For about 6 months now I have been using Narrative initiative for determining order of battle in my SWRPG games. I haven't found anyone else who uses such a method for SWRPG, and very few who have used it in other games. I almost never use maps or diagrams, so this is something I have used mainly only in Theatre of the Mind.
The way it works is that the combatants get parsed into units of intention, or Frames as I call it. Intention and Attention forms the basis of who is being attacked by whom. Then there is a hierarchy to the decision of who goes first considering the characters involved:
1) Common Sense - Whoever starts the fight generally goes first. A Ranged defender vs. a Melee attacker at greater than Engaged (Point Blank) is going to go first if they are aware and able to fire at the character charging them. A descriptive argument is made for why someone would likely go first.
2) Story - The PCs are the heroes so generally if there are no environment or situational factors that outweigh it, time goes to the player.
3) Simultaneous or Dice or Stat Comparison - If there isn't a satisfactory way to determine the outcome then it's considered simultaneous, or a comparison of stats between combatants or a roll-off (using standard Initiative rules for the game) will solve it.
Then the next person to go is considered. Each Character who can will get a Turn each Round, and without a matrix for ordering by number I generally keep track of this by having PCs turn over a Turn token once they have acted.
PROs - Resolution is fast once everyone gets used to the system, without having to stop and roll Initiative before describing what happens in the first part of a combat. Combat is described rather than counted off.
CONs - Takes sportsmanship by the players to accept that a Bad Guy will go before them at times, requiring that the determination not seem to be empty GM Fiat. Requires some adaptation to the game's elements that give the Character a chance to go quicker n combat based on a numerical additive to the Initiative Roll of RAW.
I would love any input on this, especially from people who have used non-rolled Initiative of some sort in your games. Thanks :)
Probably won't work. At some point the players will deduce the pattern of best optimal performance to game your narrative system. Case in point - when someone says - "When I walk into the room, I'm keeping my blaster ready to quickdraw before anyone attacks me."
do you then say - "No"? Or do you put it to the test and just say - "This Bounty Hunter draws his weapon and fires at you!" then let the BH go? You'll be damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you do - then they'll be trained to know that they can't protect themselves from narratively blasting first they'll start blasting everyone at the drop of a hat.
or if you say yes - then they'll *always* be doing that to pre-empt themselves from getting caught unawares. At some point - you'll have to resort to die-rolls. Or worse you flip-flop and no one can then trust your judgement unless you're particularly charismatic.
Quote from: tenbones;1043964Probably won't work. At some point the players will deduce the pattern of best optimal performance to game your narrative system. Case in point - when someone says - "When I walk into the room, I'm keeping my blaster ready to quickdraw before anyone attacks me."
do you then say - "No"? Or do you put it to the test and just say - "This Bounty Hunter draws his weapon and fires at you!" then let the BH go? You'll be damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you do - then they'll be trained to know that they can't protect themselves from narratively blasting first they'll start blasting everyone at the drop of a hat.
or if you say yes - then they'll *always* be doing that to pre-empt themselves from getting caught unawares. At some point - you'll have to resort to die-rolls. Or worse you flip-flop and no one can then trust your judgement unless you're particularly charismatic.
Hey thanks for your post. Yeah I haven't had too much trouble with that even from the more competitive players I play with, but I am willing to admit that may be just my control of the situation. I noticed that of all the people to fall into that it was me when I was playing in a friend's game and he was using the NI method lol. If you are the first one to initiate combat then the enemies are in reaction mode unless they prepared. A few times I had a conversational non-sequitur when I drew my blaster and shot someone who didn't expect me to do it.
Should that have automatically been a roll? Or did it simply resemble what would happen if you let your guard down with someone who was ready to shoot you?
But I found that this had the added effect of making "Guns/Weapons Drawn" that much more significant, as well as fast draw abilities because the players were not walking around with weapons at Aiming Down Sights configuration because it isn't feasible to do so all of the time.
But you bring up a good point here because I think there is the question of readiness. Regular Dice Initiative assumes that each party is equally ready and able to respond in a similar time frame.
It half-makes sense to me:
Yes, someone with a ranged weapon (or even a significantly longer-reach hand weapon) which is ready to use and facing the opponent should get at least one chance to use it before someone moving to close the distance. On the other hand, sometimes people fail to do so.
(Not having an actual combat map or at least knowing the distance between people and comparing time = distance / rate to rate of fire is a problem to me. If I ask you how much clear space there is between me and a building, and you say 50 meters, and then you say several crazed mental patients storm out the doors to the building, and I'm holding a gun, you need to give me a number of shots with my automatic rifle that is rather greater than one before they get to attack me, as I'm going to want to shoot them until I judge I need to break and run to get away from them. If my GM can't/won't somehow solve that problem and get a reasonable number out of it, it makes me feel like I'm in an annoying surreal nightmare rather than the situation described.)
