I've been looking at the Intentions Phase from D&D for a while as a good framework to use for my own game, but I can't help but wonder: Is there a way to build a combat system where everyone moves at once?
The idea I have for one such is this:
- With Grid (Hex or Square) ((3 Second Rounds))
#1 - DM details the location, then determines Max Speed for each participant and places tokens/units/etc.
#2 - Roll Initiative for each participant (The higher you roll, the more priority you have for the coming steps)
#3 - When all players are ready, begin moving units, one space at a time until everyone has moved the entirety of their Speed
#4 - At any point, when doing anything besides moving at normal speed, call 'Stop' and announce action. "Grab a stool, begin aiming my gun, prepare spell, start running/sprinting", etc. / If multiple people call 'Stop', Initiative Order, as needed, determines who gets priority with actions. If someone wants to try and hide what they're doing, within reason, they roll Sleight of Hand against Spot Hidden of the opponents who can reasonably see them.
#5 - Once actions are decided or resolved, continue moving until the turn ends or another 'Stop' is called. Take stock and reset for next round. (Actions will eat up time from these turns.)
A bit mechanical, but could work if everyone is in sync.
- Without Grid (Speed = Max Distance with no other actions)
#1 - DM details the location, and where every participant will begin.
#2 - Roll Initiative for each participant (Same rules as above)
#3 - When all players are ready, DM counts out loud 'Start, 1, 2, 3'
#4 - Same as Rule #4 above. Call 'Stop' if doing anything besides moving normally, and state what. If multiple people call the 'Stop', Initiative determines priority, and Sleight of Hand/Spot Hidden rolls also come in as needed.
#5 - Once actions are decided or resolved, continue moving until another 'Stop' is called or '3' is called. Once it is, take stock and reset for next round.
Much looser, and could use gestures as shorthand for what kinds of actions everyone is doing or who they're targeting.
Thoughts, or alternatives?
Hackmaster uses a "second" system with every action taking a certain amount of seconds. You can react and change actions (at a penalty) if you change your mind mid action.
Quote from: Shasarak on March 04, 2021, 09:59:04 PM
Hackmaster uses a "second" system with every action taking a certain amount of seconds. You can react and change actions (at a penalty) if you change your mind mid action.
I've heard of that game before. Good to see it has a free version on offer; I'll give that a look.
(I believe Aces and Eights also uses a system like this, as well as Scion.)
I'm wondering why you are having everyone move one bit at a time when, if you use the intentions phase, you already know what everyone is going to do anyway. For example, if some of the PCs charge the monsters and the monsters are also charging, you can just have them meet in the middle.
Sometimes this results in the PCs not making the optimal move but, for me, this just represents the chaos of the combat (plus it's much faster to resolve if everyone just sticks to their original plan).
Quote from: hedgehobbit on March 04, 2021, 11:06:36 PM
I'm wondering why you are having everyone move one bit at a time when, if you use the intentions phase, you already know what everyone is going to do anyway. For example, if some of the PCs charge the monsters and the monsters are also charging, you can just have them meet in the middle.
Sometimes this results in the PCs not making the optimal move but, for me, this just represents the chaos of the combat (plus it's much faster to resolve if everyone just sticks to their original plan).
The way I was figuring it, if everyone was moving all at once, responding to sudden changes in actions by either the players or DM would be a bit easier while still allowing for some chaos to unfold. An enemy pulling a gun the players didn't see, one of the players retreating suddenly, etc.
The Hackmaster method Shasarak pointed out would also work for what I have in mind, but something like the Intentions Phase, just with both sides moving at once, is what I'm interested in working towards. Maybe it's too complicated for anything besides the Real-Time With Pause system that Baldur's Gate used, but who knows.
There are a number of ways to work initiative, but I do think that a system needs to be built with the initiative system in mind from the ground up rather than slapping a new initiative system into a already made game.
But if you're looking for ideas of how to make movement more fluid, here's the initiative system for the "swashbuckling space western RPG" that I've been working on. (Space Dogs RPG) It's basically a side-based phase system.
A Full Turn –
1. Initiative/Morale Phase: Each side rolls a 3d10 to decide order of action and on a tie the one with a character with the highest Sharpness score chooses initiative order. If the NPCs' roll fails their Morale Test then they break.
2. Movement Phase: In initiative order each side moves and chooses their Action(s).
3. Ranged Phase: Every character who is not in melee and chose a ranged Action acts in initiative order.
4. Melee Phase: Every character who chose to Run acts in initiative order. Then all melee attack rolls are rolled at the same time. (melee is basically opposed attack rolls)
Then you start over with the next round, re-rolling initiative/morale. It doesn't technically have everyone move at once, but everyone moves before the next phase of the round. (Also note: between needing to declare your action and melee happening all at once, going first isn't always advantageous.)
It's a bit slower than D&D style initiative, but going side-based makes it at least as fast as going individual initiative with a more default initiative.
