed and (God help me) pro-active.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;500461you also have to actually deliver a "surprise" to the loser?

Winning an engagement only necessitates killing the enemy, capturing them, or driving them off. A "surprise" may not be necessary, just to win.

But Seizing the Initiative definitely requires some kind of "surprise", in the sense of making an attack that gives you the Initiative (thus representing the opponent being disoriented and stunned, shaken, or surprised.)

So, that's necessary to Seize the Initiative, 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.

The Initiative isn't about who is winning or loosing. Or even who is going first or last.

It's about who gets to make and implement their strategy, and who can't. Even if you "lose", you lose on your terms. You maintain your force and can return to fight another day.

This is a classic guerrilla raid. Hit the enemy, destroy the one important target, flee into the jungle. You didn't kill all them, or get them to surrender. But you had a goal, seized and kept The Initiative, and achieved the goal.

That's what this mechanic represents (in part.)
 

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;500461Still, I think you have to be careful overgeneralizing.

All game mechanics generalize. All of them. This one does generalize, but according to a key real-world principle. Most importantly, the mechanic aids in creating a vivid and entertaining experience.

It's fun to try and gain and keep the Initiative. It's a reward for clever play and sheer bravado. To see the GM surrender his Initiative token, to see the NPC's become the disorganized, overwhelmed opposition, to overcome great challenges and take the fight to them. That's all fun.

Or so I believe.

So one is tracking an irregular initiative order? The fact that its irregular makes it more complex than a steady "Do this...now." Type initiative. Mind you the same goes for two anal-retentive phase tracking systems.

Quote from: Silverlion;500491So one is tracking an irregular initiative order?

This mechanic boils down to: You have the Initiative. Do you wish to go first or second this round?

That's a simple question, and a simple mechanic. There's no "tracking" needed, it's just a choice.

Given the breadth of choices in RPG's (Which spell to cast this round? Am I still under the effect of that other spell? What gun should I use? Which feat do I take? Do I attack with melee or ranged? Do I attack with lethal or non-lethal damage?), I do not think the ability to chose from two options makes it an unduly complex system.

Just my opinion.

As for "irregular", it's as regular as clockwork. 1st half or 2nd half, every single round. No random chance, no per-weapon initiative modifiers.

Hell, take a look at the various complex Initiative methods compiled by Bloody Johnson. And that doesn't even take into account that most games have a wholly different dice system for initiative (covered in the same thread, under Dice Mechanics).

Yes, I concede this may be too complex for your tastes. Yes, I concede there are simpler ways to do it.

But this method is, at its core a very simple choice. A simple mechanic. Simple rules which allow for complex plans, made in character.

(The complexity comes in when we determine how to gain initiative and how to Seize it. But those are combat actions, integrated into the combat mechanics, and so just as complex or simple as any other attack.)