First I want to make it quite clear, I have run my Majestic Wilderlands with over a dozen RPGs. As a general rule I don't consider the difference between different RPGs to be the gulf that many paint it to be. This includes your system. While I have my preferences along with a great many observations other hobbyists preferences there are very few RPGs that are "wrong" for a given genre or setting.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091496If you make player turns atomic, then you need the short time frame of GURPS or else you lose interruptability and reactivity. And, as mentioned, the complexity of what I propose is no higher than the action economy in D&D 3E or Shadowrun (2E onwards) or WFRP/40K Roleplay - with the aforementioned benefits in return for the complexity.

I agree about the complexity. My view about those systems are the same as the one expressed about yours. Overally complex for they are trying to do compared to GURPS.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091496It doesn't and I have given you a prime example before - if someone does something that might prompt you to trigger your delayed action, you don't know if something else happens later that round which you rather should be saving your action for.

My rule has no trigger, the player can jump in at anytime prior to the start of their next turn. I will go as far as remind them take their delayed turn before they take their normal turn. If two combatants with delayed turns decide to interrupt at the same time then the combatant with the higher initiative decide in which order the interrupts are resolved.

This is a technique in long use in wargamming with many variants. The one that works for tabletop roleplaying is the most liberal. The combatant who wins initiative gets to decide when their turn take place. They are a step ahead for that round and can control the timing of their actions better than their opponents.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091496And there's another problem with it: players don't use delayed actions nearly as much as would be advisable, even players with decades of experience often go for the direct action because they lack the patience. That's why I prefer quick action declarations at the start of the round.

Not my experience, for the first and for the second my observations is that hobbyists find declarations to be restrictive, artifical, and a waste of time. With declaration, you have to go around the table twice, once to gather the declarations, and a second time to resolve the combat round.

I have to stress that my view is that these are aesthetic choices. I don't need a turbocharged V-8 in a car to get to work although I may enjoy the ride a lot more if it had this type of engine. I feel that part of the debate is you are trying to convince me that I have to have a V-8 to get to work whereas I am pointing out that my 6 cylinder engine does the job just as well.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091496It also does one more thing important to me: it introduces the need for player skill in correctly predicting what's going to happen next in the upcoming round - if they need to change actions, they will operate at a penalty.

Yeah that a thing one can do. Look that naunce for mechanics has been around for a long time. And is not a popular one. My personal reason for disliking it, is that situational awareness doesn't work that way. Thus declarations feel stilted and cumbersome from a realism standpoint. But there are more than a few hobbyists, like yourself, who feel that the right way to go hence why declaration mechanics sticks around. I am OK with that.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091496Disputes arise over the most trivial or apparent stuff, that's part of the role-playing experience. It's the GM's prerogative to make the decision if a previously unspecified action is of a certain action type. Same as in D&D or in Shadowrun or in 40K Roleplay with their action types. This is all standard fare in RPGs.

The frequency it which this occur can be minimized with various techniques.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091496You never ask the question of how long an action takes (at least if it fits within a round) under the proposed rules. Instead, you ask if it can be reliably interrupted by a shot or melee attack. An AP does not correspond to a given time frame either because a round is only roughly 5 seconds with some wiggle room and time consumed is not necessarily evenly distributed (aka 1 AP is NOT necessarily a third of the overall round).

So instead of absolute yardstick (seconds) is now a relative yardstick (whether it could be interupted by X) Still a yardstick and still open to debate over whether the measurement is accurate.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091496I'm sorry but it's obvious that you have never played this.

I think I have some relevant experience with the mechanics you are using.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6XDN_99qS30/WRXl1NSGYRI/AAAAAAAAOiM/v5Z_QqJMQ0AmB4cGb0XroSPUqjfNJeplwCK4B/w1200/gaming_library.jpeg

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091496I don't like that. And, again, no criticism of your gamemastering - it's the way a lot of games resolve if played by RAW. My criticism is not with the way you run games or your particular ruleset. It's with how an entire class of (prominent) Initiative systems work.

I been saying it got to work with how you think about this stuff to be fun and enjoyable. My point has been that there is more ways to achieve this even starting with a winner-takes-all system like I go U go initiative. I am not asking to you to adopt it or like it.

And I don't view this as criticizing my refereeing.