I'm not 100% that it'd work as well with as much movement as D&D generally gives you. The standard human movement in Space Dogs is just 2 squares/round (more if you give up your attack to run) - which works since the focus is more on ranged combat with melee being secondary. Likely wouldn't want to go that slow in a fantasy game where melee is primary.
I use by-segment movement in my 1e AD&D game.
1. Both sides declare actions for the round (for the NPC opposition, this may be a bit vague from the player POV, but they should generally know that the manticore is going to attack, flee etc).
2. Resolve any pre-init actions like the start of multi-attack routines for characters in melee. Characters can move up to 10' in this phase, or at any suitable time in the round.
3. Roll initiative, d6 per side.
4. Difference in d6 rolls if any gives the number of segments the higher roll side can act (spellcast, move etc) before the lower roll side starts acting. If d6s match then movement is simultaneous by segment.
I use the base 'dungeon' move in all (non-hindering) terrain, so eg with 120' move you always move 12' per segment. In an extreme case of a 6-1 roll you might move 5x12' = 60' before the other side can act, but that is rare. Usually you get 0-3 segments of movement, then after that it's resolved simultaneously, 1 segment at a time.
IME it's VERY VERY important to use group init for this style. Individual init is for the stop-motion approach like 3e-5e's default system, and would add far too much complexity to a simultaneous-move system.
Edit: An individual's OODA loop is roughly the length of an AD&D segment of course, so individual characters should be able to make reasonable by-segment adjustments (eg turn to face an attacker, stop before running off the suddenly-revealed cliff). Squad-level OODA loop is much longer - not a full minute, but certainly more like 15-30 seconds, so it makes sense that the group itself can only coordinate at a much slower rate than the individual segment.
This sounds like the movement in Star Fleet Battles. I never want to see something like that used in an RPG.
Quote from: AgentBJ09 on March 05, 2021, 12:37:58 AMThe way I was figuring it, if everyone was moving all at once, responding to sudden changes in actions by either the players or DM would be a bit easier while still allowing for some chaos to unfold. An enemy pulling a gun the players didn't see, one of the players retreating suddenly, etc.
I've been running D&D without using Initiative for years now and I've never really run into this as a problem.
Why would an enemy pulling a gun or a player retreating require all these extra mechanics? For the pulling a gun scenario, this would only really be an issue outside of combat. As for the player suddenly retreating, either the monster pursues in which case you just compare speeds or make some sort of running check, or the monster doesn't and you place the monster as if it had moved a bit before giving up.
I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that it really doesn't matter if a character changes his action 1/3 of the way through the round compared to halfway or 3/4th of the way. Just put every action change at halfway through the round (half the movement value) and go from there.
Battletech uses this. Initiative is determined, then it typically plays out as the unit with the lowest initiative goes first. All movement is resolved, then it shifts to the firing phase; all ranged attacks occur simultaneously, so even if you core your target he still gets shots off.
Physical attacks work similarly but only -after- the shooting phase has been resolved. So if a Mech gets destroyed during firing phase, it cannot make physical attacks.
Quote from: AgentBJ09 on March 04, 2021, 08:50:58 PM
I've been looking at the Intentions Phase from D&D for a while as a good framework to use for my own game, but I can't help but wonder: Is there a way to build a combat system where everyone moves at once?
This isn't exactly what you seem to have in mind, but here's how I run combat in my original D&D games:
https://www.philotomy.net/rules/combat_sequence/
It breaks up movement (and other actions) into different phases of the round.
One of the few good things about the attempt by Paradigm Studios to make their own system for Arcanis was their action clock. The short version was each action had a speed. When you performed that action you advanced your clock by the speed and the new number became the next count you acted on. Stuns and similar moves also advanced your clock, delaying your next action. Advanced maneuvers had a recovery speed... a time where you could act again, but at the cost of stamina. Actions on the same count resolve simultaneously.
You could also "push" an action by advancing your clock when it wasn't your turn, but only once until you reach your next count (this was their version of reactions/interrupt actions).
The result felt a bit more immediate and less sequential than WotC D&D turns do since you could literally only do one thing at a time instead of getting your standard, move, swift/minor/bonus all together on your turn.
This DungeonCraft episode is one of the best systems I have seen for handling a real "everyone moves at once" style of combat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_mxYKzEjms
The one downside to this is that it does really help if it is done with mini's or tokens on a IRL table top or VTT.
You don't need to be a slave to the grid at all, but the relationship and positioning do matter.
Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on March 05, 2021, 01:17:39 AM
There are a number of ways to work initiative, but I do think that a system needs to be built with the initiative system in mind from the ground up rather than slapping a new initiative system into a already made game.
But if you're looking for ideas of how to make movement more fluid, here's the initiative system for the "swashbuckling space western RPG" that I've been working on. (Space Dogs RPG) It's basically a side-based phase system.
