TheRPGSite

I recall a particularly annoying quote often bandied about a certain other rpg site, and it goes a bit like this:

"rolling for initiative is where we roll the dice to determine the order in which we will roll the dice. it is just a crazy thing to me, and terribly dull."

This is a puzzle - introducing a random element to see who gets to attack first is both crazy and dull? So all those westerns with gunfighters drawing at high noon were the height of tedium? Maybe another hobby would be more suitable then, like say gardening, I believe that's nice and predictable unless you've been picking up your supplies at Mushnik's flower shop or something. Talk about combining similar words in such a sufficiently meaningless fashion as to leap across the border of the idiotic.

Anyway I like the wheel form of initiative, where you roll once at the start then everyone gets to act based on how long it takes to say attack or cast a spell. So someone using a dagger might be able to attack three times in the length it takes another to swing a battle axe.

I qualify that by reducing the time it takes to use weapons based on skill however, so a master axeman might be just as quick as a standard knifeman. Magic can also reduce action times. Each creature involved is tracked by moving tokens around a wheel of ten or twelve spokes. Works great, and really keeps the action moving.

How do you prefer your initiative?

Quote from: The Traveller;591242How do you prefer your initiative?

Radically different (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21597).

As I said in that thread, Initiative has nothing to do with who goes first. It has everything to do with who is in command of the battlespace, who is making and executing plans.

Those with Initiative act, those without React. Those who React, will sooner or later lose.

Initiative isn't random, it's a consequence of decisions made during the combat. You choose to act aggressively and Seize the Initiative. Act passively, and your enemies will take the Initiative, and wipe you out.

That is, at least, what all my research has indicated. So, I crafted my mechanics to match.

(See also this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=501850&postcount=26), where I had a great discussion about how my Initiative system interfaces with real combat. Short answer: it held up very well.)

Quote from: The Traveller;591242How do you prefer your initiative?

I honestly don't care, as long as it's quick and easy to do and doesn't involve everyone adding a bunch of modifiers every round. As long as it's quick and easy with low or no bookkeeping, I'm happy with it.

Here's the 3 Initiative systems that have worked for me:

Highest Fixed Stat
I have been fine with fixed initiative based on DEX or DEX + INT or whatever stats, sometimes modified by talents or circumstance. It's easy, but predictable. Worked fine in Champions since you get what you pay for. Never had a problem using it in Traveller as well.

PCs vs. Monsters
This is my default option for my OD&D games. Each side rolls 1D6, ties go to the PCs. It allows each side to use team tactics and you nuke that annoying "I delay" shit that plagues D20 games. Is it realistic? Fuck no, but neither is anything else in D&D.

Better Games Model
If you have the chance, hunt down Space Gamer / Fantasy Gamer magazines from the 90s when it was owned by Better Games. They had a cool initiative system where you choose go in the Active or Reactive Phase, both had their advantages and it added to the tactical fun of the game.

That certainly is a very sad quote.

Usually I just go with "players go first" style initiative. It's fast and it gives the party that extra edge which suits the cinematic kind of games I usually run.

Marvel Super Heroes has a pretty cool system. It is basically team based initiative with the difference that the players and (secretly) the GM declare their planned moves before the initiative is rolled and then committed to stick to it even circumstances on the ground chance during the turn. That creates a fog of war sort of effect which is actually kind of cool.

What I tend to dislike is individual initiative rolled every turn, unless it's down with Savage World's deck of cards.

I don't roll for initiative. I roll for surprise. After resolving any surprise attack, it goes in modified Dex order. First round only, you can opt for triple your weapon length in place of your Dex, if you want. Spell or mental activity uses higher of Int or Dex.

On rounds other than the first, add opponent's weapon length to your Dex if your weapon is shorter. Spell level counts as weapon length.

I only use dice rolls for tie breakers, assuming timing is important; if it isn't, like if you tie with an ally attacking a different opponent, there's no need to roll. If we roll for a tie breaker and the dice tie, then the attacks are truly simultaneous.

Quote from: Soylent Green;591272What I tend to dislike is individual initiative rolled every turn, unless it's down with Savage World's deck of cards.

I agree with this as well. In games with individual initiative every turn, even if I try to stick with it, it eventually ends up being that we just keep repeating initiative.

For me, initiative is a part of the combat system and should fit with the rest of whatever system is being used.

D&D combat is abstract and not really intended to be a blow by blow recreation of the action. Attacks and damage represent the capabilities of the combatants over the course of a combat round. The round is an important fixture in the system, and therefore I prefer to determine initiative each round simply with a d6.

GURPS combat is tactical and handled second by second, so it is not surprising that the combat round is of little use here. Individual participants' capabilities determine the speed of action. Initiative rolls are only needed to break ties for matched basic speeds. It too works well for the style of combat that it supports.

There is no one size fits all initiative system that works for me.

In my opinion, determining when you get to act should be:

1) Completely separate
2) Fast
3) Distinct

By "completely separate" I mean "not part of the basic mechanic" -- like another skill roll, an attribute check or any other "typical" action.  This is not a "typical action" it is specifically a mechanical effect to produce an abstract numerical sequence.  

Alternately, "completely separate" can simply be "We'll start with the player to my left and go around the table counter-clockwise."  

The point is, it's just an abstract method of keeping the *players* in a state of order so there is a fair distribution of activity and no one is left out or gets to act too often.

By "fast" I mean "as little time as possible should be spent on this aspect of the game." If it takes more than the toss of a die by each player, it's too much.  Tossing a die I get--it randomizes things to showcase the uncertainty of a stressful situation. If I have to compare to a chart, subtract from a number, add to a number, or anything more complex, then it's way too complex for my interest to be maintained.

By "distinct" I mean "I know when combat begins and I know when it's over." Truthfully, this isn't very realistic and means surprises have to be handled outside of initiative.  I just prefer knowing "combat starts when we roll initiative (or start "round robin") and ends when the last visible combatant is down."  It's all personal preference.

In some games combat and roleplay is intermingled and in those systems, I am willing to sacrifice "distinct" for "inobtrusive" -- meaning that it just flows naturally as part of the roleplay.

Legends of the Wulin offers yet another approach to this dilemma. Initiative rolls not only decide who goes first, but you can also do certain other things at this phase of the turn, like initiating movement, evaluating your opponents and other things that are not attacks.

I think we eventually settled on individual by-round initiative back in the day.  d10 minus Dex Bonus plus weapon speed/casting time and that was the segment you performed your actions.  It was extremely helpful for determining if spells were disrupted, but sometimes having most of the party go first was just the little bit of edge we needed to turn a looming defeat into a (somewhat ragged) victory.