I don't see any major issue with your system in regards to the wider hobby. For me it is a step beyond the sweet spot that I have figured out. Goes into too much detail on things that are not germane to what I focus on. Solves issues in a way that I handle in a different way.

I can go at great length as to why this is so including the process by which I arrived at my conclusion. However what amount to when sharing material with the wider hobby is the following.

Campaign with hybrid mechanics are the rule not the exception. Thus authors should clearly and tersely explain their assumptions and reasoning so their buyers can figure out what part of their product would work their campaign. That in one's marketing, you need come across that your take is not THE way. But a way.

Which is why despite playing GURPS for two decades and it remaining by favorite RPGs I am able to be successful in sharing and selling material to the classic D&D community and still stay true to my creative vision.

Quote from: estar;1091582I agree about the complexity. My view about those systems are the same as the one expressed about yours. Overally complex for they are trying to do compared to GURPS.

Well, 1 second rounds are a terrible choice for faithfully emulating 30 to 120 second cinematic melee combats, so that approach quickly went out the window.

Quote from: estar;1091582My rule has no trigger,

The example I had given to demonstrate one of the shortcomings of delayed actions is independent of whether the character has to specify a trigger or not. If you use your delayed action to combat enemy A but then huge enemy B surprisngly turns around and attacks you afterwards, you better had saved your action for enemy B.

Quote from: estar;1091582Not my experience, for the first

We'll have to disagree there.

Quote from: estar;1091582and for the second my observations is that hobbyists find declarations to be restrictive, artifical, and a waste of time. With declaration, you have to go around the table twice, once to gather the declarations, and a second time to resolve the combat round.

So the Con is that it takes additional time, the Pro is that you have additional reactivity and you see the round more unfold as it happens to your characters (the Orc declares that he's going to charge your PC first, so you can declare that you're going to shoot at him). Whether being able to correctly predict the round is a Pro or Con is a matter of taste.

I am so bold to assert that gamists will tend more to see it as restrictive, artifical, and a waste of time. Simulationists will see it more through my eyes. I am very comfortable with that thought. Plus, the quicker and the more informal a GM can handle the declaration round, the less as waste of time even the gamists are going to see it.

Quote from: estar;1091582I feel that part of the debate is you are trying to convince me that I have to have a V-8 to get to work whereas I am pointing out that my 6 cylinder engine does the job just as well.

That's not it. I am merely pointing out to you (and any other potential reader) that there's a car out there who is built a bit differently from other cars and that it caters to people with certain preferences. Where and whenever you're mischaracterizing the car, it's my job to set the record straight. And as you can see from the segment above, I am by no means interested in portraying that car as the panacea in gaming for all people - that would be useless.

No, the game rules provide the GM with certain tools that don't exist in that form in other games. My job is to ensure that as many people as possible are aware of their existence and their nature. Whether these tools are then to these people's tastes or not is none of my business.

Quote from: estar;1091582So instead of absolute yardstick (seconds) is now a relative yardstick (whether it could be interupted by X) Still a yardstick and still open to debate over whether the measurement is accurate.

Certainly a clearer yardstick than D&D 3.x, Shadowrun or Warhammer (all very successful games) use to define their own action categories. So I'm fairly comfortable with that as well.

Quote from: estar;1091582I think I have some relevant experience with the mechanics you are using.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6XDN_99qS30/WRXl1NSGYRI/AAAAAAAAOiM/v5Z_QqJMQ0AmB4cGb0XroSPUqjfNJeplwCK4B/w1200/gaming_library.jpeg

I had refuted your prior assertion with the argument that the vast majority of actions are completed within the current round and that players, as in other RPGs, normally only plan for the current round. Your rebuttal is, once more, an appeal to authority.

The proposed Initiative rules have their quirks and short-comings. This is not one of them.

This thread went about how I figured...Mr. Conley, who I disagree with more than half the time, actually runs a real game for real players while some German storygame sycophant rails about how non-optimal the game is. All while using lots of rhetoric and zero examples of actual play.

The ultimate question, of course, is, "did you have fun?" If yes, then the game is a success. The other approach is to pontificate about how to do it right while wanking off to a broad getting shit on. Like seriously, get a life.

I enjoyed the thread.