A Full Turn –
1. Initiative/Morale Phase: Each side rolls a 3d10 to decide order of action and on a tie the one with a character with the highest Sharpness score chooses initiative order. If the NPCs' roll fails their Morale Test then they break.
2. Movement Phase: In initiative order each side moves and chooses their Action(s).
3. Ranged Phase: Every character who is not in melee and chose a ranged Action acts in initiative order.
4. Melee Phase: Every character who chose to Run acts in initiative order. Then all melee attack rolls are rolled at the same time. (melee is basically opposed attack rolls)
Then you start over with the next round, re-rolling initiative/morale. It doesn't technically have everyone move at once, but everyone moves before the next phase of the round. (Also note: between needing to declare your action and melee happening all at once, going first isn't always advantageous.)
It's a bit slower than D&D style initiative, but going side-based makes it at least as fast as going individual initiative with a more default initiative.
I'm not 100% that it'd work as well with as much movement as D&D generally gives you. The standard human movement in Space Dogs is just 2 squares/round (more if you give up your attack to run) - which works since the focus is more on ranged combat with melee being secondary. Likely wouldn't want to go that slow in a fantasy game where melee is primary.
Hmm. I can see the rerolling initiative part working with a speed penalty for being too badly hurt or having one or both of one's legs crippled/disabled. I've already got a system in mind to track damage to certain body parts when using a Called Shot.
Good luck with your project.
Quote from: S'mon on March 05, 2021, 04:07:14 AM
I use by-segment movement in my 1e AD&D game.
1. Both sides declare actions for the round (for the NPC opposition, this may be a bit vague from the player POV, but they should generally know that the manticore is going to attack, flee etc).
2. Resolve any pre-init actions like the start of multi-attack routines for characters in melee. Characters can move up to 10' in this phase, or at any suitable time in the round.
3. Roll initiative, d6 per side.
4. Difference in d6 rolls if any gives the number of segments the higher roll side can act (spellcast, move etc) before the lower roll side starts acting. If d6s match then movement is simultaneous by segment.
I use the base 'dungeon' move in all (non-hindering) terrain, so eg with 120' move you always move 12' per segment. In an extreme case of a 6-1 roll you might move 5x12' = 60' before the other side can act, but that is rare. Usually you get 0-3 segments of movement, then after that it's resolved simultaneously, 1 segment at a time.
IME it's VERY VERY important to use group init for this style. Individual init is for the stop-motion approach like 3e-5e's default system, and would add far too much complexity to a simultaneous-move system.
Edit: An individual's OODA loop is roughly the length of an AD&D segment of course, so individual characters should be able to make reasonable by-segment adjustments (eg turn to face an attacker, stop before running off the suddenly-revealed cliff). Squad-level OODA loop is much longer - not a full minute, but certainly more like 15-30 seconds, so it makes sense that the group itself can only coordinate at a much slower rate than the individual segment.
Hence why I was thinking of the 'Stop' command that players and the DM can call when they're doing something. It gives a small window for everyone to reassess their situation and change their plans if they wish to, which would be resolved via Initiative scores.
Would only be useful if the combat system was running in increments, though.
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 05, 2021, 07:31:50 AM
This sounds like the movement in Star Fleet Battles. I never want to see something like that used in an RPG.
Never heard of Star Fleet Battles until now. On first glance though, it does use the Hex grid for movement and direction facing, which I want to do as well, but beyond that, I won't be designing rules that in depth for a system like mine.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on March 05, 2021, 08:05:37 AM
Quote from: AgentBJ09 on March 05, 2021, 12:37:58 AMThe way I was figuring it, if everyone was moving all at once, responding to sudden changes in actions by either the players or DM would be a bit easier while still allowing for some chaos to unfold. An enemy pulling a gun the players didn't see, one of the players retreating suddenly, etc.
I've been running D&D without using Initiative for years now and I've never really run into this as a problem.
Why would an enemy pulling a gun or a player retreating require all these extra mechanics? For the pulling a gun scenario, this would only really be an issue outside of combat. As for the player suddenly retreating, either the monster pursues in which case you just compare speeds or make some sort of running check, or the monster doesn't and you place the monster as if it had moved a bit before giving up.
I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that it really doesn't matter if a character changes his action 1/3 of the way through the round compared to halfway or 3/4th of the way. Just put every action change at halfway through the round (half the movement value) and go from there.
Hmm. I would disagree there because a lot can change within a second, or 1/3 of a round in my case. I still have some considerations to make though, so we'll see.
(Nice avatar, by the way. Good times, that episode.)
Quote from: Ghostmaker on March 05, 2021, 08:06:00 AM
Battletech uses this. Initiative is determined, then it typically plays out as the unit with the lowest initiative goes first. All movement is resolved, then it shifts to the firing phase; all ranged attacks occur simultaneously, so even if you core your target he still gets shots off.
Physical attacks work similarly but only -after- the shooting phase has been resolved. So if a Mech gets destroyed during firing phase, it cannot make physical attacks.
