Quote from: Nicephorus;501839The effect of this depends on the length of combat.
Compare
ABA
to
BAB

Sure. I did say ... ' insignificant outside of one-shot kill scenarios'

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;501852LESS dice rolling in a fantasy RPG especially one that is supposed to be a clone of D&D whereas dice rolling is one of the MAIN staples of the game???

Yep, and to paraphrase Pundit's original post, hamburgers have not begun to eat people, nor have fractures started to appear in the very fabric of reality. Dice rolling is a staple of the game, but it is not the game itself.

To elaborate, in S&W ( group) initiative is basically decided by d6 rolls, highest goes first. Nothing is factored into these rolls so who-goes-first remains entirely arbitrary. There is no added realism achieved by using this method so it seems to be no great loss. Arguably, it adds some random variation to combats but I choose to achieve variety through other means.

Quote from: km10ftp;501865Yep, and to paraphrase Pundit's original post, hamburgers have not begun to eat people, nor have fractures started to appear in the very fabric of reality. Dice rolling is a staple if the game, but it is not the game itself.

To elaborate, in S&W ( group) initiative is basically decided by d6 rolls, highest goes first. Nothing is factored into these rolls so who-goes-first remains entirely arbitrary. There is no added realism achieved by using this method so it seems to be no great loss. Arguably, it adds some random variation to combats but I choose to achieve variety through other means.

I am well aware of the extreme simplicity of S&W's combat phases/sequence of events and I embrace simplicity solely on the fact that that I do not inject realism into a fantasy rpg.  If I wanted that, I would play more complexed fantasy RPG's.

this is a part of why I like abstract combat mechanics over supposedly real mechanics. I almost never agree with game designers ideas about how fighting works.

In my martial arts, I'm not strong enough to grapple wrestlers or fast enough to overwhelm someone with strikes, but my technique and size let me hurt people really badly with single techniques. I let people stand at their comfortable distance and endure their attack. If they are predictable, I interrupt it. If they are too strong, I endure it and strike when they settle. In either case I'm a counter fighter and I excel both when my opponent is too comfortable or too angry. What I don't do is go first - I have plenty of hit points.

By trying to be realistic, your system would shatter my immersion because it is trying to tell me how fighting works, which is counter to my experience. I think it is superior to answer the question of attack. I know how I can be hit but the attacker can't know how I will respond.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;501850Most Initiative systems in RPG's assume it's only about who goes when and why. This is fine, but for my Destiny system, I decided to go a different way.

Initiative, in real-world combat, is about this: making decisions faster than your enemy, taking actions to press your advantage, keeping them off balance, and using their confusion to defeat them.

That's how conflict works. The Initiative isn't about who goes first, it's about who is in control of the conflict. One side is making decisions and acting, the other reacting. Those reacting will eventually lose.

(You can see a more full explanation here.)

The more you press your attack, the more you keep the opposition off balance, the more effective you are in the combat, and the less effective the enemy is. Each round you keep The Initiative, your enemy will grow more demoralized and more confused.

I think this is an interesting take, both mechanically and from a roleplaying standpoint. Again, the above linked post (in the Game Design forum) explains this in more detail.

If you're really intent on rethinking Initiative, well this is one example of it being rethought from first principles. It is a fundamentally different conception of Initiative than most other RPG's.

Quote from: Cranewings;501888this is a part of why I like abstract combat mechanics over supposedly real mechanics. I almost never agree with game designers ideas about how fighting works.

In my martial arts, I'm not strong enough to grapple wrestlers or fast enough to overwhelm someone with strikes, but my technique and size let me hurt people really badly with single techniques. I let people stand at their comfortable distance and endure their attack. If they are predictable, I interrupt it. If they are too strong, I endure it and strike when they settle. In either case I'm a counter fighter and I excel both when my opponent is too comfortable or too angry. What I don't do is go first - I have plenty of hit points.

By trying to be realistic, your system would shatter my immersion because it is trying to tell me how fighting works, which is counter to my experience. I think it is superior to answer the question of attack. I know how I can be hit but the attacker can't know how I will respond.

On that subject - what do you think of Wick's advice on "fight's over after one - two blows"?