The point about declarations meaning you go around twice each turn has some merit.  Though I found when I was running my last campaign with declarations what people were up to didn't need to be declared much and we tended to drift into no declarations after the first "round" of combat.

I was doing 3 second (ish) rounds with initiative being entirely based on reach and my adjudication.  Loaded gun or crossbow already aimed at your target?  You're going first.  Even before the guy who can chant some words to shoot fire from his eyes.  A lot of the time there was an opposed roll element where if you attacked someone in melee who was also only really paying attention to you, one or both combatant could get a hit in.

Quote from: Brad;1091667All while using lots of rhetoric and zero examples of actual play.

If you have a reasonable argument to make, you're welcome.

Quote from: Chivalric;1091677I enjoyed the thread.

The point about declarations meaning you go around twice each turn has some merit.  Though I found when I was running my last campaign with declarations what people were up to didn't need to be declared much and we tended to drift into no declarations after the first "round" of combat.

It does have some merit which is why I didn't dismiss it - but at the same time it undercuts the assertion that it's a count-up system like Aces & Eights, which doesn't have rounds. (Unless we're meaning by count-up system something like Recover costing 3 Swift Actions in Star Wars Saga). Now, Rob does go around and roll for initiative each round instead. While I prefer that to rolling once per combat as well, I have to note that it also interrupts the flow of battle.

Under KotBL initiative rules/action economy things work slightly different than you might be used to from other games:

• You only roll Initiative when necessary. Suppose you are facing off an orc, about to engage in melee with him while your buddy with bow and arrow gets charged by another orc from 20 meters away. Your buddy has readied an arrow already so he goes first (1 AP), no need for him to roll initiative at all - he just declares shooting the charging orc after everyone else had declared their actions*. Next come your character and the enemy orc - you're both vying for who goes first, so you and the GM do need to roll Init for your characters. But once established, initiative in melee gets dictated by the flow of battle: if you have initiative, you retain the exclusive right to attack until the orc can reverse it/counter you. Then he has initiative. Normally there is no need to roll for initiative again in that melee combat - resolving attacks will tell you who has it and who doesn't. And finally the orc that charges in attacks last due to the distance he has to cover. It's all kinda intuitive.
• I feel I didn't convey this clearly enough in the first iteration of my rules and this discussion helped sharpen my thinking: when you're already in melee, you don't have to declare anymore that you're going to do melee; it is presumed instead. Now, some special power attacks or whatever could conceivably require declaration at the start of turn - but otherwise you're presumed to take an appropriate melee action (attack or defend, depending on whether you have intiative in melee). And with melee declarations out of the window, you're cutting down quite a bit of time spent on action declarations.

If you combine the two points above, you can have extremely fast rounds when the majority of PCs are stuck in melee combat: no rolling for initiative and no action declaration unless you're about to do something special. Plus in each melee combat pairing only one side gets to attack. Yes, there's an active parry but overall it can be pretty smoothly flowing.

Quote from: Chivalric;1091677I was doing 3 second (ish) rounds with initiative being entirely based on reach and my adjudication.  Loaded gun or crossbow already aimed at your target?  You're going first.  Even before the guy who can chant some words to shoot fire from his eyes.  A lot of the time there was an opposed roll element where if you attacked someone in melee who was also only really paying attention to you, one or both combatant could get a hit in.

Yeah, that's how the rules I propose here work ideally as well - intuitively.
The whole Action Points thingy is more or less just a crutch to give some structure to the order of events in the round. For, things can get a little muddy and assigning Action Point cost is a way to keep your rulings consistent. Example: fast drawing a gun and shooting it - should it always be faster than the swing of a readied sword (2 AP) - or slower? Or should it be roughly equal, meaning you and the sword guy need to roll who goes first? If it's slower, then fast drawing should cost 2 APs so that in total it's 3 APs for drawing and firing the gun. If it's supposed to be the same, then it should be 1 AP for a totla of 2. If it's supposed to be faster, you should make it 0 AP or combine fast draw and shoot into one action with AP 1.

Having a specific action cost and writing it down helps making sure you handle it the exact same way next time. Otherwise you might do it differently unintentionally and face player complaints. Action Points under these rules are not a character resource that express how much the character can do in a round; they're not variable - everyone has 3. So they're way to loosely order events within a turn instead - based on interruptability as a criteria.