My only experience with Battletech is the Hairbrained Schemes game that came out a while ago. It looks cool, without a doubt, and the order of actions you described is nice and simple. I'll keep it in mind.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on March 05, 2021, 08:34:28 AM
Quote from: AgentBJ09 on March 04, 2021, 08:50:58 PM
I've been looking at the Intentions Phase from D&D for a while as a good framework to use for my own game, but I can't help but wonder: Is there a way to build a combat system where everyone moves at once?
This isn't exactly what you seem to have in mind, but here's how I run combat in my original D&D games:
https://www.philotomy.net/rules/combat_sequence/
It breaks up movement (and other actions) into different phases of the round.
No, but I do like the way the order of actions works, how both sides get movement priority in separate phases and the round ends with melee combat. If you're cool with it, I'd like to see what I can do with this set-up.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 05, 2021, 11:38:58 AM
One of the few good things about the attempt by Paradigm Studios to make their own system for Arcanis was their action clock. The short version was each action had a speed. When you performed that action you advanced your clock by the speed and the new number became the next count you acted on. Stuns and similar moves also advanced your clock, delaying your next action. Advanced maneuvers had a recovery speed... a time where you could act again, but at the cost of stamina. Actions on the same count resolve simultaneously.
You could also "push" an action by advancing your clock when it wasn't your turn, but only once until you reach your next count (this was their version of reactions/interrupt actions).
The result felt a bit more immediate and less sequential than WotC D&D turns do since you could literally only do one thing at a time instead of getting your standard, move, swift/minor/bonus all together on your turn.
I remember White Wolf's Scion game using a system like this too. Same with Aces and Eights. I only own the former, though; the latter I didn't know a thing about until Spoony from TGWTG brought it up in one of his Counter Monkey videos, how it keeps track of everything from how fast you can pull your gun, cock the hammer, get a shot off, etc.
I'll give Paradigm's version a look, see if something about it strikes me.
Quote from: Jaeger on March 05, 2021, 01:40:27 PM
This DungeonCraft episode is one of the best systems I have seen for handling a real "everyone moves at once" style of combat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_mxYKzEjms
The one downside to this is that it does really help if it is done with mini's or tokens on a IRL table top or VTT.
You don't need to be a slave to the grid at all, but the relationship and positioning do matter.
Hmm. The 5E 'different die for new Initiative rolls' probably wouldn't work without a bit of tweaking; I'm using only D6 dice for my system, but it would work for a TOTM kind of game.
Otherwise, I can get where this guy's coming from with taking turns. I started with 3.5 back in '06, and man was getting to my turn a drag, even with Pathfinder 1.0. The system he's describing, though? Between it and the Paradigm/Scion/Aces and Eights systems...I'd have to play with both and see what sticks out more, but after watching that video, I'm leaning more towards the DungeonCraft version. Especially since I prefer using a mat with minis as opposed to TOTM, but if both options are on the table for the players and DMs, then everyone's happy.
Quote from: AgentBJ09 on March 05, 2021, 08:38:46 PM
...I do like the way the order of actions works, how both sides get movement priority in separate phases and the round ends with melee combat. If you're cool with it, I'd like to see what I can do with this set-up.
Sure. It's basically the sequence from
Chainmail and
Swords & Spells with a few tweaks; I don't have any special claim to it. (And even if I did, I'd have no problem with someone else using it.)
If you try it out let me know how it goes.
Presumably the intention of this is is to create a more dynamic action orientated combat?
If so a reasonably simple system neutral way of doing this is I often use is
1. Take everyones intention in reverse initiative order.
If it is reasonably obvious what an NPC intention is you can announce it (for example X bad guy reaches for his sword).
Thus the next character in line can gain the benefit when they announce their intentions.
2. Resolve actions in line with intentions. If something has fundamentally changed when it gets to a character they may be able to change actions but this is a GM judgement call and I'd generally avoid it.
3. Put time pressure on the PCs to state their intended their actions and limit conferring under normal circumstances.
Trust me you'll get the same benefits as a mechanical based everyone moves at once but without the draw back of it taking longer than the heat death of the universe.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on March 06, 2021, 12:15:53 PM
Quote from: AgentBJ09 on March 05, 2021, 08:38:46 PM
...I do like the way the order of actions works, how both sides get movement priority in separate phases and the round ends with melee combat. If you're cool with it, I'd like to see what I can do with this set-up.
Sure. It's basically the sequence from Chainmail and Swords & Spells with a few tweaks; I don't have any special claim to it. (And even if I did, I'd have no problem with someone else using it.)
If you try it out let me know how it goes.
Will do.
Quote from: Visitor Q on March 08, 2021, 02:50:50 PM
Presumably the intention of this is is to create a more dynamic action orientated combat?
If so a reasonably simple system neutral way of doing this is I often use is
1. Take everyones intention in reverse initiative order.
If it is reasonably obvious what an NPC intention is you can announce it (for example X bad guy reaches for his sword).