Quote from: 1of3;591366Legends of the Wulin offers yet another approach to this dilemma. Initiative rolls not only decide who goes first, but you can also do certain other things at this phase of the turn, like initiating movement, evaluating your opponents and other things that are not attacks.

Either i'm stupid, or that game is poorly written.

I have tried reading the initiative rules/waves and I cannot understand it at all.

The writer even posted youtube vids trying to explain it. I don't get it.

I am not stupid.

Even if the game were poorly written (I understood the rules just fine and I'm not even a native speaker), that doesn't inform whether the "who goes first" with other elements is a good or bad idea.

Static initiative systems have always worked fine for me. Champions/Hero system is a good case in point. When I'm running d20 I use a fixed 10+initiative modifiers for everyone's initiative rolls. If they have a feat which grants a re-roll, then they get the re-roll; that's only fair.

I'm still trying to decide which way is best to do static initiative for Savage Worlds (or if I even want to), because the basic stats seem fairly balanced in cost; basing initiative on one of them (Agility?) will make it a lot more cost-effective. I might try using several stats (Agility, Smarts, Pace) so that none of them are weighted too heavily.

In general, randomized initiative rules have always just annoyed the crap outta me. The poster above who mentioned "getting what you pay for" pretty much nailed it. If your character is quick, he should get the benefit of that quickness without getting screwed over by lousy dice rolls. If your character is slow, deal with it, plan accordingly, and don't count on lucky dice rolls to get the drop on everyone else.

Quote from: 1of3;591403Even if the game were poorly written (I understood the rules just fine and I'm not even a native speaker), that doesn't inform whether the "who goes first" with other elements is a good or bad idea.

I can't comment on whether it's a good idea because I don't understand what the rules are.

Initiative in a game is nothing.more than.an order of combat. Period.  It represents a stressful, chaotic point of.confusion. For fairness to players and translation to a workable, statistical modeling system for game purposes, it is abstracted to an order of combat. It is just to determine.which player.can act and in what sequence. Anything more is based on how that character.was built and what their skills and training allow them to do.

If your.character has the ingrained training to do something other than react to.the situation (in Sixcess this is represented by various edges) then it is possible to use strategy and tactics to "take the initiative" but my research showed that the.vast majority of people,.unless hardened, veterans of combat, do little more than "react" in combat - and most of.them freeze-up more often than they act. Hence the advice, "in time of panic, do *something*."  (A motto posted on my dad's ship in World War 2.) I interviewed both hand-to-hand and marksman specialists from the Marines, Army, and Special Forces. I also interviewed weapon experts and Martial Arts specialists. The data was remarkably consistent.

Ingrained and continuous training allowed someone to "take initiative" in combat - but the vast majority of non-trained fighters were extremely random in how they reacted to the stress of combat.

Combat is also very random and unpredictable. It is the training that allows someone to minimize the unpredictability - which they referred to as "drive". Hence the initiative roll in Sixcess is a "Drive" roll. And ingrained training (edges) allow you to maniulate that. Only a trained soldier would have those edges. The rest are "stuck" with a random and unpredictable environment.

That is how we handle it in Sixcess.

(Please pardon any choppy wording or Oddness. I'm on my phone while manning tables at a gun show.  I'm dodging sales and customers and my signal is iffy, at best...-

Quote from: StormBringer;591376I think we eventually settled on individual by-round initiative back in the day.  d10 minus Dex Bonus plus weapon speed/casting time and that was the segment you performed your actions.  It was extremely helpful for determining if spells were disrupted, but sometimes having most of the party go first was just the little bit of edge we needed to turn a looming defeat into a (somewhat ragged) victory.

This is almost exactly what I ended up with in D&D, and almost exactly what I do in my d20 variant (Accis).

For Guildschool my main game, which is skill based, uses a continuous initiative (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955668/Initiative) system, and has for over 2 decades.

Caveat: I have not run a game with Weapon or Casting speeds since 2nd Edition, so YMMV.

Typically, we use one die roll at the start of combat, and use that initiative for the rest of combat.

Back in 2nd Edition, we declared actions on our rolled initiative, and they finished when the weapon/casting speed was added, giving other players a chance to intercede (the all important "Stop the Spellcaster!"). It made for more tactical play (and A LOT of dagger throwing).

Quote from: Ben Rogers;591433Initiative in a game is nothing.more than.an order of combat. Period.

Not just that. In 1e/2e Shadowrun (and the original Deadlands), it's also how many times you go in a round. Spinachcat pointed out the Better Games system, where going in the Active or Reactive round has various benefits attached to it.

In other words, there are different ways of doing initiative, and not all of them are limited just to "which order do we go in?" (Though action scheduling is an integral function of an initiative system.)

For Destiny, my own little RPG, I'm doing things a little differently (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21597). Action scheduling is a game mechanical part of it, but strategy, tactics, and gaining a psychological advantage over your enemies is the point of Initiative.

It always is. People who lose the Initiative sooner or later loose the combat, battle, or war.

I'm not saying your approach is wrong or unrealistic. Just that's its only one approach, out of a large number of valid methods.

Quote from: Ben Rogers;591433my research showed that the.vast majority of people,.unless hardened, veterans of combat, do little more than "react" in combat

That is certainly true.

EDIT: Fuck. Deleted inadvertent dickery. Here's what I meant to say:

"The things you're pointing out are real, and true. I've been thinking of ways to incorporate them into my game. From a strict realism standpoint, neophytes in combat shouldn't be allowed to just act at will; combat is a terrifying thing. However, I haven't found a decent way of incorporating the concept, and moreover most players will find it frustrating. So, I decided to elide over that piece of realism. As Destiny is a cinematic action movie game, that's alright."

Sorry for the inadvertent dickery. Back to the original message:

There's a reason this kind of realism isn't included in most RPGs. One, it's not fun to lose control of your character, or have them "freeze up" in combat. Two, most PC's in most settings are, or soon become, hardened killer veterans.

But Destiny is an action-movie system (http://daddywarpig.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/destiny/), and realistically reflecting the "you lose control of your actions as a result of extreme stress" part of real-world combat is contrary to the "action movie" part. Such states can be induced (via suppressive fire, Intimidation, or whatever) but they're not the assumed default.

Needing to Seize the Initiative and Press Your Advantage is included, because they're fun and add a layer of tactics and strategy to the battle. They give players an immediate, important goal to strive for, other than just "we shoot." It makes the game more interesting.

IMHO, YMMV, and so forth.

EDIT 2: Though the mechanics of Destiny do support the "librarian thrust into a terrorist plot" or "FNG" scenario. Just take the Character Trait of "I'm a Librarian, Not a SEAL" or "Never Seen Combat", and it is an impediment in certain situations. (Think FATE aspects.)