[*EDIT Btw, suppose the guy with bow and arrow had spend 1 AP first on readying an arrow - he'd shoot in the same phase as the melee action took place. But he still didn't have to roll initiative because the order in this case isn't really important.]

Some may find it unsatisfactory, but if someone was trying to hit someone else with a sword before they could draw and fire a gun, I'd do both attacks simultaneously and apply all the results.  A low roll on the gun might mean it doesn't clear the holster at all, or it might result that both the swordsman gets shot and the gunman gets a blade in the neck.

I've played loads of miniature wargames and RPGs where you have action points or a set of action types you spend on doing different things, but I do like the idea of them being a bit more concretely tied to time.

I see initiative rolls as being very similar to my idea of both rolling and applying all the results.  Some times the dice go that someone is slow to react or too cautious and other times they act decisively with no hesitation.  Training and experience can be a bonus to make decisive action more likely.  I don't think it's necessarily unrealistic that someone basically stands there while two missile attacks fly their way.  I think there have been instances when people even run towards a gunman that has opened fire.

Well, yeah, you could cut further down on initiative rolls by presuming everything in an action phase happens simultaneously. Might be a bit too much for me personally - but I can see it working. Normally, I like using small dice like Rob's d6 or a d10 for initiative because then you have intiative score ties at the right frequency for pretty dramatic simultaneous action resolution. But for KotBL I resolved early on to do everything with d100, so I don't have that here.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091709If you have a reasonable argument to make, you're welcome.

It's perfectly reasonable to criticize your arguments as baseless because they're actually baseless. What evidence do you have that your methods are better other than fiat?

Hint: Lots and lots of words don't magically make them more valid.

Quote from: Brad;1091743It's perfectly reasonable to criticize your arguments as baseless because they're actually baseless.

Quote from: Brad;1091743What evidence do you have that your methods are better other than fiat?

That's a strawman. If you read further above, you will find that I listed some pros and cons compared to traditional initiative handling.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091591I had refuted your prior assertion with the argument that the vast majority of actions are completed within the current round and that players, as in other RPGs, normally only plan for the current round. Your rebuttal is, once more, an appeal to authority.

You stated

QuoteI'm sorry but it's obvious that you have never played this. Players declare actions in advance for the current round and the vast majority of their declarations are fully resolved by the end of the round (particularly attacks). It's exactly the same as in Shadowrun: I have 1 Complex Action or 2 Simple Actions this round - what am I gonna do with those? And, yes, you can have actions carry over to the next round in Shadowrun (accumulating aiming bonuses, for example). But it plays nothing like a count-up. It's round-based.

I have played Shadowrun and many other systems with similar mechanics to what you describe. That was the point of the picture that I sarcastically posted. You may consider it an appeal to authority but it a sign of a deep divide within our debate.

The difference is analysis versus experience thru actual play. My approach is to start with a baseline design and iterate over many sessions and campaign observing what the players do and don't do. The goal is to create a system that saves time and effort to run the type of campaigns I want to run and that are fun and comfortable to play from the point of view of the players.

I explained in the thread why the things work the way they do with my initiative and why it achieves many of things you are doing with your initiative rules. My analysis is "after the fact" of seeing what players do. That video is a small window into the work I have done over decades.

While you may view that as an appeal to authority those decades of experience lie at the heart of what I do and why I do it.

I will give you this, it drive people who rely on analysis bat shit crazy. Because human behavior can only be analysed to a point. The rest is all "its depends" or "true in specific circumstances".

D&D in the 1974 incarnation is a product of a similar process I use. Both the Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaign started with simple a set of rules and iterated them over many sessions. Blackmoor rules never got published as a formal set of rules, but what Gygax used became the published 1974 version.

The process was so robust that that the core mechanics it developed persist to this day not just by remaining published but as the market leader. The market leader by a huge margin. And the original version of the rules gained new life within the OSR.

Yet D&D durability has driven many bat shit crazy who after analysis pronounced it broken and unworkable. And compounds it with demeaning the hobbyist who are fans by claiming it only popular because it what they are used too.

The process of developing through actual play is labor and time consuming to pull off. Not conducive to trying to make a living or keep to a regular release schedule in the industry. Which is why the analysis approach has its place.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091591Well, 1 second rounds are a terrible choice for faithfully emulating 30 to 120 second cinematic melee combats, so that approach quickly went out the window.