Thus the next character in line can gain the benefit when they announce their intentions.
2. Resolve actions in line with intentions. If something has fundamentally changed when it gets to a character they may be able to change actions but this is a GM judgement call and I'd generally avoid it.
3. Put time pressure on the PCs to state their intended their actions and limit conferring under normal circumstances.
Trust me you'll get the same benefits as a mechanical based everyone moves at once but without the draw back of it taking longer than the heat death of the universe.
For the most part. I'm anticipating combat to be, maybe, 25% of my game by design, but I still want it to avoid what I didn't like about the games I started with, that being D&D 3.5, how slow it was to get around to someone's turn if there was a lot going on.
Putting time pressure on the players is a good idea, though. Make them start thinking like a group instead of going cowboy most times.
Allowing (and encouraging) the group to discuss tactics before an encounter is a good idea. This in turn encourages scouting etc.
Once in combat my stock phrase is "you're not able to discuss this as a committee".
You need to consider what the consequence of delay is though if players dont respond to sand timer or whatever. This can range from enemies getting more actions to represent comparative slowness of PCs to individual PCs missing turns.
However your mileage will vary. Also the players need to get some beneift in increased excitement from the game otherwise you're just hassling them.
Also I'm not too keen on the rules getting in the way of a cool fight scene but some players hate that and enjoy combat being very much a skirmish wargame played using the strict rules they will likely have less tolerence for time pressure. Neither approach is wrong just make sure people know the score.
Incidentally if combat is only about 25% of the game perhaps a more lethal system like Mythras would suit to encourage combat as an option but not the first choice.
I have a system I created years ago inspired by 1E initiative but made for use in other RPGs. I've presented the entire system below for context, but the emphasized portion goes directly to the heart of the question here. Basically, it's a matter of don't over-complicate it.
But also don't underestimate the value of just plain playing better. Understand the difference between means and ends. Like if your advancing forward but then all of a sudden, one of the enemy's party, Filthy Pete, suddenly starts moving away from center way off to the side as he advances, and suddenly you want to change your action to intercept him, you have to recognize your intent never was to move forward. It might have been to protect your flank or specifically to go after Filthy Pete. If simply moving ahead is all you ever wanted to do, it wouldn't matter what Filthy Pete is doing.
Using a battle map may actual contribute to the problem, as it tends to focus you towards moving your figure spatially rather than according to your real intent. But what could help is to think in terms whether you want to drive (move to a specific location), guard (defend some zone), or cover (specifically stay on a particular individual). So the example with Filthy Pete, did you really intend to drive across the battle field? Or were you really intending to guard your flank, pressing forward only to cut the angle. Or were you really trying to cover Filthy Pete? Sometimes there genuinely is new information revealed, though, and so the system does still allow for change of action, but it shouldn't be happening all the time. An example of change of action is given below.
SMACK - RUSH - ICE
SMACK: Shoot, Move, Activate, Continue/Keep-up. These actions are announced before initiative is rolled. In many cases they don't require initiative rolls because what can be accomplished and how much time it takes is usually well defined. Shooting weapons have a specific rate of fire. Characters have specific movement rates. Activating something--such as an item or a spell--takes a prescribed amount of time. And continuing/keeping-up is just the continuation of a multi-round action, which obviously takes some specified amount of time. In cases where it is logical to bring initiative into play, it's also logical that at the time action begins you don't know who is going first. Such as two gunslingers drawing on each other, or two people moving towards the same item, each trying to grab it quick. Only after each party is committed to the action does it make sense to determine precise order of action.
RUSH: Resolve, Use, Strike, Hold. These are announced on each character's turn, as determined by initiative. Resolve refers to continuous actions put in place earlier such as the completion of an activation begun on the SMACK phase, or it could be breaking a continuing hold from a prior round. Use refers to any miscellaneous use of an object including slamming a door shut in the middle of a fight. Striking covers your straight forward attacks, or even less straightforward actions. Holding refers to holding an action, reserving it for later, possibly to interrupt another's later action.
ICE: Interrupt, Change, Evade. These are declared out of turn and in response to some other action or event that takes place. Interrupting is subject to some sort of reaction check in order to negate or head off another's action, otherwise it occurs immediately after as a quick reaction. Changing refers to any time a character changes their action. For instance, if at the start of the round, before initiative, you declared your character is moving across the room, but later that round an enemy pulled a lever opening up a pit blocking your path, it might be time to do something different. Depending how much time had been lost/invested into the action you are changing, you may or may not get to take your new action in the same round. Evading refers to any natural defense types of rolls. "Saving Throws", active defenses, parry (such as using a "held" action), diving for cover or to avoid an attack, and so on.
I like this. From a GM point of view SMACK RUSH ICE is a nice way of ordering the round even if it I wouldn't necessarily formally present it to the players it seems a coherent method of being consistent with what players can do during their turn.
