Quote from: KrakaJakTHAC0

Made D&D 2 completely unplayable for me.

Quick question: had you played pre-THAC0 versions of D&D?  Because THAC0 made D&D much easier for my group.

Can I get a clarification, because I never played 2e? Isn't THAC0 just a number from which you derive the chance to hit other ACs? What's so hard about that?

Quote from: droogCan I get a clarification, because I never played 2e? Isn't THAC0 just a number from which you derive the chance to hit other ACs? What's so hard about that?

Some folks find subtracting negative numbers a real drag.

I blame the education system.

Quote from: jrientsQuick question: had you played pre-THAC0 versions of D&D?  Because THAC0 made D&D much easier for my group.

That's probably the most disturbing part about THAC0, it was an improvement.

Quote from: blakkieIs that the one used in Men of Iron (also GMT) that's a roll under (IIRC) mechanism where you roll a d10? You roll against a command stat for one of you commanders (potentially modified by command distance?).  If you succeed your commander can give their orders. If you fail your opponent gets a free command automatically, then he has to roll to keep initiative. You can also try to sieze initiative from your opponent by rolling in their place, but failure gives them an automatic command.

Yes, that's pretty much the system as I remember it. I didn't like GBoH, basically because I thought the initiative system was excessively gamey and unrealistic, at least as of the second game in the series, SPQR. So I sold off what I had of the series. But that's not entirely relevant.

The thing is, aside from the fact that both GBoH & the strategic card-driven systems that I mentioned require commanders to move troops, it's really not the same as using a command structure in an RPG, whose combat system is basically a version of a individual-level skirmish wargame. At that level, a wargame would be very wrong to have men move according to rank, or to have soldiers act each turn only after being "activated" by a commander. None of the games I know work that way, though. Instead I think it's more common for command to be treated separately from action. In other words, orders are given subject to command-control, and then a separate initiative system is used to determine when each unit carries out its orders. The sole exception is I do vaguely remember GBoH having a rule where a superior officer could activate a subordinate and then the subordinate could issue commands of his own. But again, GBoH is a bad example in my opinion.

There are ways I think "command" can be incorporated in skirmish-level initiative but not by having the Captain move first followed by Lieutenants then Sergeants then Privates.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYes, that's pretty much the system as I remember it. I didn't like GBoH, basically because I thought the initiative system was excessively gamey and unrealistic, at least as of the second game in the series, SPQR. So I sold off what I had of the series. But that's not entirely relevant.

I'd heard that, that a relatively small string of lucky/unlucky rolls could make a huge impact on the battlefield. The person mentioning it went on to say you might be able to partially justify that by the relatively poor communication and disipline in the armies of the day. But some of the artificats of losing initiative lead to wierdness such as units geting stuck midway on a long straight march to a easily identifiable goal. The units just don't aren't given the autonomous control they would realistically have had.

QuoteThere are ways I think "command" can be incorporated in skirmish-level initiative but not by having the Captain move first followed by Lieutenants then Sergeants then Privates.

Shadowrun 3 had that, the former not the later. Going off foggy memory here, but there was a Skill, Small Arms Tactics or something that a team member with a view of the fight and a communication link to teammates could give those teammates a bonus to their initiative rolls. There was also a cyberware implant and battle tech system that improved the aid the commander could give and also allowed a 2-way video/data link ala Aliens. IIRC it also brought in potential for feeding someone indirect firing aiming data via Smartlink, but that might have been a house rule?

EDIT: Agreed though, I'm definately of the "that kind of initiative just don't freakin' make sense" opinion.

No book to check to make sure, but I'm pretty sure that SR4 also has the skill. The Battle-TAC computer / cyberware isn't out yet, but presumably will make its appearance in Augmentation.

Quote from: blakkieBut some of the artificats of losing initiative lead to wierdness such as units geting stuck midway on a long straight march to a easily identifiable goal. The units just don't aren't given the autonomous control they would realistically have had.

This is one of the big problems. Markus Stumptner has probably done the best job of arguing the case against the system; a collection of some of his posts is here.

QuoteShadowrun 3 had that, the former not the later. Going off foggy memory here, but there was a Skill, Small Arms Tactics or something that a team member with a view of the fight and a communication link to teammates could give those teammates a bonus to their initiative rolls.

Yes, this is pretty much what I'm thinking, though it could be expressed and justified in various ways depending on exactly how the initiative/action system works.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThere are ways I think "command" can be incorporated in skirmish-level initiative but not by having the Captain move first followed by Lieutenants then Sergeants then Privates.

Any suggestions?  It's hard for me to judge here, because I don't know what you're comparing it to.  For me, even arbitrary turn order is better than the Dex-based standard of many RPG systems (such as D&D/D20, Hero, and many others) at least as far as realism goes.  So I'd be interested to hear other ideas.

I dunno about any kind of command ability, but my preferred baseline for initiative is skill or awareness/perception (or both).

While not great, Thac0 was a big improvement.  No chart to remember.  Just know one data point and calculate from there.  D20 is pretty much the same but they reversed AC to get rid of negative AC and now you remember BAB (which, at lower levels is 20 - rolled needed to hit AC 20, the equivalent of old AC 0).

Quote from: jhkimAny suggestions?  It's hard for me to judge here, because I don't know what you're comparing it to.  For me, even arbitrary turn order is better than the Dex-based standard of many RPG systems (such as D&D/D20, Hero, and many others) at least as far as realism goes.  So I'd be interested to hear other ideas.

Well there is the one I gave above from SR3 where there is a separate command & control skill that can supplement each inidivual's. I checked into what James said about the Skill being there in SR4, and it doesn't seem to be there yet.  There is a Leadership in the core SR4 book, with a Tactics specialization (which is one of the specializations that there is only the name for, absolutely no explaination). But the Small Arms Tactics isn't there yet, I'd expect that to come out in a supplement.

Actually now that you mention it SR has long used a combination of "dex" and mental accuity, and implantations of course, for an initiative.  For example in SR4 it is based on Intuition (this is basically a perception stat, and is one of two stats split from the old INT) + Reaction (this 1/2 of the old DEX stat, the other being Agilitiy).  Neither of which impact how many actions you get, just who goes first.

Thanks, I forgot to check. But I could sewar I remember reading rules for someone using a skill to give others bonus initiative dice. I may have looked up the SR3 rules while thinking about an SR4 house rule though, and just confused the two.

Quote from: jhkimAny suggestions?  It's hard for me to judge here, because I don't know what you're comparing it to.  For me, even arbitrary turn order is better than the Dex-based standard of many RPG systems (such as D&D/D20, Hero, and many others) at least as far as realism goes.  So I'd be interested to hear other ideas.

What is it about Dex that you don't like?