I can agree for cinematic combat. But we were not talking about cinematic melee combats but realistic combat where ideally the difference releasing a arrow at a target and swinging a sword should be considered and factored into the system.

This brings up a new issue

When analyzing the video you need to realize that when it comes to anything that not supernatural or magic, I opt for realism over the cinematic. Folks may scoff at this with D&D rules but I achieve this through understanding how D&D developed from the medieval miniature wargames of the early 70s.

I figured this out not because I read Peterson's Playing at the World and the OD&D discussion forum and had a magical moment of understanding. But because I created a starting point and iterated over many campaigns and sessions to produce the rules I used in the video. The rules I use bear little resemblance to what was used in Greyhawk and Blackmoor. Different goals, different times, different people, different results.

This is a process that I am still using. My fantasy merchant rules are in the midst of this process. And the merchant rules are part of my larger Majestic Fantasy Rules. Note the file is marked as revision 4.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v-DQ9X5a1Tairnbu_5p4tqca50Cj-hze/view?usp=sharing

Because of these divides I don't see us agreeing on much. In the past I found authors who rely on analysis generally don't get the utility of the process of actual play and iteration I use for my works. Have trouble accepting the result because like yourself it conflict with their analysis of what I do or the rules I use.

I worked on the other combat example because they will prove useful to another project I am working on. I will post them but it unlikely we will come into agreement over the mechanics of how to deal with them.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091744

That's a strawman. If you read further above, you will find that I listed some pros and cons compared to traditional initiative handling.

Literal fucking LOL. Carry on!

To recap

the central thesis of the debate is

QuoteSo here I propose a different way of handling things*: ]from a vantage point of plausibility, how long an action takes to take effect obviously matters - both for being aware of what's about to happen and reacting accordingly and for interruptability.

*Initiative and actions during a combat round.

The thread is about the impact on plausibility on having the length of action accounted for in the mechanics of combat.

His view that there opt to be explicit mechanics rest on two points. That how long an action takes obviously matters. That certain actions take longer than others. That this needs to be reflected in the mechanics in order for the action to feel plausible.

My experience through playtesting and talking with players, through a process of multiple iterations that the answer is nuanced and it depends on the player. Some things need to be accounted for and some things to do not.

Details

Spoiler

If the takes longer than a combat round then it needs to be counted as such. Like reloading a crossbow with a heavy pull. If takes place within a combat round the answer is no. Provided that you have a mechanic that allow the PC to interrupt their opponent's turn.

The game is more enjoyable if the players are able to say "If my enemy does something, I wish to act." The mechanic I opt to use is delaying one's turn as outlined in previous posts. I also adopted the most liberal interpretation of the delay mechanic. Unlike in D&D 5th edition where you have to specify a condition.

Alex also list different outcomes to three different combat encounters. I have found those difference not to matter for plausibility.

Details

Spoiler

Scourge of the Demon Wolf as an adventure was written in 2001. The Russet Lord's Deceit, the one in the video, was written in 2006. Both started out as GURPS adventures and adapted into other systems. It wasn't until after I starting writing Swords & Wizardry products in 2008 that I started using them with a D&D based system. Since then I ran these adventures using D&D 5e and Fantasy Age. I ran these adventures in multiple game stores, and in multiple conventions.

I have run the same combat encounters using the same adventure with several very different system (GURPS, D&D 3.X, D&D 5e, Swords & Wizardry, etc). In none of them was plausibility affected by the lack or presence of the details on how long actions took.

Plausibility is a subjective criteria. I concede that my method for handling initiative is not plausible to Alex. In addition, I have played with those who likewise do not consider my method of handling initiative plausible. Alex is not an exception.

I have found that it rare that it turns on the specific point of initiative and action. But rathr wrapped up in the desire to play a detailed combat system like GURPS, Runequest, and others. When people don't enjoy my initiative system there is a high likelihood they won't enjoy the combat system as a whole.

Finally my personal circumstances are unusual. Given the nature of the internet is who knows what a person has done or not. So I understand if folks find my experiences a bit hard to swallow. But it is what it is.

It has however taught me that the way I do things is not the only way, it is just a way. That if want to make something truly useful you have to run it by a lot of people and weed out one's preconceptions of ought to be.