One of the first situations we ran into was the "do you have your weapons ready?" question when travelling and having encounters. The GM would say "you're walking down the road on the third day out of Grumbletown when..." and the players would interrupt with cries of "I draw my sword!" and "I ready by bow!" and "I cast Detect Enemies!"... after which we had to negotiate a bit and establish a reasonable standard behavior pattern the PCs were doing, and what the consequences might be.
One of my least favorite experiences is when the GM quickly allows players to say what they're doing without consulting the other players, and it ends up being that the players who speak first and loudest, and the ones who make the most assumptions about the situations and are most asserting about what they can do and what will work, gain conversational-imaginative "initiative" and effectively shape reality and what happens to go their way, and the players who are slower and who would ask the GM what the situation is and avoid saying they do things that might not work, tend to then have their characters in the rear not doing much. I'm curious if there's a way to have a table-talk system that can reconcile different player styles.
I think you might be able to develop a satisfying system for this, but I think it's a tricky interesting problem which also depends on your goals and the players' tastes. I'd be interested to see what you come up with.
Boys... the narrative scenario dilemma has already been done for you:
Han meet Greedo. Who *really* shot first? Apply your narrative system that scenario and consider how it really plays out. :)
Quote from: Skarg;1043973It half-makes sense to me:
Yes, someone with a ranged weapon (or even a significantly longer-reach hand weapon) which is ready to use and facing the opponent should get at least one chance to use it before someone moving to close the distance. On the other hand, sometimes people fail to do so.
(Not having an actual combat map or at least knowing the distance between people and comparing time = distance / rate to rate of fire is a problem to me. If I ask you how much clear space there is between me and a building, and you say 50 meters, and then you say several crazed mental patients storm out the doors to the building, and I'm holding a gun, you need to give me a number of shots with my automatic rifle that is rather greater than one before they get to attack me, as I'm going to want to shoot them until I judge I need to break and run to get away from them. If my GM can't/won't somehow solve that problem and get a reasonable number out of it, it makes me feel like I'm in an annoying surreal nightmare rather than the situation described.)
One of the first situations we ran into was the "do you have your weapons ready?" question when travelling and having encounters. The GM would say "you're walking down the road on the third day out of Grumbletown when..." and the players would interrupt with cries of "I draw my sword!" and "I ready by bow!" and "I cast Detect Enemies!"... after which we had to negotiate a bit and establish a reasonable standard behavior pattern the PCs were doing, and what the consequences might be.
One of my least favorite experiences is when the GM quickly allows players to say what they're doing without consulting the other players, and it ends up being that the players who speak first and loudest, and the ones who make the most assumptions about the situations and are most asserting about what they can do and what will work, gain conversational-imaginative "initiative" and effectively shape reality and what happens to go their way, and the players who are slower and who would ask the GM what the situation is and avoid saying they do things that might not work, tend to then have their characters in the rear not doing much. I'm curious if there's a way to have a table-talk system that can reconcile different player styles.
I think you might be able to develop a satisfying system for this, but I think it's a tricky interesting problem which also depends on your goals and the players' tastes. I'd be interested to see what you come up with.
Yeah I have to say I didn't consider the problem of the loud vs. the quiet and that is really a big consideration because I want it to be about the characters and not the players when it comes to resolution. I need to look at that.
The SWRPG has a really abstract range system anyway, but I did playtest this with minis and a map and it was actually fine except for when you have simultaneous movement which looks weird and a bit like action figure play lol. I have been kind of defaulting to letting the players go first if there is no other factor that seems to jump out, and that works ok because they can still miss. Thank you for your points they were instructive and helpful.
Quote from: tenbones;1043976Boys... the narrative scenario dilemma has already been done for you:
Han meet Greedo. Who *really* shot first? Apply your narrative system that scenario and consider how it really plays out. :)
LOL yeah this was an awesome example.
This is very close to what I read in Star Trek Adventures last night. To paraphrase (and hopefully not mangle) what I remember. If someone is obviously about to go or has the drop on someone then they go first. If that doesn't apply, then a PC goes first. Play then alternates.
It even addresses what Tenbones brought up. STA has this mechanic called Momentum and Threat. They're a fudge point mechanic. Momentum is for players and Threat is for GM controlled characters. If the GM wants an NPC to go first, he of course can just say fuck logic and fiat it just like anything else, but if he'd rather have some more rulesy justification he can spend a Threat to validate the NPC going first.
Quote from: Gabriel2;1043995This is very close to what I read in Star Trek Adventures last night. To paraphrase (and hopefully not mangle) what I remember. If someone is obviously about to go or has the drop on someone then they go first. If that doesn't apply, then a PC goes first. Play then alternates.
