The Forge Archives

Hi guys.

Welcome to my very first message upon The Forge and please accept my apologies if it is misplaced.

I'm currently working upon a Gaming-oriented RPG system which I'm trying to design as a light system. I'm trying to design an initiative-less turn system, to make all the action happen in a simultaneous wink and I've opened a pandora box with this wish.

Let me explain: There's no initiative, right? No player's turn but the single same turn for everyone. The very first trouble I've been meeting is everyone speaking out their actions together. So, I've installed turns of speech instead of turns of action with a result or an effect phase taking place after the turns of speech, but there's still no initiative. It went pretty smooth in my plans until someone decided to... Move its character...

Well, you see, it's not an easy challenge. So here are my questions:

1. Does a pen and paper RPG system exist without initiative count or order of actions? I don't want to consider Narrative designs in which this question is way easier to solve.

2. Can someone come up with something?

Thxs !

Just have all players announce their actions counter-clockwise from the DM. Have all actions resolve at the same time. If one player decides that he wants to swing at an enemy, and that enemy wants to hit him, their attacks resolve at the same time. This means that they could end up killing each other at the same time.

Another idea is that players could bid points of some kind to make sure that their actions resolve first. A pool that resolves at the end of all actions.

I'd really like to get a better idea of what it is you want.

Hi Patrice. 

Um... I'm not sure how any existing, non-narrative games handle it, but I have seen a couple games that roll first and then "spend" the results (something like "I'll put this '8' to attack...").  If you're spending dice to do everything, including moving, defending, attacking, maneuvering, etc., then it can be more free-form without a set initiative order but still be focused on specific actions instead of a narrative approach.

A small variation on that would be to have everyone declare a set action, but then have a system for paying for any the supplementary actions (like movement or defense) with the results (by "spending successes", or giving certain numbers on the dice additional abilities, or sacrificing dice before you roll to keep options--like movement--open, etc.  I'm sure there are many other possibilities).

Another thought about movement in particular is you could always have a "movement phase" and a "combat phase".  Different actions could take place in one or either phase.  It might seem sort of artificial, if your goal is to create the feel of simultaneous action, but it might resolve some of the issues you had.

Those were my first thoughts.  Don't know if any of the above will work for you, but hopefully it sparks something or is helpful.

-John Bogart

Well, yes, a spark is what I'm looking for and your answers do help. I plan to create a simultaneous feel indeed. So what I have follows:

Order of Speech. Having all the players, and the game master impersonating foes announce their actions in a given order (bid, random, stat-based, dice-rolled, whatever).

Effect, Result or Spending Phase. All the actions are resolved together during a separate effect phase. They all produce their result simultaneously (yes both swings score, Chronologist).

Initiative Count. An initiative count is ANY game mechanism used to determine a player's order of action. Might be bidden, random, dice-rolled, whatever, it's still an initiative count if it determines who takes the actions first. This is what I want to escape from.

Movement Phase. a separate phase taking place before or/and after actions resolved in Order of Speech or Initiative Count.

Here are the issues: What do you do if a player states that he moves to attack? Resolve the move at the end during the resolution phase? If you don't, what you have is just another initiative count and the whole idea becomes pointless. I could have a movement phase, or even two, but that would break the simultaneousness. I understand that you've caught what the trouble might be with movement, jb.tellier4, moves could thwart announced actions if they are resolved at the same time.

My game The Rustbelt has no initiative.  Here's how it works:

1.  Everyone describes what their character is trying to do.  People can change their minds about this as many times as necessary before the dice hit the table.
2.  Everyone rolls dice, and we figure out who succeeds and who fails (there's a couple of steps to that, but it's not relevant to the initiative issue)
3.  Someone narrates what happens, taking the previous into account.  That is, everything that was just determined by the dice is true, and you need only think of a way to describe it that makes it true.  If I hit you, and you hit me, then maybe you hit me first and then I hit you, or maybe we hit each other at the same time; it doesn't matter, because it's all the same in terms of mechanical effect.

Patrice,
  Well, saying what you do in certain order, is actually an initiative system, no? If you already know what one player will do, it will, by necessity, inform your decisions about what to do that turn.

  As far as movement and initiative goes, one of two things have to happen:
1)You have to keep initiative to track movement on a map
2) You can lose initiative, but then elements like movement become a matter of fluff and will not inform to hit rolls, map position, etc.

  For instance, in Marshall's example, there is no way to track movement of characters in his game. Since the players can only declare what they intend to do, the movement of the characters will be dependent on if the target of their actions move, and whether or not they succeed. So, in this example, we won't even know if the character's moved until after the roll, no?

  Good luck with your game man.

Two options that negate need for initiative but still allow position to inform actions:

1. Allow any action that relies on a position that occurred anywhere within the round.  For instance, you can attack someone at any point along their path of movement, from any point on your path of movement.