Also agree with the point about battle maps. Battle maps are most useful where precision and the environment is important but in more open conflicts and encounters it doesn't necessarily make sense and in fact can be limiting. This is especially true of one on one boss fights I have found.
I tried to figure out an EMAO mechanic for my last game design project. Mainly I don't like the idea of being locked into an action when you should reasonably be able to change your mind continuously as you see what else is happening. No luck. I did figure out a mechanic that answers my reason for wanting one though, and I think I saw something similar upthread. Players act in reverse initiative order - slowest player going first. Once an action is announced, any player who has not yet acted can say "waitasec, I'm taking my action first." That way the faster characters can react to what the slower characters are doing on the fly. The slower characters can't do the same, but that's reasonable - the quicker character should get their action before the slower character can react. Never tested it out in play - I set aside the project for other reasons. If anyone wants to try it and tell how well it works in actual play, that would be awesome.
Edit: This is actually better than the system above, because it achieves the same effect without adding an extra declaration phase.
QuoteMainly I don't like the idea of being locked into an action when you should reasonably be able to change your mind continuously as you see what else is happening.
Participant roll for initiative - those with some specific number higher than others will get insight in their actions before having to declare own move.
Others - well they are not fast enough to react differently within given turn.
Quote from: Visitor Q on March 09, 2021, 05:25:44 PM
Allowing (and encouraging) the group to discuss tactics before an encounter is a good idea. This in turn encourages scouting etc.
Once in combat my stock phrase is "you're not able to discuss this as a committee".
You need to consider what the consequence of delay is though if players dont respond to sand timer or whatever. This can range from enemies getting more actions to represent comparative slowness of PCs to individual PCs missing turns.
However your mileage will vary. Also the players need to get some beneift in increased excitement from the game otherwise you're just hassling them.
Also I'm not too keen on the rules getting in the way of a cool fight scene but some players hate that and enjoy combat being very much a skirmish wargame played using the strict rules they will likely have less tolerence for time pressure. Neither approach is wrong just make sure people know the score.
Incidentally if combat is only about 25% of the game perhaps a more lethal system like Mythras would suit to encourage combat as an option but not the first choice.
Never heard of Mythras before. *checks* A D100 system. Adding that to my list for later. (My Health system is going to be similar to Fallout 1 and 2 in function, but I can see adding Instadeath scenarios, like Headshots, to help make combat extra dangerous.)
Otherwise, I like the idea of no discussions once all actions have been decided. Some of my old players would hold up other players' turns to redecide something if something about the situation got their attention.
Quote from: Lunamancer on March 10, 2021, 06:59:30 AM
I have a system I created years ago inspired by 1E initiative but made for use in other RPGs. I've presented the entire system below for context, but the emphasized portion goes directly to the heart of the question here. Basically, it's a matter of don't over-complicate it.
But also don't underestimate the value of just plain playing better. Understand the difference between means and ends. Like if your advancing forward but then all of a sudden, one of the enemy's party, Filthy Pete, suddenly starts moving away from center way off to the side as he advances, and suddenly you want to change your action to intercept him, you have to recognize your intent never was to move forward. It might have been to protect your flank or specifically to go after Filthy Pete. If simply moving ahead is all you ever wanted to do, it wouldn't matter what Filthy Pete is doing.
Using a battle map may actual contribute to the problem, as it tends to focus you towards moving your figure spatially rather than according to your real intent. But what could help is to think in terms whether you want to drive (move to a specific location), guard (defend some zone), or cover (specifically stay on a particular individual). So the example with Filthy Pete, did you really intend to drive across the battle field? Or were you really intending to guard your flank, pressing forward only to cut the angle. Or were you really trying to cover Filthy Pete? Sometimes there genuinely is new information revealed, though, and so the system does still allow for change of action, but it shouldn't be happening all the time. An example of change of action is given below.
SMACK - RUSH - ICE
SMACK: Shoot, Move, Activate, Continue/Keep-up. These actions are announced before initiative is rolled. In many cases they don't require initiative rolls because what can be accomplished and how much time it takes is usually well defined. Shooting weapons have a specific rate of fire. Characters have specific movement rates. Activating something--such as an item or a spell--takes a prescribed amount of time. And continuing/keeping-up is just the continuation of a multi-round action, which obviously takes some specified amount of time. In cases where it is logical to bring initiative into play, it's also logical that at the time action begins you don't know who is going first. Such as two gunslingers drawing on each other, or two people moving towards the same item, each trying to grab it quick. Only after each party is committed to the action does it make sense to determine precise order of action.
RUSH: Resolve, Use, Strike, Hold. These are announced on each character's turn, as determined by initiative. Resolve refers to continuous actions put in place earlier such as the completion of an activation begun on the SMACK phase, or it could be breaking a continuing hold from a prior round. Use refers to any miscellaneous use of an object including slamming a door shut in the middle of a fight. Striking covers your straight forward attacks, or even less straightforward actions. Holding refers to holding an action, reserving it for later, possibly to interrupt another's later action.