Your game assumes freezing up is the default, edges overcome it. Appropriate for a more gritty game. My mechanics assume PC's can act freely, unless they take a Trait that reflects their FNG status. Appropriate for an action-movie game.

Same real-world concepts, different solutions, but ones that work within our respective approaches.

EDIT 3: Also, "neither side has Initiative" due to confusion or panic is represented as well: both sides act at the same time, in descending order of Dexterity. When no one has a plan, and there is nothing but confusion, those with quickest reactions go first. See this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=500450&postcount=11) for a real-world example, and the mechanics that represent it.

Quote from: Ben Rogers;591433Initiative in a game is nothing.more than.an order of combat. Period.

Nope, it's not even that.

It's *order of play*. Which player gets to go first.

In the original D&D books, the word "initiative" was never used. Not once. There isn't even a mention of a mechanic like the initiative die roll used in later editions (which is why that mechanic changed so much.)

In Chainmail, there's no initiative roll that I can find, either. There *is* a simple "who goes first" roll, with the player with the highest roll deciding whether to go first or last. This is because there are advantages to going first and advantages to going last; dicing for turn order helps eliminate unfairness. The other way is to use written simultaneous orders. Actual order of actions is based on the order of combat and weapon type, not the "initiative" roll.

Other games, including AD&D 1e and later and some versions of Basic D&D, have confused this simple issue, trying to make an initiative mechanic that represents something "real". But really, "players go first unless surprised" works just as well, as does a single group roll with no modifiers.

Quote from: LordVreeg;591442This is almost exactly what I ended up with in D&D, and almost exactly what I do in my d20 variant (Accis).

For Guildschool my main game, which is skill based, uses a continuous initiative (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955668/Initiative) system, and has for over 2 decades.

Continuous initiative systems intrigue me, I will look into this more.

Quote from: talysman;591492with the player with the highest roll deciding whether to go first or last. This is because there are advantages to going first and advantages to going last;

In Destiny, having the Initiative means you have the choice to go first or last in a round. For exactly the reason you said: there are times when it can be advantageous to go last.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;591472Your game assumes freezing up is the default, edges overcome it. t.

Actually, you only get a "freeze up" situation on a the roll of a double.  So, Sixcess Core fits more into the "cinematic" side of "gritty".  

Random action in combat is the norm -- being able to overcome that randomness and "take initiative" is an edge (actually, several).

Otherwise, it's a 5 round combat turn and the result on the die is the segement of the combat round where you act.  Freezing up only occurs on the roll of a double.  So, it's not so much an "assumed default" as it is "possibility."

It also has the benefit of keeping the number of actions to a reasonable amount -- a deliberate desire to keep things homogenized.  I hated playing games of Shadowrun (as a player and as a GM) when one player had a high Reaction when everyone else in the group was average or low.  It became "the high initiative guy show!" and everyone else was bored to tears or annoyed that they couldn't do anything.

No, if we made games that truly emulated reality, no one would enjoy them.  Reality sucks.  Especially if you aren't trained to deal with it.  We play these games to get away from reality -- not to live it. We play them to pretend we're larger than life -- even if we are playing the sweet little librarian.

That being said, a fairness and egalitarian treatment of everyone around the table is in order.  

In Sixcess, everyone gets their action -- but some who have paid build points for their special training can change their sequence or act ahead of others (thus "taking the initiative").  While at the same time, we ensure that everyone at the table has a good time and has a chance to act during combat -- even if they do roll a "freeze up" situation, it's no more than a "Bummer!  Well, I better use my action wisely, then!"

Simple initiative system for D&D; Each side rolls a d6 every round, highest 'has the initiative' that round.  Having the initiative gives you;

 1)  Choice of which side goes first that round.

 2)  +1 bonus on further initiative rolls.

 3)  +1 on attack rolls.

Not sure what to do about ties.

Quote from: The Traveller;591242How do you prefer your initiative?

As a default I like either roll once at the start of combat (D&D3e/4e) or static initiative. Though I don't mind randomising or rolling, I prefer this aspect to be quick.

I don't tend to like roll per round (pre-D&D3e) or continuous initiative (Exalted) as I fine they both take too much time.

I quite like the initiative system in Anima and Tenra Bansho, where you have a normal system but defenders can immediately counter-attack, as it gives a good immediacy to the combat.

I have most recently become enamoured with Marvel Heroics "pass the initiative" system. Its quick (no rolling), avoid repetition (which tends to reduce predictable downtime), and it has more intricacy than most initiative. It also flows with the action better than most initiative systems.

Quote from: talysman;591492In the original D&D books, the word "initiative" was never used. Not once. There isn't even a mention of a mechanic like the initiative die roll used in later editions (which is why that mechanic changed so much.)

In Chainmail, there's no initiative roll that I can find, either. There *is* a simple "who goes first" roll, with the player with the highest roll deciding whether to go first or last. This is because there are advantages to going first and advantages to going last; dicing for turn order helps eliminate unfairness. The other way is to use written simultaneous orders. Actual order of actions is based on the order of combat and weapon type, not the "initiative" roll.

I agree with that sentiment. To me, initiative should be put into play ONCE actual tactics have been used on the battlefield. That is, if you ambush your foes, there's no initiative. If they are surprised, there's no initiative. The actions of the combatants themselves have already decided who would go first and how. In some tactical sense, depending on a single critical roll at the beginning of combat to tell you whether you'll go first and win is a tactical failure on your part as a player: you should strive to avoid the roll and get the initiative from the get-go. If you don't, you're just gambling with your character's life.

From there, the "initiative" roll or really the "order of play" roll comes into the picture for those specific tactical situations where there are no overwhelming tactical advantages: i.e. second round of combat after being engaged in a chaotic melee and the like.

In the O/AD&D paradigm, I am very tempted to houserule the roll of d6 itself to revert to an order of play and tactical choice, i.e. opposing parties roll each d6, and whoever rolls high then chooses which side goes first. Makes for more interesting hands-on tactical situations where even the chaotic circumstances of the d6 roll make for either an interesting tactical choice (if you roll high and make the decision yourself) or a potential look into the opponent's strategy (if the opponent rolls high and chooses).

What I really don't see the point of at this point is individual initiative rolls involving tons of modifiers and bullshit. I just had way enough of that with 3rd ed, it's tactically lame and boring bean counting where primarily the rules and dice decide the outcome of combats, and I'm happy it's out of my D&D picture now.

I like D&D 2e's mix. But then I like the gradation in options where I as GM can decide on the fly.

Group Roll + Group Mod = I like this for really large battles, or when I'm feeling lazy

Group Roll + Individual Mod = Prefer for mid-sized battles, and where people want to pull some weapon speed, casting time advantage, or the occasional called shot maneuver

Individual Roll + Individual Mod = I like this for much smaller battles to encourage more cinematic maneuvers.