2. Disallow any action that relies on a position that has changed within the round.

Between these two, I like the first one better, but it does have its flaws.  There is the possibility of a paradox occurring, but you could just shrug it off.  An escaping character may get annoyed at the need to stay more than a round of movement ahead of a pursuer.

In the second, the players can't create a paradox, but tactical movement could get pretty annoying, and they would be disallowed from actions that should be logically reasonable.

Yup, you've clarified my question a lot guys. What I meant by a Gaming design as opposed (in this case) to a Narrative one is made obvious by Marshall's answer. Yes, your system hasn't any initiative count, but it is a Narrative system, and there are plenty options to discard the need for an initiative as long as your game relies upon storytelling or rather in this case, cooperative storytelling.

Alas, this is not what I'm aiming at. Scott, you have expressed quite well what are the pitfalls of this choice in a Gaming system. I don't know if you imagined trying to set tactical paths of movement when everyone is supposed to resolve their own movement in the same phase without order, but I can tell you, this is chaos and it leads to a dead-end very soon. The second options leads to too many paradoxes to be useful imho. In a Gaming system, paradox is cheating, not fun.

I think Dindever's right when he states that initiative is needed to keep track of a movement upon a map, there's no other option really. Not because of a lack in creativity, but because this is simple, raw logics. That implies that a system without initiative would consider movement as fluff. So here I'm in front of another choice: An initiative count and a map or no initiative count as such but all movements being fluff effects without tactical outcome?

When I say systems in which movement is fluff, I don't say everyone teleports around, the BASIC system, for instance, doesn't record movements upon a map, nor does Rolemaster or even, to be honest, the first two editions of D&D. They hardly are Narrative systems. Even though I'm unsure whether they would have sustained a system without any initiative. So I suspect skipping initiative will bend the game towards storytelling.

So, bluntly said, I now understand better my options. 

So a new round starts, and all four players start shouting at the GM what they want to do. I think the problem is, unless everybody is very cooperative, you'll break out into arguments over "who goes first." There's a game called "Hell" or something like that, where players can start grabbing cards, even each others cards until they get a trick. One of my friends loves this game, he's very argumentative and bossy, and the game always breaks out into pissing matches. Needless to say, nobody else wants to play it with him. 

What does this mean? Well, people need to have turns. I think what you really want is a system where "turns don't matter."  I can take my turn, than bob can take his turn, until everyone takes their turn.  I prefer "round the table" turns, because you always know when you should go, and people rarely get skipped.  People don't spend a lot of time figuring out "just who's turn is it anyways?"

The other option I can think of, is where people bid "dice" on their actions.  Whoever bids the most dice gets to do their thing first.  People then do things until they run out of dice. If I'm not mistaken, they were just talking about this in one of the "Action Point" threads.

I think there are some advantages to "Disallow any action that relies on a position that has changed within the round". It incorporates more strategy of the "Figure out what your opponent is about to do so you can block/counter it" type, especially if actions are decided secretly then declared simultaneously. This means that missing an attack because your opponent moved isn't a paradox, it's a result of bad planning on your part.

Yes, there's always the secrecy and pre-planning option. A little bit like in Diplomacy, a few tactical wargames I've half-forgotten about and the psionic combat system of D&D's first edition. Then again the mapping question comes in but this is a possible initiative-less fair and square gameplay.

Example: Huruk - Moves 4 / Huruk Strikes wMighty Bash. Opponent declares Move 6. This results in Huruk's move coming short of Opponent's close and Huruk's strike being lost.

Could be a bit tricky and would require quite a lot of afterthougt, especially to design it light but might work. Cheers.

Quote from: Patrice on December 09, 2008, 10:44:43 AM
1. Does a pen and paper RPG system exist without initiative count or order of actions? I don't want to consider Narrative designs in which this question is way easier to solve.

Yes sir.

Usagi Yojimbo RPG, 2nd edition's combat system. There is, certes, a semblance of initiative, but it really reflects the preparedness of the acting characters.

General rule : All characters with the same level of readiness for combat can take the same actions in the round. Usually, for active characters, one attack action, one defense action (counterattack or parry), and as many dodge actions as necessary. For battle-ready characters, they also have the specific quality of "focus".

Combat actions are not resolved in a particular order, though characters may use the "focus" mechanic in order to interrupt the actions of other characters. This mechanism makes the order of combat actions irrelevant.

I suppose the same logic could be extended to embrace out-of-combat situations.

Patrice,
  Well, if you want the game to be tactical, you could always go with phased movement like HERO.
  In this system, you move in something like 12 phases and everything is considered simultaneous. So, you declare what speed you are moving at, and that modifies hit probabilities, but also determines what phases you move on. So, maybe if you move at 6, you move every other phase, one square each.
  From a RP perspective, its a little tedious. From a tactical perspective, its pure genius. So, I guess it really depends on your design priorities.