Quote from: Rincewind1;501890On that subject - what do you think of Wick's advice on "fight's over after one - two blows"?

It is mostly true. Watch either the UFC or Boxing. Most guys who get hit squarely are ruined. That isn't true for everyone. While I'm not keen on a direct comparison, Ali and Tito Ortiz are both under appreciated for their strong jaw. When they get hit in the face, you can see them go to sleep for a second, but they stay up and snap out of it - that's rare.

Important to note though, two good fighters can hit one another for minutes without landing a clean shot, at all.

Knife fighting is worse. If I were to make realistic knife rules, they would do stamina damage or some such thing - one point + one per round per hit. They would only do health damage on a crit or after stamina dropped. In any case, people that knife fight often don't feel it much and get cut a lot. Point of fact, a friend of mine stabbed herself in the hand recently, on accident while cutting an avocado, so hard it bent the knife on her bone. She said it just felt like a punch.

75% of people that competed in european sword dueling ended up dead. That wasn't just due to simultaneous final blows. That was the winner walking away with a bunch of puncture wounds. It really can be hard to stop someone with a blade.

All in all, willpower, pain perception, individual talent, skill at diminishing the blows that hit, endurance... all kinds of things feed into it. I have one friend I kicked recently who almost collapsed from a 10% heal kick to his leg. He is in the military and played soccer for 10 years. I have another friend who I kicked so hard in his inner thigh his ankle pooled with blood and he walked around like nothing was wrong.

Quote from: Cranewings;501898It is mostly true. Watch either the UFC or Boxing. Most guys who get hit squarely are ruined. That isn't true for everyone. While I'm not keen on a direct comparison, Ali and Tito Ortiz are both under appreciated for their strong jaw. When they get hit in the face, you can see them go to sleep for a second, but they stay up and snap out of it - that's f fact, a friend of mine stabbed herself in the hand recently, on accident while cutting an avocado, so hard it bent the knife on her bone. She said it just felt like a punch.
 ong.

The timing of the punch is important too. Taking a punch you know is coming is very different from a punch you never saw. Knocks usually boil down to good combos. You follow through after you've rattled the guy, otherwise he will recover.

Quote from: two_fishes;501848I'm picturing a situation like, a fighter player says he's charging into a fray only to change his mind when he realizes he's leaving the wizard unguarded for an attack declared by the GM--before any dice are rolled. Or a thief-player changing his mind about stealing a bit of treasure after the GM declares he's the target of an attack. Stuff like that.

Quote from: stu2000;501859When I'm playing a game where declaring moves is part of the rules the moves are declared in reverse initiative order, then rolled in order, because etc...

But these are all systems that use initiative. I'm curious about how people handle this sort of issue if they don't use initiative. Philotomy said it hasn't really come up at his table, which is fair, but I wonder if anyone can comment where it has.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;501900The timing of the punch is important too. Taking a punch you know is coming is very different from a punch you never saw. Knocks usually boil down to good combos. You follow through after you've rattled the guy, otherwise he will recover.

It is a weird thing about the one you didn't see coming. Your body hates it - they hurt so much worse I guess to keep you scared of it.

Quote from: Cranewings;501888your system would shatter my immersion because it is trying to tell me how fighting works, which is counter to my experience.

I'm not saying your experience or observations are wrong. I'm saying you're wrong about the actual details of the Initiative mechanic.

Everything you've said can be represented by the mechanic. More, everything you said is deliberately included as part of the mechanic.

I know these things happen, and wrote them into the system. Let me give some examples:

Quote from: Cranewings;501888What I don't do is go first

Initiative isn't about going first: it's about being able to chose when to act. People with the Initiative can strike before their opponent, or allow him to initiate an attack and interrupt it, or allow him to complete an attack, then counter-attack, or otherwise take advantage of an opening.

You have the Initiative, you have the choice.

Quote from: Cranewings;501888I know how I can be hit but the attacker can't know how I will respond.

You have situational awareness? Probably you have the Initiative and are choosing the appropriate moment to strike. You can choose to let him go first.

That's fine—that's your prerogative when you have the Initiative.