I wish I led with this first but it is easy to get wrapped up in the minutiae of point-counterpoint. That on me. Hope folks find something useful out of this exchange.

Quote from: estar;1091748The difference is analysis versus experience thru actual play.

If you think that my approach isn't the result of actual play and dissatisfaction with the prevalent initiative score-based winner-takes-all round order, you're in error. My approach is to redesign mechanics that are unsatisfactory in actual play without creating other, bigger problems for what I want to achieve. And, yeah, we don't share the same goals. Speed and ease often, not always, go at the expense of precision, plausibility or immersion and I might value some of the latter higher than you do.

Here's another example for the limited use of delayed actions: your paladin tries to protect a fair maiden NPC. He just struck down one attacker in the previous round, standing somewhat near to his charge now. Under standard initiative rules, a distant attacker could conceivable charge right past your PC and strike her down. You have no delayed action to protect her because you were too busy to declare one last round. Under the rules I propose here, however, you don't need to prepare a delayed action, nor do you necessarily need to win initiative (depending on the distances involved) to interdict the second attacker as you need to make only a few steps to stand in his path.

Now, we can't debate about how relevant this is - that's a matter of taste. What's important to me is that we gain more plausible resolution of events and we see the events more through the eyes of our characters as they would unfold. There's a price for that - for me it's worth it, for others it may not be. We seem to simply disagree here - just as we seem to disagree on the factors that drove the success of D&D up until here.

Quote from: estar;1091748I can agree for cinematic combat. But we were not talking about cinematic melee combats but realistic combat where ideally the difference releasing a arrow at a target and swinging a sword should be considered and factored into the system.

I was merely explaining why a 1 second round had not been an option for me in designing my game.

Quote from: estar;1091748Because of these divides I don't see us agreeing on much. In the past I found authors who rely on analysis generally don't get the utility of the process of actual play and iteration I use for my works.

Yeah, this is a false dichotomy. I not only have a background in mathematics, I also have one in business IT - I am familiar with iterative design and agile design processes. The difference between us here is primarily in the preferences instead.

Quote from: estar;1091748I have found that it rare that it turns on the specific point of initiative and action. But rathr wrapped up in the desire to play a detailed combat system like GURPS, Runequest, and others. When people don't enjoy my initiative system there is a high likelihood they won't enjoy the combat system as a whole.

My analysis is that you've been playing a game with medieval-authentic fluff and first-and-foremostly gamist crunch in the Actual Play.

I feel this part of my analysis has largely run its course. To me, if I am to quote myself, this is the summary of the discussion:

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1091591So the Con is that it takes additional time, the Pro is that you have additional reactivity and you see the round more unfold as it happens to your characters (the Orc declares that he's going to charge your PC first, so you can declare that you're going to shoot at him). Whether being able to correctly predict the round is a Pro or Con is a matter of taste.

I am so bold to assert that gamists will tend more to see it as restrictive, artifical, and a waste of time. Simulationists will see it more through my eyes. I am very comfortable with that thought. Plus, the quicker and the more informal a GM can handle the declaration round, the less as waste of time even the gamists are going to see it.

I would like to raise one more point though - traditional initiative has another disadvantage of being able to predict part of what's going to happen:
In the situation with the wargs, remember that the wargs intended to charge the burglar, the burglar intended to take an invisibility potion as they came charging in and only after that the knight decided to charge the wargs. Because of the way initiative works, the player of the knight KNEW that the wolves wouldn't be able to strike back this turn and he knew that with a good initiative roll next round he could possibly attack again before they could strike back.

But under the Knight of the Black Lily rules and in (fictional) reality, things would take place in parallel and the knight could never know that the wargs wouldn't turn on him (in game terms: aborting the original charge against the burglar, switching to fighting the on-rushing knight). So, yeah, it adds to a game session and is in my view worth a quick declaration round*.



*In fact, this scenario demonstrates why a quick and informal declaration round is necessary: if the wargs abort the charge and turn towards the knight, the knight could abort his action himself and lure them away. You get into all kinds of calamities if you try to resolve this with per-action point movement hex-by-hex. Instead, you intuitevely resolve the competing plans of characters in total. (In this case, I might just rule that the knight simply would have to get so close that the wargs could have a chance to get him and you resolve whether they get to roll for attack or don't.)