Yes, Dindenver, I have nothing against the system being tactical. I want a gamer's system, but since I plan to design it as a light system, HERO and the likes would be a burden. Skeletor, you got me very interested with Usagi Yojimbo 2nd, sounds really close to what I'm planning and I'll sure have a look into it. It's not, from what I'm reading, an initiative-less system, but a system in which interrupts dismiss its relevance and well... It's very close to the conlusion I'm getting at so I'll really have a look. Thank you.

Quote from: dindenver on December 09, 2008, 05:20:11 PM
  For instance, in Marshall's example, there is no way to track movement of characters in his game. Since the players can only declare what they intend to do, the movement of the characters will be dependent on if the target of their actions move, and whether or not they succeed. So, in this example, we won't even know if the character's moved until after the roll, no?

Wha'?  I'm apparently gonna have to cover that well in the next version.  Things like closing to optimal ranges, reaching cover, and fleeing to safety are all incredibly important in that game (moreso than I had anticipated).  But you have to name them as your intent, or else the don't count.

I have to back Marshall, as I understand him - if movement is an important factor, then its folded into the rolls difficulty. Why people insist movement can't be within the roll seems to be some roleplay habit where roll to attack and movement have to work with different mechanics. Rubbish, I say, your habits are the only problem!

Hi Patrice,

Quote from: Patrice on December 09, 2008, 07:12:16 PM
When I say systems in which movement is fluff, I don't say everyone teleports around, the BASIC system, for instance, doesn't record movements upon a map, nor does Rolemaster or even, to be honest, the first two editions of D&D. They hardly are Narrative systems. Even though I'm unsure whether they would have sustained a system without any initiative. So I suspect skipping initiative will bend the game towards storytelling.

As I understand your words and your goal

QuoteI'm trying to design an initiative-less turn system, to make all the action happen in a simultaneous wink and I've opened a pandora box with this wish.

I'm pretty certain the only way for all things to happen at once is for someone to decide how they will happen. And in doing so, it's storytelling, as you put it. Your goal is impossible if you wish to avoid storytelling and as such, a dead end.

Yeah.

Aren't you tired as well with the good old "I take my turn, let's move and attempt a slash" gimmick? I think the RPG systems, being mostly based upon turns of speech at the very least and intricate initiative systems at their utmost, convey quite a passive feeling. Despite all our efforts to design it fun and quick, the flash is gone into this mechanism inherited from tabletop games. What I wish, is to un-wargame my system and still, to get a tactical, funny and easy to play system for gamers. Competitive gamers, RPG athletes. Sport.

We all seem pretty okay about the fact that movement and action can be both encompassed in a same single scope of actions. Right. On the other hand, we can't seriously play without turns of speech or the table will become a mess upon which only the loudest players will feast. Or maybe can we, if we write down our planned actions beforehand. Yet, this is too much a strain and a wargame-like feeling for the light system I wish to design. Whether we take it from the HERO perspective, square after square or from the narrative-oriented system of the Marshall Burns, which I sure does function with cooperative storytelling players, we come at a twist of the classic initiative system shared by most/all gamer-oriented systems, but not at a complete removal of it. This removal is possible if you deny Time, and that is a thing you can't do unless you contend yourself with narration alone or quasi-alone. Because we are talking about dealing with Time flowing, or so it seems to me.

I agree with you, Callan, upon this point.

Yet, other options exist allowing to twist the initiative system. They don't convey the simultaneous feeling I had wished for at its peak, but they let spill a little bit of it. Look at the focus system from Usagi Yojimbo 2nd (thanks again Skeletor) or even at... Magic the Gathering. You have interrupts, counters, instants and the like and you can play those during another one's turn. It still seems to me that except those small infringements to the initiative system, pre-planning and secrecy alone would allow a tactical, a gamer-oriented initiative-less system.

Did we reach a conclusion or can you guys bounce upon this?

Here's my thoughts on this thread:

In a Gamist system (At least, in a Player vs. Player Gamist system, as opposed to player vs. GM), the order of action, or declared action is always going to be important.   Because naming your action is going to influence other people's actions.  I don't think you're ever going to avoid having to resolve this, where the system is stated to be 'Gamist'.   In fact, any time you interrupt the order of action to flow the story better, that's a Narritivist move.

That said, if we're just trying to avoid the 'Go around the table, one action each.' trap, I think there's a lot of ways to do this.   The HERO system has been mentioned, which I think is excellent because it gives characters a crunchy reason to be fast.  Also, the Clix system uses a sort of Action Points system, where by each action effects when you can act next.  So your big attack might cost you 4 APs, but movement might only be 1.

I think it might help if you try and define what you mean by 'light' system.   Rolling less dice?  Less stats to track?