ICE: Interrupt, Change, Evade. These are declared out of turn and in response to some other action or event that takes place. Interrupting is subject to some sort of reaction check in order to negate or head off another's action, otherwise it occurs immediately after as a quick reaction. Changing refers to any time a character changes their action. For instance, if at the start of the round, before initiative, you declared your character is moving across the room, but later that round an enemy pulled a lever opening up a pit blocking your path, it might be time to do something different. Depending how much time had been lost/invested into the action you are changing, you may or may not get to take your new action in the same round. Evading refers to any natural defense types of rolls. "Saving Throws", active defenses, parry (such as using a "held" action), diving for cover or to avoid an attack, and so on.
I like how each of the steps makes an acronym, though it took me a few reads to fully grasp the set-up you have here. Might have to draw it out on some paper on my end to picture it best.
Quote from: Mishihari on March 10, 2021, 04:00:54 PM
I tried to figure out an EMAO mechanic for my last game design project. Mainly I don't like the idea of being locked into an action when you should reasonably be able to change your mind continuously as you see what else is happening. No luck. I did figure out a mechanic that answers my reason for wanting one though, and I think I saw something similar upthread. Players act in reverse initiative order - slowest player going first. Once an action is announced, any player who has not yet acted can say "waitasec, I'm taking my action first." That way the faster characters can react to what the slower characters are doing on the fly. The slower characters can't do the same, but that's reasonable - the quicker character should get their action before the slower character can react. Never tested it out in play - I set aside the project for other reasons. If anyone wants to try it and tell how well it works in actual play, that would be awesome.
Edit: This is actually better than the system above, because it achieves the same effect without adding an extra declaration phase.
That's interesting, making the slowest go first and letting those who are faster declare actions. Would need some playtesting though, yes.
Btw with discussions in combat I normally play it as happening in game. So PCs can shout warnings or simple suggestions (Attack the dragon. Aim for the head. Run go get to the chopper etc), but when there is an indepth back and forth about the merits of a tactic it is time to move the game along.
Of course a PC is free to use his action to stop and literally just spend it talking. I have had one or two scenarios where players have actually done this. But these have been scifi settings with a character observing the battlefield from afar and able to communicate electronically. It is fun giving a PC acting as spotter a time limit every turn to explain what off screen enemies are doing.
Quote from: Visitor Q on March 11, 2021, 06:55:12 PM
Btw with discussions in combat I normally play it as happening in game. So PCs can shout warnings or simple suggestions (Attack the dragon. Aim for the head. Run go get to the chopper etc), but when there is an indepth back and forth about the merits of a tactic it is time to move the game along.
Of course a PC is free to use his action to stop and literally just spend it talking. I have had one or two scenarios where players have actually done this. But these have been scifi settings with a character observing the battlefield from afar and able to communicate electronically. It is fun giving a PC acting as spotter a time limit every turn to explain what off screen enemies are doing.
So like a Real-Time Strategy game. Any commands must be less than a second when in combat and such. Makes sense.
Quote from: AgentBJ09 on March 11, 2021, 06:38:16 PM
I like how each of the steps makes an acronym, though it took me a few reads to fully grasp the set-up you have here. Might have to draw it out on some paper on my end to picture it best.
See if this helps.
SMACK actions begin at the beginning of the round and flow continuously (everyone moves at once). Because they begin at the start of the round, they must be announced first. This has a very high correlation to the 1E declaration of intents phase.
RUSH actions are the ones that follow initiative order, so they must take place after initiative is rolled.
ICE actions follow no particular order. They can happen at any time, and are generally a reaction to something. As such, they must be announced after (immediately) some other action or event. If the order of the ICE action relative to the action being reacted to is in question, the order of action should be resolved by some sort of Speed/Reaction check.
One of my aims in putting this together is I actually don't like the declaration of intent phase. I don't want to go around the table to get everyone's actions, then roll initiative, then go around the table again once initiative is rolled to resolve it. But I also really like the possibility of disrupting a spell by attacking the caster before completion. And this doesn't work without the declarations phase because you could just opt to only cast when you lose initiative, after your enemies have already acted so no one is left to attack you. And I noticed a lot of actions just don't need initiative rolls. In many instances, order of action simply doesn't matter. In many other instances, the timing of the action is already well-defined (movement
rates,
rates of fire, casting
time, etc). So I sat down and figured out when I need initiative and when I don't thereby separating actions into SMACK and RUSH. Finally, while I find turn-based systems to be nice and orderly, I want to create a real-time feel. And so that's where I included interrupt actions.
Quote from: Lunamancer on March 11, 2021, 08:58:08 PM
Quote from: AgentBJ09 on March 11, 2021, 06:38:16 PM
I like how each of the steps makes an acronym, though it took me a few reads to fully grasp the set-up you have here. Might have to draw it out on some paper on my end to picture it best.
See if this helps.
