Sorry my previous post was sort of vague...I was being pryed out of the chair to go places.
 
Anyway what I was trying to say when I said "combats don't have a clear winner" was that I could imagine a combat being evenly matched, so that neither opponent has an upper hand for that round. Maybe because the first side to act did something fast but predictable (that failed to get the other guy off balance).
 
Anyway being pryed out again... sorry, will ponder some more and get back to you.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;500514I could imagine a combat being evenly matched, so that neither opponent has an upper hand for that round.

You could be talking about two different situations:

1.) When nobody has the initiative. In that case, everybody acts at the same time, in descending order of Dexterity: Villain, then Hero, then Villain, then Hero, another Hero, last a group of Villains (the mooks).

2.) One side still has the Initiative, but has squandered the Advantage. Your "that failed to get the other guy off balance" can mean they failed to Press the Attack, so the Advantage bonus drops by 1.

Round 1: You have the Initiative. Advantage bonus of +0. Succeed in an attack (thus successfully "Pressing the Attack").
Round 2: You have the Initiative. Advantage bonus increases to +1. "Failed to get the other guy off balance." (In game terms, failed to Press the Attack this round.)
Round 3: You have the Initiative. Advantage bonus decreases to +0.

In such a round, the sides are evenly matched in terms of mechanics, but the side with Initiative side can still choose which phase to act in.

Both these are possible, either might account for the situation you identify.

Feel free to elaborate.

Got linked here from the other thread.  I agree with your initiative system for battlefield tactics,  I'm wondering how you see it working with martial arts systems, many of which are based on reactionary or defensive moves.

Would that simply be a case of winning initiative but choosing to go second?

Quote from: CRKrueger;591724Got linked here from the other thread.  I agree with your initiative system for battlefield tactics,  I'm wondering how you see it working with martial arts systems, many of which are based on reactionary or defensive moves.

Would that simply be a case of winning initiative but choosing to go second?

Absolutely. In fact, in this thread, I discuss that very issue with Cranewing, who is relating his "let the other guy hit first, then attack" martial arts combat style. (A similar discussion occurs with Bedrock Brendan, same thread.)

My explanation of how that combat method fits into this system is here.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;500319Initiative 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.)

Indeed, which is why I find it so weird that such concepts are not better integrated into ability rolls themselves. Separate 'initiative' never felt right.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;500233Initiative 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.

Also indeed. However, implementing this in an engaging game mechanic is not easy, and a simple bonus doesn't feel right either.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;591756Also indeed. However, implementing this in an engaging game mechanic is not easy,

Here's how it plays out (and apologies if you've already read this part):

The game has a combat round. It's divided into two phases, 1st and 2nd.

The Initiative represents one party being active, while the other is reactive.The side with Initiative choses when to act, 1st or 2nd phase. The whole of one side acts in the same phase.

Each round, those with Initiative have to Press Their Advantage. Pressing their advantage earns them a cumulative bonus for their actions.

The Advantage represents the psychological edge you can gain and increase by having the Initiative. The more you Press Your Advantage, the more disorganized and debilitated the enemy is (represented by the Advantage bonus). In real world terms, this is referred to as "keeping up the skeer", after a quote from NB Forrest.

Those without the Initiative can counter-attack and gain it. The enemy looses their Advantage bonus, and you have the opportunity to Press Your Advantage, and gain that bonus for yourself.

So, this is why I think it's an engaging mechanic: Combat is no longer about rolling high to go first, and dealing out damage. No longer is it a round robin of "Killed him? Good. Next."

Instead it's a struggle over a tangible prize, over a tangible benefit. Players make and carry out plans to counter-attack and seize it, or to keep it and Press their Advantage. The Initiative drives combat.

Every single round the players have a goal, and they know what that goal is. They have something they are driven to strive for, to achieve.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;591756a simple bonus doesn't feel right either.

I'm not sure how else you would implement it. A straight bonus (under the Destiny Mechanics) is a strong benefit, and ably represents all the advantages of having the Advantage.

Enemies are easier to hit, you are harder to hit, you have a clear mind, they do not. You are in control, they are not.

The concept is complex, but representing it mechanically is actually fairly simple. IMHO.

If I've misunderstood your point, feel free to correct me.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;591759A straight bonus (under the Destiny Mechanics) is a strong benefit, and ably represents all the advantages of having the Advantage.

Maximum advantage bonus is +1. Nothing to keep track of except which side has the advantage.

Quote from: dorrinal;596050Maximum advantage bonus is +1. Nothing to keep track of except which side has the advantage.

Would be simpler, but would ignore how the Advantage (is supposed to) work. The longer you "keep up the skeer", the more and more rattled the enemy becomes, thus the higher the bonus. That's how combat works.

Mechanically, this ties into NPC Morale. Basically, when the Advantage bonus of your enemy exceeds your Morale score, you break.

Again, it would be simpler to have a stable bonus, round to round. But then there'd be no reason to Press the Advantage, to Counter Presses: a lot of the tactical thinking of combat would be obviated.

And that kind of tactical thinking is one of the unique aspects of Destiny. It's what makes Destiny different from its antecedent games (Torg, Fate, Savage Worlds), and distinguishes it from every other game out there.

It also shortens combats. Once you begin gaining the Advantage, you begin winning, and winning quicker.

It makes combats more tense, it increases the stakes for every round. No longer is a round about just killing, but about Pressing the Advantage on one side, and Countering the Press on the other.

There's a continuing, extended struggle that carries through the whole combat, which links one round to the next, which makes the combat more tense, more intense. (I hope, at least.)

That's why. Though, if it doesn't work, I can rethink and revise.