But then I also like static initiative, like IN SJG where highest AGI, PRE, or PER goes first (depending on the reality realm and form of attack). Throw in a few pre-fab and GM discretionary mods and it's a 'go'. Quick, simple, fun.

Quote from: Benoist;591602I agree with that sentiment. To me, initiative should be put into play ONCE actual tactics have been used on the battlefield. That is, if you ambush your foes, there's no initiative. If they are surprised, there's no initiative. The actions of the combatants themselves have already decided who would go first and how. In some tactical sense, depending on a single critical roll at the beginning of combat to tell you whether you'll go first and win is a tactical failure on your part as a player: you should strive to avoid the roll and get the initiative from the get-go. If you don't, you're just gambling with your character's life.

From there, the "initiative" roll or really the "order of play" roll comes into the picture for those specific tactical situations where there are no overwhelming tactical advantages: i.e. second round of combat after being engaged in a chaotic melee and the like.

In the O/AD&D paradigm, I am very tempted to houserule the roll of d6 itself to revert to an order of play and tactical choice, i.e. opposing parties roll each d6, and whoever rolls high then chooses which side goes first. Makes for more interesting hands-on tactical situations where even the chaotic circumstances of the d6 roll make for either an interesting tactical choice (if you roll high and make the decision yourself) or a potential look into the opponent's strategy (if the opponent rolls high and chooses).

What I really don't see the point of at this point is individual initiative rolls involving tons of modifiers and bullshit. I just had way enough of that with 3rd ed, it's tactically lame and boring bean counting where primarily the rules and dice decide the outcome of combats, and I'm happy it's out of my D&D picture now.

I can see this and would not presume to argue.

But I like weapons choice and attack type and speed coming into play.  Even in my simple game it does, with weapons with faster speeds often going first, but particular in the continuous system in GS, i like that players actually have to really worry about the affect of each action and the affects of knockbacks or major blows.  It allows a minutia and still has a lot of flow to it.

However, there IS a lot of book keeping, and I understamd the trade off.

Weapon speeds and the like to me would come into play when (1) you are already in a situation where you are making a d6 roll for initiative (see previous post, e.g. no surprise, ongoing melee, etc), and (2) the results on both six-siders rolled in these specific situations tied. That's when it'd potentially matter, AFAIC.

Gamma World 1e had Initiative order by Dex score, but with the assumption that combat was simultaneous. If you got killed in a round, you could still act if you did not take more than double the current HP in damage. The "death strike" aspect of the combat was kinda cool.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;591577Simple initiative system for D&D; Each side rolls a d6 every round, highest 'has the initiative' that round.  Having the initiative gives you;

 1)  Choice of which side goes first that round.

 2)  +1 bonus on further initiative rolls.

 3)  +1 on attack rolls.

Not sure what to do about ties.

Interesting idea!

Quote from: LordVreeg;591673However, there IS a lot of book keeping, and I understand the trade off.

Exactly!

The trade off is always there and its why there will never be One True System because every group has their own sense of where the trade off exists for their style of play.

Quote from: Benoist;591677Weapon speeds and the like to me would come into play when (1) you are already in a situation where you are making a d6 roll for initiative (see previous post, e.g. no surprise, ongoing melee, etc), and (2) the results on both six-siders rolled in these specific situations tied. That's when it'd potentially matter, AFAIC.

Ongoing melee happens a lot.  I guess that is one of mine.
Not an issue.  That's one reason I have 2 rulesets I use.

But when I am playing Guildschool, we don't even use the same dice when adding on the random side. There is still weapon speed, combat moves, and skills that add into this or subtract, but...
"Rolling the Dice

In that when rolling for initiative, the die rolled can be a d10, a d8, a  d6, or a d4, depending on how deeply involved in a melee a character is .

 

•A d4 is rolled and added to the SF, and is used in the first round of a total surprise situation.[4]
•A d6 is rolled and added to the SF if the player is not affected by combat, is outside the combat and casting a automatic hit or group effect spell, targeting undead, etc.
•A d8 is rolled and added to the SF if the character is out of combat but is affecting by combat, i.e. shooting a missile weapon into combat, timing an entry into combat.
•A d10 is rolled and added to the SF If the character is in combat or has to account for dodging blows while attacking."

SO at one end, I like strategy, weapon choice, and skill use to come into play.  But again...I agree at the cost of book keeping and having a GM and group who has to know their system.  And that is a part we have not mentioned.

We had these questions and threads before. I am collecting my answers from here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=433255) and there (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=177988):

   In Sovereign Stone the result of the skill check is the initiative. A character just announces what he wants to do and rolls, whether it's climbing a wall, rummaging through the backpack, reciting a spell, or hitting with the axe - highest roller goes first.

So a character doing something he is proficient in acts faster than someone doing something unfamiliar.



And my favourite from my own heartbreaker, in which only players roll for initiative:

   The Initiative check is a simple DEX check. (Roll under.)
Success means your character can act before the GM characters/monsters. Failure means you have to act after the monsters.
Let players in each camp decide on their individual order.

In a PvP conflict (if both win or fail their roll and end up on the same side of the "GM divide") the DEX value acts as a tie-breaker.
Some monsters have special abilities/hindrances that may ignore the roll, eg, zombie: slow (always last); snake: fast (first strike).

double post

I like any initiative system where I get to make a decision.

You can hit hard, fast or precise, choose two.

That kind of thing. Whether it also involves dice or not isnt a huge factor.

Quote from: Benoist;591602I agree with that sentiment. To me, initiative should be put into play ONCE actual tactics have been used on the battlefield. That is, if you ambush your foes, there's no initiative. If they are surprised, there's no initiative. The actions of the combatants themselves have already decided who would go first and how. In some tactical sense, depending on a single critical roll at the beginning of combat to tell you whether you'll go first and win is a tactical failure on your part as a player: you should strive to avoid the roll and get the initiative from the get-go. If you don't, you're just gambling with your character's life.

From there, the "initiative" roll or really the "order of play" roll comes into the picture for those specific tactical situations where there are no overwhelming tactical advantages: i.e. second round of combat after being engaged in a chaotic melee and the like.

Maybe I'm picking this up wrong but I'd associate the above mechanic much more with longer mass combat type battles than with the kind of encounters a typical PC party will be running.

While as a group there can be advantages in hanging back until everyone is ready to attack a single target all at once, forcing them into serious dodge penalties, individually if you wait to see what tactic your opponent will use it regularly turns out to be hitting you in the face with an axe. Certain specific skills reward a buildup phase, like "insult", but even that is an action. Waiting behind fortifications also might qualify as a valid reason to hang back.

