Quote from: apparition13What is it about Dex that you don't like?

I don't know about jhkim, but personally dexterity (reflexes, reaction time, etc.) is not most important determinant of who acts first (or more importantly, most effectively) in combat. The ability to keep your head, maintain tactical awareness, anticipate events and know when the best time to act are much more important.

Quote from: WilI don't know about jhkim, but personally dexterity (reflexes, reaction time, etc.) is not most important determinant of who acts first (or more importantly, most effectively) in combat. The ability to keep your head, maintain tactical awareness, anticipate events and know when the best time to act are much more important.

Which is why I also suggested highest combat skill as an option in post 70. Personally, I like simultaneous opposed roles, which elimintates initiative entirely.

Quote from: apparition13Which is why I also suggested highest combat skill as an option in post 70. Personally, I like simultaneous opposed roles, which elimintates initiative entirely.

I actually prefer for there to be a skill - call it Combat Sense, Coolness Under Fire, whatever. Acting effectively in a combat situation is a skill just like any other that can be taught and improved upon. There are natural talents that can increase that effectiveness, for sure, but the base training or experience needs to be present.

Quote from: WilI actually prefer for there to be a skill - call it Combat Sense, Coolness Under Fire, whatever. Acting effectively in a combat situation is a skill just like any other that can be taught and improved upon. There are natural talents that can increase that effectiveness, for sure, but the base training or experience needs to be present.

That's actually why I specified highest combat skill.

Look at it this way. The NFL tends to grade quarterback in terms of arm strength, speed of release, accuracy and so forth. While those are significant, what really seperates successful from unsuccessful quarterbacks is their ability to read defenses, both before the snap while audibling, and after when reading coverages, identifying blitzes, seeing who is open, and making throwing decisions.  You don't need a seperate "field vision" stat, because you can't be a top quarterback without it.

The same thing applies to combat. Your 14th level fighter wouldn't have survived that long if he didn't have combat specific situational awareness, that situational awareness is subsumed in the skill level. (On a related note, this is why I also can't stand Perception attributes.)

Quote from: WilI don't know about jhkim, but personally dexterity (reflexes, reaction time, etc.) is not most important determinant of who acts first (or more importantly, most effectively) in combat. The ability to keep your head, maintain tactical awareness, anticipate events and know when the best time to act are much more important.

Much as hand-to-eye coordination has more to do with how good a bow/gun/sling shot you are in RL (said coordination is more a function of perception than physical agility). Most RPGs aren't about modeling reality in exact terms, they're about providing a playable facsimile.

Quote from: jdrakehMuch as hand-to-eye coordination has more to do with how good a bow/gun/sling shot you are in RL (said coordination is more a function of perception than physical agility). Most RPGs aren't about modeling reality in exact terms, they're about providing a playable facsimile.

Yeah, but the RPGs that I enjoy tie ranged weapons to Perception anyway (and have a Combat Sense skill for determining initiative). I admit it does depend on the goal of the rules and I always avoid using the world "realistic" when describing game systems. I prefer "returns results that are expected"

G.I.Joe Rule, if Gabriel didn´t mention it already.

Quote from: WilI actually prefer for there to be a skill - call it Combat Sense, Coolness Under Fire, whatever. Acting effectively in a combat situation is a skill just like any other that can be taught and improved upon. There are natural talents that can increase that effectiveness, for sure, but the base training or experience needs to be present.

In Cyberpunk 2020 the SOLO class has a specialty skill called Combat Sense.  Basically it's added into their initiative roll.  The explanation was pretty much exactly like what has been talked about.  Being aware of the situation and knowing how to deal with it.

Quote from: peteramthorIn Cyberpunk 2020 the SOLO class has a specialty skill called Combat Sense.  Basically it's added into their initiative roll.  The explanation was pretty much exactly like what has been talked about.  Being aware of the situation and knowing how to deal with it.

One of CP2020's biggest failings is the existence of Roles, luckily they are  easily removed.

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.

Others have made good suggestions so far. Depending on how you've handled "action sequencing" in the first place, I'd mainly think of handling "command" by offering a bonus to the side (or individual characters on that side) which has better training/leadership factors among its members. This could be justified through a combination of assuming some amount of in-combat communication and also that the group would have practiced their "plays" and discussed contingencies at various times before the combat.

Bearing in mind that the overall command/initiative/action system needs to be looked at wholistically, here's an idea off the top of my head. I'm assuming a fairly tactical game in the spirit of miniatures & wargames--even if space is somewhat abstracted.

1. At the start of each turn, every character chooses an action secretly, either writing it down or using a card placed face-down. Typical actions: close, withdraw, react, shoot, disengage, stand & fight, etc. Unless the group wants to be really strict about things, it's perfectly okay for players on the same "side" to share their plans with each other.

2. Each side gets a number of chits equal to the number of characters it has. The chits are placed in a cup. Each side also gets bonus chits for leadership factors. I haven't quite worked out whether characters who choose "stand & fight" or "react" should contribute to the chit pool.

3. Chits are drawn one at a time and the side whose chit comes up moves one character. Moving only applies to unengaged or disengaging characters and includes using a missile weapon. Melee attacks are not resolved until movement is done. Characters can only move once/per turn, so extra chits simply mean you're more able to move early in the turn. You can also pass on a chit, which gives more flexibility to the side with better leadership. Characters which shoot more than 1/turn is a little tricky. Maybe have a "second fire" phase at the end of the turn, or let them throw their chit back in after shooting.

4. Characters with the "react" command can move up to half their movement when an enemy comes with a certain distance, provided they can roll less than their "battle awareness". Reacting characters with missile weapons can similarly shoot at any enemy who moves into a hex within their normal (not extreme) range, provided they roll their "battle awareness". Reacting interrupts enemy movement. Not sure if you can react to a reaction. Whether or not you make your "battle awareness" roll, you're done for the turn.

5. Characters can try to "react" even if they don't have the appropriate command but it's harder, and they can only do it if they haven't already taken an action.

6. Melee combat is only resolved once all movement is complete, and is conducted through a single resolution (not "I swing, then you swing", more like a contest of skill followed by the winner damaging the loser). Not sure about this--maybe it could be done as part of movement, which makes stuff like overbearing a little more interesting.

If you want to get a little tricker you could say that characters only contribute their full leadership bonus when not engaged; otherwise they're not going to be able to devote as much attention to observing the combat and shouting stuff to the other characters.

Quote from: YamoExtra Attacks in BESM

That was going to be my post.  Tri-Stat was never a mechanically strong system and extra attacks was just the biggest and most notable example of the system falling down.  During the Silver Age Sentinels "playtest", I sought and received confirmation from the designers that they knew what Extra Attacks did in the game and that was the way it was supposed to work.  I still believe that there's a good game buried under everything that is wrong with Tri-Stat, but I doubt that we'll ever get to see it.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIsn't that also in some other game? Spycraft?

Yes. Stargate was a spycraft 1.0 variant.

Here's one I should have posted:

Powers-for-roleplaying-disads

especially the subset

Powers-for-bad-attitudes

The old version of this is the AD&D 1e Cavalier and Barbarian. Newer versions pop up in "disadvantage mechanics". Basically, you end up rewarding players for making characters that disrupt the game.