It even addresses what Tenbones brought up. STA has this mechanic called Momentum and Threat. They're a fudge point mechanic. Momentum is for players and Threat is for GM controlled characters. If the GM wants an NPC to go first, he of course can just say fuck logic and fiat it just like anything else, but if he'd rather have some more rulesy justification he can spend a Threat to validate the NPC going first.
Thanks for the reply. Yeah that system looked like it has some very cool ways of doing things. I like the Momentum mechanic.
In practice I have seen the players get the drop on NPCs only a few times, but I am not one to have NPC's do monologues before attacking so I didn't get butthurt about it if they draw down on the bad guy. If anything it kind of feels more realistic to me. And in the spirit of realism they can't constantly be ready for a gunfight, but if I had a player who was insisting his character was constantly vigilant I would start giving him strain and setbacks on his vigilance the longer he kept it up past a certain point sans drugs.
Quote from: tenbones;1043976Boys... the narrative scenario dilemma has already been done for you:
Han meet Greedo. Who *really* shot first? Apply your narrative system that scenario and consider how it really plays out. :)
Han didn't shoot first. He just didn't.
Why? Greedo died before he could do anything, there was no evidence that the Rodian would have fired his weapon. Han just shot Greedo, end of discussion.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044029Han didn't shoot first. He just didn't.
Why? Greedo died before he could do anything, there was no evidence that the Rodian would have fired his weapon. Han just shot Greedo, end of discussion.
Yeah :)
IIRC, Cinematic Unisystem used this form of initiative.
I used reflex speed in my system. Namely being that you might get the drop on someone. But are you faster than them? Is your advantage+speed enough?
D&D has it that whomever has surprise gets a free round of attacks and you just check to see if anyone is or not and proceed.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1044044IIRC, Cinematic Unisystem used this form of initiative.
Hey Happy, did you play that system, and if so what did you think of that method of resolution?
Quote from: Omega;1044049I used reflex speed in my system. Namely being that you might get the drop on someone. But are you faster than them? Is your advantage+speed enough?
D&D has it that whomever has surprise gets a free round of attacks and you just check to see if anyone is or not and proceed.
What were your experiences with that? Good, Bad, Ugly? lol
Yeah the old D&D surprise round. I remember many an argument starting over that when I was younger.
I really don't see why people have such problems with a basic roll-the-die initiative system.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1044626I really don't see why people have such problems with a basic roll-the-die initiative system.
I don't think it's a problem with the idea of rolling a die and using that to determine order. It's more that the default d6 Star Wars system seems to drop the ball on the concept of initiative.
And changing initiative order to something like the OP is considering is really no different from talkers->runners->fighters from Adventures in Time and Space.
Edit: Did the title always say FFG Star Wars? I assumed the OP was talking about d6! DOH!
Quote from: RPGPundit;1044626I really don't see why people have such problems with a basic roll-the-die initiative system.
Hey thanks for posting. I think regular Dice initiative if kind of an extra step that slows things down. I always liked it when there was a surprise round in D&D because we wouldn't roll Initiative and would go right into the combat. Initiative makes you stop before each sequence so it's the difference between a highway and a street with stop signs every block.
Quote from: Archlyte;1043959For about 6 months now I have been using Narrative initiative for determining order of battle in my SWRPG games.
I tried to monkey with the Initiative system for FFG's SW games but found that so much of the initiative modifiers were actual talents from the class talent tree, that any system I used short-changed some of the players. I ended up just using it as written with the one change that you had to use your own initiative slot on the first round (no more having a quick-draw artist hand his action over to the machine gunner).
Quote from: Archlyte;1044051What were your experiences with that? Good, Bad, Ugly? lol
Yeah the old D&D surprise round. I remember many an argument starting over that when I was younger.
1: Pretty well really. Unless someone took the time to study an opponent beforehand there was essentially that sort of gunslingers risk every time as you never knew who was the fastest till weapons were drawn. And sometimes speed alone wasnt enough. Skill, intuition, etc might tip the outcome.
2: Pretty sure it is in 5e too.
This is very similar to the initiative system I use. Common sense goes first: is one side waiting to see what the other does? Does one side of a closing melee have significantly longer weapons? Etc. Only if common sense doesn't determine initiative, we roll group vs group. In fact, "common sense" is RAW for my homebrewed D&Dish game.
We roll initiative only once per encounter, and take turns after that. The players (and monsters) go in whatever order suits them each round on their turn. At first the players stumbled on ordering themselves a bit and we tried switching to individual initiative, but they found that even more cumbersome, so we switched back and haven't had a problem since.
I've been using this system for about 2 years now, and find it awesome in every way. Fast, believable, engaging.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1044626I really don't see why people have such problems with a basic roll-the-die initiative system.
For me, in cases where a die roll contraindicates common sense or obvious applicable circumstances, it creates cognitive dissonance and breaks immersion. I have no objection to rolling a die in every other case.