Likewise taking the broader sense of the word "initiative" and applying it to the narrow meaning usually found in RPGs seems to me more of a mass combat or obfuscated complexity solution. Nothing wrong with that, its just not my my more gritty tastes, I like the swing and clash of individual sword strokes, the whing and whee of copper coated candy food fights.

In the intiative wheel system the first roll is important, it allows cinematic actions like the ninja carving his way through men at arms before anyone can draw a sword, but after that its all up for grabs - if the ninja then finds himself surrounded by angry soldiers soaked in the blood of their drinking buddies, maybe that wasn't such a hot move after all.

If he's facing a fellow ninja, its far more likely that they will both get one attack in more or less simultaneously, and battle will then commence. The system encourages tactical thinking while retaining speed and grace. You can choose a type of attack, fast and more damaging or slow and more precise, which will affect your action speed, but it can be done on the fly, which is an advantage of not having rounds of any sort.

I guess some confusion is inevitable when we're talking about a mechanic used across wildly different game systems, but can you clarify a bit?

Quote from: The Traveller;591714Maybe I'm picking this up wrong but I'd associate the above mechanic much more with longer mass combat type battles than with the kind of encounters a typical PC party will be running.

That's not that surprising since the basic logic sustaining it comes from wargames. That said, I find it works also very well for skirmish combat, i.e. the type of combat a group of adventurers with hirelings, mercs, versus an opposing force including a few to numerous individuals, is most likely to face in an O/AD&D game.

Quote from: The Traveller;591714While as a group there can be advantages in hanging back until everyone is ready to attack a single target all at once, forcing them into serious dodge penalties, individually if you wait to see what tactic your opponent will use it regularly turns out to be hitting you in the face with an axe. Certain specific skills reward a buildup phase, like "insult", but even that is an action. Waiting behind fortifications also might qualify as a valid reason to hang back.

Waiting for the opponent to come to you while you are waiting behind a makeshift barricade in the dungeon works just as well. Behind a door frame you can open and close to isolate opponents from each other. Etc etc. Fundamentally, the situations you are facing as you explore an hostile environment are tactical in nature. If you just walk through corridors expecting to make it out totally fine because you cleared certain areas a few hours before and you're flabberghasted that the opponents aware of your presence flanked you in the meantime by going around you using routes that were unknown to you, you're doing something really wrong.

What about this initiative system: Everyone declares their actions and rolls simultaneously, then AFTER the roll you can choose to 'abort to defend', or more generally to block any action.

Quote from: Skywalker;591578I have most recently become enamoured with Marvel Heroics "pass the initiative" system. Its quick (no rolling), avoid repetition (which tends to reduce predictable downtime), and it has more intricacy than most initiative. It also flows with the action better than most initiative systems.

Most importantly, it keeps all the players engaged in the game instead of 'waiting for their turn'.

And I'll take player involvement over 'realism' any day.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;591749What about this initiative system: Everyone declares their actions and rolls simultaneously, then AFTER the roll you can choose to 'abort to defend', or more generally to block any action.



Most importantly, it keeps all the players engaged in the game instead of 'waiting for their turn'.

And I'll take player involvement over 'realism' any day.

Especially if you allow for riposting and other combat moves.

It works for MHR because the "game" it's keeping the players involved in is the game of being a comic writer storyboarding a fight scene.  Which is good for what it is, but it's not really useful for any character-driven initiative decision-making.

Quote from: CRKrueger;591754It works for MHR because the "game" it's keeping the players involved in is the game of being a comic writer storyboarding a fight scene.  Which is good for what it is, but it's not really useful for any character-driven initiative decision-making.

You couldn't be more wrong. The initiative system is entirely character driven because there are no random elements involved. The Watcher can use his resources to try and stuff up the players' plans, but that isn't randomly generated. The game, again, is also not about being a comic writer.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;591847You couldn't be more wrong. The initiative system is entirely character driven because there are no random elements involved. The Watcher can use his resources to try and stuff up the players' plans, but that isn't randomly generated. The game, again, is also not about being a comic writer.

Wrong, it's entirely player-driven, unless you mean every superhero has gained the ability to alter how fast everyone else moves provided they manage to gain the initiative. :p

Quote from: chaosvoyager;591749What about this initiative system: Everyone declares their actions and rolls simultaneously, then AFTER the roll you can choose to 'abort to defend', or more generally to block any action.

That's basically the system that I described a few posts before (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=591704#post591704).

   In Sovereign Stone the result of the skill check is the initiative. A character just announces what he wants to do and rolls, whether it's climbing a wall, rummaging through the backpack, reciting a spell, or hitting with the axe - highest roller goes first.

So a character doing something he is proficient in acts faster than someone doing something unfamiliar.

In combat that means that the low roller can either use his check result for his planned action, or roll a defend check instead.

Quote from: Skywalker;591578I have most recently become enamoured with Marvel Heroics "pass the initiative" system. Its quick (no rolling), avoid repetition (which tends to reduce predictable downtime), and it has more intricacy than most initiative. It also flows with the action better than most initiative systems.

Can you provide some details please?
The mental image that "pass the initiative" evokes is quite intriguing.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;591858Can you provide some details please?
The mental image that "pass the initiative" evokes is quite intriguing.

Quote from: Marvel Heroic Roleplaying pg. OM36Everyone gets a Panel of their own to act, and this string of Panels is called the action order. Once the first character has acted—whether it's a player hero or a Watcher character—the action order has begun. It's the player of the character who just acted that determines who goes next.

As a player, you have a choice between another hero or one of the Watcher's characters. It might work to your advantage to choose the opposition next. Why? Well, apart from making the story flow better, or seeing what the villain has planned and then being able to let somebody else respond to it, the person in control of the last character to act in any action order chooses who goes first at the top of the next action order.

100% Player-driven Metagaming mechanic from a Narrative/Tactical viewpoint.  Most of the game is like this.

Tim said it best...

Quote from: SilverlionMy experience as a playtester is that its very "Story" games based, and for my use, not in a good way. It has a problem with the gap between character and player being wide enough to sink a battleship.

Quote from: CRKrueger;591856Wrong, it's entirely player-driven, unless you mean every superhero has gained the ability to alter how fast everyone else moves provided they manage to gain the initiative. :p

I think you are both right. You are just attributing different meaning to term "character driven". You mean it is not something your character would be concerned with. GW means that it is not random and so can be used to highlight elements of character.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;591858Can you provide some details please?
The mental image that "pass the initiative" evokes is quite intriguing.

Sure. After you take your turn, you pass on initiative to another PC or NPC. Every PC or NPC needs to take a turn every round.

