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.