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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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, 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.