In Marvel Heroic, we use a Nerf Thor Hammer to represent initiative. It's a simple mechanic, keeps all players attentive as you never know when you will get to act, often creates a smooth dynamic for the action, and also allows the side with the most combatants or participants have a level of control over the battle in a broad sense.

It's pretty cool and I think it has use beyond the superhero genre.

Quote from: Skywalker;591860You are both right. You are just attribute entirely different meaning to "character driven". You mean it is not something your character would be concerned with. GW means that it can be used to highlight elements of character within the scene.

Umm....yeah.  Highlighting "elements of character" by determining who gets to go in the next "Panel".  Ok. :rolleyes:

Quote from: CRKrueger;591863Umm....yeah.  Highlighting "elements of character" by determining who gets to go in the next "Panel".  Ok. :rolleyes:

More so than rolling a dice and waiting for your turn in a queue, yeah. As you point out, its more about tactical play and smooth action though.

EDIT: Fred Hicks posted (rather positively) about the system here: http://www.deadlyfredly.com/2012/02/marvel/. I don't think it deserves that much praise, but it's a remarkably simple idea with a lot of potential that make me want to use it more.

Quote from: CRKrueger;591856Wrong, it's entirely player-driven, unless you mean every superhero has gained the ability to alter how fast everyone else moves provided they manage to gain the initiative. :p

as opposed to dice driven, of course.

The 80's SHRPG Golden Heroes used the panels terminology as well; it called actions 'frames' and used a straight d20 vs d20 roll to see which side acted first.

Quote from: CRKrueger;591859100% Player-driven Metagaming mechanic from a Narrative/Tactical viewpoint.  Most of the game is like this.

Tim said it best...

So what?

Quote from: chaosvoyager;591749Most importantly, it keeps all the players engaged in the game instead of 'waiting for their turn'.

Don't players have to take turns regardless, or is every action a poll taken by the group or something? One of the things I like about the initiative wheel system is that the concept of "turn" gets shaken up completely, monsters and characters have their initiative mixed and mingled, the only patterns are chosen by the combatants in a continually woven tapestry such that you can never be sure what the next picture will be.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;591875

Quote from: CRKrueger;591856Wrong, it's entirely player-driven,

as opposed to dice driven, of course.

(Sounds like something for BSJ's design thread, as there are more than just the following three systems, including the wheel and continuous initiative.)

Player driven: action scheduling determined by players choosing who goes next, such choices entirely divorced from in-game concerns.

Dice driven: action scheduling determined by what the dice roll (modified by "realism" factors or not), but otherwise entirely divorced from in-game concerns.

Tactics driven: action scheduling determined by what actually happens in the combat. You make a plan and put it into effect, success disorients and demoralizes your enemy. This has lasting consequences.

The Initiative isn't about player decisions or random dice rolling. It's about which side is aggressively driving the combat, fomenting and implementing plans more rapidly than their enemies, keeping their enemies disorganized and confused.

The more you "keep up the skeer", (Press Your Advantage) the harder it is for the enemy to reorganize and counter-attack. Victory goes to those who seize and maintain the Initiative.

I prefer the third, because what people do matters. Just like real life.

Combat shouldn't be a game of whack-a-mole. "Killed him? Good. Next." There is a flow to battles, to duels, to military campaigns. Sometimes one side is advancing and winning, sometimes the other is, sometimes both sides are disorganized and flailing. (This happens in adventure fiction and real life.)

But these conditions are a result of the tactics each side choses, and how well they carry them out. None of the other Init systems represent this very well. With "whack-a-mole" combat, what happens in round 1 doesn't have any real or lasting psychological effects on those being defeated. Other than one more death, what does it matter?

Being on the losing side degrades your combat ability. It's harder to think, harder to fight, harder to stand your ground.

Morale matters, and morale is affected by being out-maneuvered and out-fought. Failing morale is (in the real world) partially a consequence of your enemy having the Initiative and Pressing the Advantage.

There's a lot of complicated psychological effects that can be represented with a very simple Initiative rule. And, to pat my own back so hard I'll probably break my damn arm, I think I've done it (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21597).

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;591930But these conditions are a result of the tactics each side choses, and how well they carry them out. None of the other Init systems represent this very well. With "whack-a-mole" combat, what happens in round 1 doesn't have any real or lasting psychological effects on those being defeated. Other than one more death, what does it matter?

Being on the losing side degrades your combat ability. It's harder to think, harder to fight, harder to stand your ground.

Morale matters, and morale is affected by being out-maneuvered and out-fought. Failing morale is (in the real world) partially a consequence of your enemy having the Initiative and Pressing the Advantage.

There's a lot of complicated psychological effects that can be represented with a very simple Initiative rule. And, to pat my own back so hard I'll probably break my damn arm, I think I've done it (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21597).

I think it was 2E that had a rule about a morale check being required for monsters after a) the first casualty and b) when their numbers are reduced by half. Other circumstances could also mandate a morale check, like an overwhelming display of power or when the DM felt it fit (the magic user whips up an illusion of a orcish demon when fighting an orc tribe).

A similar mechanic can be applied to any game really without losing grit, CP2020 for example had a stun check after being injured in any way, arguably similar. Would this system not be vulnerable to the death spiral trap?

Quote from: LordVreeg;591753Especially if you allow for riposting and other combat moves.

On RPG.Net it was mentioned that personal combat consisted of spotting/creating an opening (initiative roll), being able to take advantage of that opportunity (strike roll), and finally being able to hit hard enough to do some damage (damage roll). The things you mention fit in the first category, mostly.

The problem I've found is that unlike strike and damage, for which counter abilities exist which directly negate them (dodge and soak), there is no counter initiative ability in most games. So things like riposting feel kinda odd being placed as a Parry, though I guess a crit on a Parry could allow for another attack, so nevermind.

Quote from: CRKrueger;591754It works for MHR because the "game" it's keeping the players involved in is the game of being a comic writer storyboarding a fight scene.  Which is good for what it is, but it's not really useful for any character-driven initiative decision-making.

I can assure you this is not a universal problem, especially if you let the character speak a little dialog to the character they are 'passing' initiative to.

But let me call out traditional initiative systems for doing exactly the same thing. While I may not be passing initiative, I am sitting in a world where characters take turns and never act at the same time while my character is in one much closer to my own.

Quote from: The Traveller;591883Don't players have to take turns regardless, or is every action a poll taken by the group or something?

Turns, in that nobody can really speak at once, yes.

Quote from: The Traveller;591883One of the things I like about the initiative wheel system is that the concept of "turn" gets shaken up completely, monsters and characters have their initiative mixed and mingled, the only patterns are chosen by the combatants in a continually woven tapestry such that you can never be sure what the next picture will be.