If you had no idea how he was going to hit you, if he did so quicker and faster than you, if he launched effective attacks that you couldn't endure or ignore, if he kept you off balance, on the defensive, unable to react quick enough to see a weakness and take advantage of it, he'd have the Initiative, not you.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

Quote from: Cranewings;501888I let people stand at their comfortable distance and endure their attack. If they are predictable, I interrupt it. If they are too strong, I endure it and strike when they settle. In either case I'm a counter fighter

This situation can be exactly represented within the mechanic (and one of the examples in the thread is identical to this situation.) In fact, it could be represented two ways:

Perhaps he has the Initiative, and is attacking you, but unable to meaningfully affect you. (Maybe you're taking the "full defense" action to protect yourself, so his Advantage doesn't increase.) Then you counterattack, and Seize the Initiative.

Or...

You could have the Initiative. You are in control. You choose to let him go first, he does, and you execute an attack.

Either way, your experience—as you've described it—and tactics are not only consonant with the mechanic, they were built into it on purpose.

Fighting isn't about going first. It's about observing the situation, making a decision, and carrying out that decision. Situational awareness, quick decision making, and keeping your opponent off-balance are key.

Or, if on the defensive, enduring (or avoiding) his attacks, preventing him from gaining a decisive advantage, and counter-attacking when the time is right. If you do this, you can Seize the Initiative.

That's what the Initiative (in this mechanic) represents: the party with the Initiative is the one acting on their observations and decisions, and the enemy is trying to do so, but failing.

So, I disagree with your post not because you are wrong about combat, but because you are right. And that's why those elements are included in the mechanic.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;501900The timing of the punch is important too. Taking a punch you know is coming is very different from a punch you never saw.

Situational awareness.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;501900Knocks usually boil down to good combos. You follow through after you've rattled the guy, otherwise he will recover.

In mechanical terms, in context of the Initiative system I linked to: you Press the Attack, and increase your Advantage. If you don't, you lose the Advantage point you just gained.

Press the attack vigorously enough, your enemy will get more and more rattled, eventually leading to his defeat. Fail to do so, you will squander your Advantage and he will recover, opening yourself up to a Counter-Attack, where he Seizes the Initiative.

Solid fighting advice, represented mechanically in the system.

Daddy, ha well, then if your game is actually immersion friendly, then it sounds perfect. Good job sir.

Quote from: Cranewings;501919Daddy, ha well, then if your game is actually immersion friendly, then it sounds perfect. Good job sir.

Thank you. You're very gracious.

I want to say this: I'm not claiming my rules are perfect. On the contrary there have to be gaps.

I want people like you, who know their shit, to rigorously criticize them to make them better. If you did so, I'd appreciate it.

I am not a soldier, nor a martial artist. But I have taken an immense amount of time and effort to learn how fighting works, to try and understand how it works from the inside. I want the mechanic to reflect that reality.

I don't want to be the oblivious newb who talks out of his ass about that which he hasn't the experience or knowledge to understand. I genuinely believe that the mechanic does a great job representing the back and forth of combat, the need to follow-up on an attack, or defend until you can counter attack, and so forth.

If I'm wrong, and where I'm wrong, I'd like to know. But, if it merely appears I'm wrong because I've explained it incorrectly or incompletely, then I'd like to correct that as well.

Again, you are gracious and I do appreciate the information you gave (as well as the other post about wounds and such). I've made notes on both.

Thank you for responding.

Quote from: _kent_;501864Sure. I did say ... ' insignificant outside of one-shot kill scenarios'

It's more than just that, one hit kills are just the endpoint.  It has to do with how intense the damage tends to be, average damage per round compared to typical hp.  The higher the damage output, the shorter the battles and the more important initiative is.  21 chances to hit vs 20 is a 5% advantage for going first.  3 chances to hit vs 2 is a 50% advantage.

It also depends on set up and encounter distance.  Many of the adventures written for 3e and 4e don't have much terrain or long encounter distances.  This means that whoever goes first also gets to get a good attack in first.

If my players expressed an interest in playing with out initiative I would try it. I have no great commitment to any single method of gaming. I'll do what's the most fun for everyone.