SMACK actions begin at the beginning of the round and flow continuously (everyone moves at once). Because they begin at the start of the round, they must be announced first. This has a very high correlation to the 1E declaration of intents phase.
RUSH actions are the ones that follow initiative order, so they must take place after initiative is rolled.
ICE actions follow no particular order. They can happen at any time, and are generally a reaction to something. As such, they must be announced after (immediately) some other action or event. If the order of the ICE action relative to the action being reacted to is in question, the order of action should be resolved by some sort of Speed/Reaction check.
One of my aims in putting this together is I actually don't like the declaration of intent phase. I don't want to go around the table to get everyone's actions, then roll initiative, then go around the table again once initiative is rolled to resolve it. But I also really like the possibility of disrupting a spell by attacking the caster before completion. And this doesn't work without the declarations phase because you could just opt to only cast when you lose initiative, after your enemies have already acted so no one is left to attack you. And I noticed a lot of actions just don't need initiative rolls. In many instances, order of action simply doesn't matter. In many other instances, the timing of the action is already well-defined (movement rates, rates of fire, casting time, etc). So I sat down and figured out when I need initiative and when I don't thereby separating actions into SMACK and RUSH. Finally, while I find turn-based systems to be nice and orderly, I want to create a real-time feel. And so that's where I included interrupt actions.
That does help. Thanks.
Otherwise, I can see where you're coming from, and things like spell interruptions are why I'm designing my own system to use much shorter segments within a single combat round. To account for, say, a Magician being hit with something while casting, or a character having one of their limbs severely damaged/crippled, causing their speed or accuracy to fall.
Quote from: AgentBJ09 on March 11, 2021, 08:25:58 PM
Quote from: Visitor Q on March 11, 2021, 06:55:12 PM
Btw with discussions in combat I normally play it as happening in game. So PCs can shout warnings or simple suggestions (Attack the dragon. Aim for the head. Run go get to the chopper etc), but when there is an indepth back and forth about the merits of a tactic it is time to move the game along.
Of course a PC is free to use his action to stop and literally just spend it talking. I have had one or two scenarios where players have actually done this. But these have been scifi settings with a character observing the battlefield from afar and able to communicate electronically. It is fun giving a PC acting as spotter a time limit every turn to explain what off screen enemies are doing.
So like a Real-Time Strategy game. Any commands must be less than a second when in combat and such. Makes sense.
Depending how lenient you want to be and how long your rounds last for, but yes more or less (I normally allow 5-10 seconds). It's not a hard rule it's there to keep the game going and avoid quarterbacking.
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 05, 2021, 07:31:50 AM
This sounds like the movement in Star Fleet Battles. I never want to see something like that used in an RPG.
That is exactly what I was thinking. Loved it for starship combat, would hate it for RPG combat. YMMV.
Quote from: dkabq on March 22, 2021, 06:33:10 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 05, 2021, 07:31:50 AM
This sounds like the movement in Star Fleet Battles. I never want to see something like that used in an RPG.
That is exactly what I was thinking. Loved it for starship combat, would hate it for RPG combat. YMMV.
Personally, the best we'll ever get to that for an RPG is the system that GURPS made. 3D6 and what you roll determines what you hit. Same with the Fallout VATS system of six limbs, though I miss the OG Fallout 8 locations, with the eyes and the groin as options. That was fun times.
I use a modified version of the Mike Mearls initiative system for my DCC game. We use a shared Google g.sheet to manage it. My players like the additional detail it brings to combats. We are all engineers or programmers, so the numerical overhead is not a problem. YMMV.
Quote from: AgentBJ09 on March 23, 2021, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: dkabq on March 22, 2021, 06:33:10 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 05, 2021, 07:31:50 AM
This sounds like the movement in Star Fleet Battles. I never want to see something like that used in an RPG.
That is exactly what I was thinking. Loved it for starship combat, would hate it for RPG combat. YMMV.
Personally, the best we'll ever get to that for an RPG is the system that GURPS made. 3D6 and what you roll determines what you hit. Same with the Fallout VATS system of six limbs, though I miss the OG Fallout 8 locations, with the eyes and the groin as options. That was fun times.
The comparison was made to the impulse movement, not the DAC.
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 23, 2021, 09:44:34 PM
Quote from: AgentBJ09 on March 23, 2021, 07:34:25 PM
Quote from: dkabq on March 22, 2021, 06:33:10 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on March 05, 2021, 07:31:50 AM
This sounds like the movement in Star Fleet Battles. I never want to see something like that used in an RPG.
That is exactly what I was thinking. Loved it for starship combat, would hate it for RPG combat. YMMV.
Personally, the best we'll ever get to that for an RPG is the system that GURPS made. 3D6 and what you roll determines what you hit. Same with the Fallout VATS system of six limbs, though I miss the OG Fallout 8 locations, with the eyes and the groin as options. That was fun times.
The comparison was made to the impulse movement, not the DAC.
Fair enough.