Evaluating 'clock' style initiative systems now, so I'll have more to say later.

Quote from: The Traveller;591966I think it was 2E that had a rule about a morale check being required for monsters after a) the first casualty and b) when their numbers are reduced by half.

Right, but that's a "fail and flee" system. It doesn't represent the gradual degradation of combat ability as you become more panicked, more desperate, less able to fight and plan well. The Advantage bonus does.

Quote from: The Traveller;591966Would this system not be vulnerable to the death spiral trap?

If you mean an irrevocable, cumulative Death Spiral (like Shadowrun's wound modifiers), then no.

In order to gain a bonus, one side has to Seize the Initiative. That gives them the right to chose whether to go first or second, and a bonus of +0.

Then, in order to increase their Advantage, they have to successfully Press their Advantage, that is, make a significant attack on their foes. If they fail, they gain no bonus. If they succeed in one round, they gain a +1. If they fail to Press the Advantage the round after that, the bonus goes away.

You only keep the bonus by earning it. You must continue making a significant attack every round, or the bonus decreases. Give your enemy a chance to catch their breath, and you lose your Advantage. (Which corresponds to how "keeping up the skeer" works in real life.)

More, the enemy can, at any time, counter-attack and Seize the Initiative. By so doing, the aggressors lose the Initiative and their bonus. Now they're the ones being battered.

It's less a Death Spiral and more a tug of war. One side has the advantage, then the other, and so forth.

if you let the enemy get away with increasing their bonus every single round, let them Seize and keep the Initiative, you will lose. Which is how it should be. But you don't have to let that happen.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;592006Evaluating 'clock' style initiative systems now, so I'll have more to say later.

I think Exalted uses something similar, the problem there being you have to deal with the rest of the rules as well. :D Plugging it into a much less reference-heavy system produces enthralling results once the shallow learning curve is passed, in my experience.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;592009Right, but that's a "fail and flee" system. It doesn't represent the gradual degradation of combat ability as you become more panicked, more desperate, less able to fight and plan well. The Advantage bonus does.

Yes, I read your other thread in design, its a fascinating concept, and could very well suit some styles of play. A few more blow by blow examples would be educational though.

With that said I don't think it would suit me, tracking relative tactical situations in a chaotic melee beyond simple locations and movement is more accounting than needed really, although I would factor in morale as appropriate. Also it uses rounds, which I don't. Slick, smooth play while keeping a reasonably real edge is the elusive grail.

Quote from: The Traveller;592039With that said I don't think it would suit me,

Which is a perfectly reasonable response, one you have every right to. Only an idiot thinks their preferred edition of their game is the best for everyone. And I am not such an idiot.

Your game, your rules, your fun.

Quote from: The Traveller;592039tracking relative tactical situations in a chaotic melee beyond simple locations and movement is more accounting than needed really,

The "accounting" is very simple, because the rules are simple. I use a x3 size d10. (You could use a regular size one of unique color, or really anything else.)

If the Players have the die, they have Initiative. If the GM does, his side has Initiative.

The die is set down at 0, representing an Advantage bonus of +0. Each round it increases, the die is increased by 1. Each round it decreases, the die is decreased by 1. Whatever the die reads, is the Advantage bonus.

Simple. Direct. Obvious.

Where the die is, is who has Initiative. What the die reads, is the Advantage bonus. No accounting needed.

Quote from: The Traveller;592039Yes, I read your other thread in design, its a fascinating concept,

Thank you for taking the time, I appreciate that. Any feedback you may have would be welcome. Also thanks for the compliment.

Quote from: The Traveller;592039A few more blow by blow examples would be educational though.

Alright. I can add those to the design thread.

What aspects of the Init system would you like amplified on? (Or, to put it another way, what "fight club" matches would you like to see?)

Quote from: The Traveller;592039Slick, smooth play while keeping a reasonably real edge is the elusive grail.

Quite. And all design involves tradeoffs. No one design is perfect. It's always a matter of balance.

But, the balance I struck suits me, and I have well-thought out concepts behind why I struck that balance. So please forgive me if I seem a bit obnoxious in pimping my own solution.

It doesn't come from a place of arrogance or contempt. Honest. :)

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;592063The "accounting" is very simple, because the rules are simple. I use a x3 size d10. (You could use a regular size one of unique color, or really anything else.)

If the Players have the die, they have Initiative. If the GM does, his side has Initiative.

The die is set down at 0, representing an Advantage bonus of +0. Each round it increases, the die is increased by 1. Each round it decreases, the die is decreased by 1. Whatever the die reads, is the Advantage bonus.

Ah see again I don't use rounds, and each player acts as an individual rather than with group bonuses, unless they had a spell cast on them as a group or something. Opposing forces can have a morale score as a group though. I can't see how this initiative system would be applicable to a wheel system. For round based systems it would rock though.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;592063What aspects of the Init system would you like amplified on? (Or, to put it another way, what "fight club" matches would you like to see?)

Generally systems are tested by corner cases, so a big strong guy against a few weedy guys, a six-way combat between variant forces (some flying, some unable to hit the ones flying while they are in the air, some with pikes, some very fast moving, variant terrain), that sort of thing.

A lot of games work great for more or less human sized and human capable forces, but break down completely when you get to say dragon size versus zodiac speedboat (one area where D&D shines incidentally). This doesn't look like it would have that problem, but the only way to find out is to play it really.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;592063But, the balance I struck suits me, and I have well-thought out concepts behind why I struck that balance. So please forgive me if I seem a bit obnoxious in pimping my own solution.

It doesn't come from a place of arrogance or contempt. Honest. :)

Not a bit, I love these discussions, new mechanics are always of interest.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;592006On RPG.Net it was mentioned that personal combat consisted of spotting/creating an opening (initiative roll), being able to take advantage of that opportunity (strike roll), and finally being able to hit hard enough to do some damage (damage roll). The things you mention fit in the first category, mostly.

The problem I've found is that unlike strike and damage, for which counter abilities exist which directly negate them (dodge and soak), there is no counter initiative ability in most games. So things like riposting feel kinda odd being placed as a Parry, though I guess a crit on a Parry could allow for another attack, so nevermind.


.

Tick style init used since mid 1980s. (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955668/Initiative)

You will notice that there are a number of penalties for taking damage, which comes into the same category of keeping initiative.  Melees in GuildSchool often deal with gaining the upper hand and the momentum and keeping it, but through a different mechanic.  But i like that we hit it from more than one way.  Once you start getting pounded on in this system, it can be hard to get your feet back underneath you.  Advanced combat moves (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/48258720/Advanced%20Combat%20Strategies), some of which are used to counter.

Quote from: The Traveller;592072Ah see again I don't use rounds, [...] I can't see how this initiative system would be applicable to a wheel system.

I have no doubt you are correct. This mechanic is designed for rounds, and that's okay. I'm sure there are other methods of action scheduling this mechanic wouldn't work with.

I wasn't trying to say you should use it, just illustrating that it doesn't of necessity require complex tracking.

Quote from: The Traveller;592072Generally systems are tested by corner cases, so a big strong guy against a few weedy guys, a six-way combat between variant forces (some flying, some unable to hit the ones flying while they are in the air, some with pikes, some very fast moving, variant terrain), that sort of thing.

I'll try and set that up. It will require dipping into some other areas of combat, but that's alright.

Quote from: The Traveller;592039A few more blow by blow examples would be educational though.

As requested, the Destiny Fight Club (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=592172), with some of the sample fights Traveller outlined, such as "big strong guy against a few weedy guys" (otherwise known as "Ben the Brawler Against Marty McSkinny & Pals").

The first post is the rules, so you know what's going on. The second is Big Ben vs. McSkinny. I'll post about the other suggested scenario when I have the time.

Thanks for all the answers regarding Marvel Heroic.
That was exactly the mental image that the phrase "pass the initiative" conjured up in my head.

It sounds like a metagame mechanic with tactical implications that are not based on how the character perceives the action but by how the player wants to deal with the game ressources (in this case: turn order or spotlight); i.e., it's the player thinking tactically, not the character.

That's not too far away from D&D players counting their stacking bonuses (3e) or bringing their characters in a certain (grid) position (4e) to be eligible for a specific bonus or use of a power.

I'd like to try this passing of the initiative sometime in the future to see if the players think of it as storygamey/metagamey or not.

Yet, somehow a random roll feels less dissociated. (Savage Worlds is peculiar as well. The draw of a card is nothing else than a random number generator but to me it feels more metagamey than the die roll.)

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;592246Yet, somehow a random roll feels less dissociated. (Savage Worlds is peculiar as well. The draw of a card is nothing else than a random number generator but to me it feels more metagamey than the die roll.)

Dice are just numbers, the raw physics of an uncaring universe expressed in probability.  Yeah, chances are, Fred will climb that wall, but it's not guaranteed, so we assign probabilities to actions and just roll.  It quantifies things, so we don't have play Pretend where
"I kill you!"
"No you don't!"
etc...
Also we've been rolling dice since we were single digits in age, dice are just how you get numbers into games, it's internalized.

Cards or other randomizers usually aren't as granular as dice, so they don't make as good of a pure randomizer, so they usually compensate by attaching other meaning to the card, thus metagamey.  I like using cards in Deadlands or other westerns though.  Sometime atmosphere is worth it.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;592200As requested, the Destiny Fight Club (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=592172), with some of the sample fights Traveller outlined, such as "big strong guy against a few weedy guys" (otherwise known as "Ben the Brawler Against Marty McSkinny & Pals").

The first post is the rules, so you know what's going on. The second is Big Ben vs. McSkinny. I'll post about the other suggested scenario when I have the time.

Thanks, haven't had a chance to digest it properly yet but its sinking in.

Quote from: The Traveller;592572Thanks, haven't had a chance to digest it properly yet but its sinking in.

It's probably not your cup of tea, so I appreciate the time taken to give it a look-see. If you have any questions, drop in that thread and I'll do my best to answer.

Taking a cue from the Twilight: 2000 thread, I'm thinking of making the next combat an engagement between an armored vehicle and a group of rebels. The other option, to address the speed/size issue, is an airship being attacked by a flight of 4 wyvern-riders.

Do those sound "corner-case"-ey enough?

(Also, I omitted a lot of rules, like Hero Points, the Action Deck, and Non-Combat Interactions, because they'd need another rules brief to just explain them. At some point in the Fight Club, I'd like to include them.)

With Arrows of Indra, I'd initially attempted to do a group-initiative mechanic, but I ended up discarding that in favor of individual initiative.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;592631Taking a cue from the Twilight: 2000 thread, I'm thinking of making the next combat an engagement between an armored vehicle and a group of rebels. The other option, to address the speed/size issue, is an airship being attacked by a flight of 4 wyvern-riders.

Do those sound "corner-case"-ey enough?

Thanks I had a good look at that thread now, I'll post a few comments. I like it!

Corner cases are usually where things you wouldn't expect to happen, happen. You're deliberately trying to break your own system, checking are there risks of death spirals in certain situations, does it give an undue advantage to a combatant who already has advantages aplenty, are those advantages duplicated elsewhere, does it do more or less what you might expect in real life, is it intuitive, that sort of thing. Worry at potential weaknesses, if it doesn't break, you're golden.

Quote from: Ben Rogers;591433my research showed that the.vast majority of people,.unless hardened, veterans of combat, do little more than "react" in combat - and most of.them freeze-up more often than they act.

[...]

but the vast majority of non-trained fighters were extremely random in how they reacted to the stress of combat.

This sort of thing is handled in the Morale rules, which tie into the Initiative system.

Once you have Initiative, you can Press Your Advantage. Each round you do, you gain a cumulative +1 bonus. This is the Advantage bonus, and it can go as high as +9.

As one side gains an advantage, the other side becomes more and more disorganized. The enemy appears invincible, and they are being hammered left and right. This rattles people. It causes all sorts of behavior.

In game terms, when their opponent's Advantage exceeds their Morale, soldiers will break: freeze, flee, surrender, or panic (act in random ways).

Morale: Types of soldiers.

-1: Panicky. Troops without any training or motivation (conscripted peasants), or the survivors of a routed unit. As soon as combat begins, they will break.
0: Green. Troops with minimal training and no combat experience, or unmotivated troops. As soon as their opponent gains an Advantage of +1, they will break.
1: Blooded. Trained troops, or soldiers who’ve been in combat at least once.
2-4: Seasoned. Troops with several battles under their belt, high motivation (people defending their homes), rigorous and continuous training, or a high esprit de corps.
5-7: Veteran. Troops with extensive combat experience or elite training (but no experience in combat).
8: Elite. "The Best of the Best." Very dedicated soldiers, with extensive combat experience, and elite training.
9: Fanatic. These soldiers will never break. They will impassively fight to the death. The legendary Immortals of Persia.

Heroes, including all PC's, are immune to Morale. They only flee if they wish. (Which is what I meant by "action movie heroes".)

EDIT: On a battlefield, the leadership skill can bolster the Morale of troops, keeping them in the fight longer.

I've often thought that some kind of "tick-based" initiative system, akin to what Aces & Eights had, would be the ideal initiative system; but in practice these always turn out being a little too complicated.

RPGPundit