Here's a system I think works OK without a whole lot of paperwork:

Each person has a pool of 10 points

You have 3 defensive stances:  None (0), Block (1), Dodge (2).

You go around the table once, and declare defensive stance + 'speed' points  (Or everyone writes it down).     Then you declare action based on how many points you spent on speed, putting your remaining points of 10 into your attack.  Then you resolve in the same order as the second declare.   This is very tactical, and may be a little crunchy for what you are thinking, but I think with some counters of dice or something, it wouldn't take that long.

I think another thing you could do to encourage a fast-paced and frantic combat is to setup a timer for action choice.  30 seconds, if you don't act, your character doesn't act.   A bit draconian, but it might help facilitate the feel you're going for.

Patrice,
 I think you have setup a false dichotomy. What I mean is, you have set up this imaginary rule:
"If movement is not tracked on a map, it is a collaborative story telling game"

 And I don't think this is the case. I've tried to suggest mechanics that match that rule, but to be honest, there are some great games out there that have viable tactical options but don't obey this false dichotomy.
 One example of a great game that usually invokes good tactical scenes is Shadow of Yesterday. In this game, the players announce their character's intentions and the dice decide who wins. So, if one character uses their Athletics ability to flee, they just have to roll a higher success to escape. And its not really collaborative story telling in a "we all have to agree what that means" sense. Players declare the stakes of their side of the conflict and then roll to see if it happens. But, because of the way conflicts are resolved, it doesn't matter what order the intentions are announced.

 Maybe Rustbelt is like this too, I don't know.

 The point is, just because a game doesn't have a map, doesn't mean it can't be competitive. Or that all of the tactical concerns become fluff text.

 Another great example if Dogsin the Vineyard. This is a game where the mechanics are so rivetting that it doesn't feel like you are playing right unless the GM is using every tool at their disposal to defeat the players. The die bidding mechanics are spot on competitive and rely on player tactics (as opposed to character positioning, etc). They kind of break down when its a one character versus many situation. And there is a lot of fluff text generated that will probably rub you the wrong way, but if you look at the mechanics objectively, there might be a kernel of something awesome oin there to solve some of your problems.

 There is more to tactics than character positioning, you know?

 Also, it kind of feels like shooting a moving target. You seem to not want the tedium of an init system and possibly want to lose the grid. But you have some desire to have everything about the character mapped and gameable down to an atomic level. Maybe it might be of value for you to decide what kinds of stories/adventures you want these rules to help create and make a design decision based off of that?

 One tool that might help with that is to write a mechanics agnostic description of ideal play that might come from your design when its done. Meaning narrate a session of play based around that idea that at this time you don't know what the mechanics are but the players do and they grok it down to the tiniest subtle nuance. Don't reference mechanics, just try and imagine the decisions the players have to make. Which ones are important to you and which ones sound the most fun to evoke.
 For some people this exercise is not very helpful, but for others it is like turning on the light in the basement, its the only way to navigate in a dark room. I hope it can help you in some small way.

 Good luck with your design man!

Thanks a lot both of you for the mirroring.

Well, SoftNum, if interrupting the order of action is taking a step towards Narrativism, it's a step I'm decided to take. Actually, and this maybe will answer Dindenver too, I'm making this move to build my Gaming system in a Narrative crunch. Not Narrative as a cooperative storytelling game might be (you know, those games in which movements aren't tracked upon a map (joke inside)) but I'd certainly would like to add a visual feeling, a flash, a video-game or movie-like feel to the action as well as to instill a sense of hazard, of massive banging action to bare tactical mechanisms and I state (yes, state) that vibrant action feeling is a form of Narration or maybe rather, a deeper level of immersion. So, I think you're both right in pointing what lays behind my small (now subtly cooperative) research.

This may allow to understand too why I want it to be light. Imho, SoftNum, the systems that you refer to do all include an order of action. This order may not be rolled or determined beforehand, it might be broken down at a minute level, but it's still an order, a fractionning of time amongst the players. Some of these systems are brilliant like Clix or HERO but still, they convey the same "ok my turn, roll, shoot, dodge, fail, hit, damage, next" feeling. By light, I mean something that allows to master the basis principles in a few minutes and helps to resolve the actions in a 10 to 15 minutes span. It should be going quick and easy and yet might allow a lot of tactical thinking.

I didn't develop the whole extend of it for that would take quite a lot of messages and passionate threads (hopefully, for passion's always a good sign to welcome) but the system I'm preparing sure doesn't limit tactics to positionning upon a map. That's exactly why I'm considering dropping the grid and maybe... The map altogether. Now, this system's going mystic beyond time and space (another lousy joke, sorry guys).

I might have set this dichotomy, Dindever, right, because movement is the first troublesome issue I've met so far as I had the system's backbone playtested. One option you sparked with your examples (Dogs and SoY) is to include the move in the actions. I could say that action A is "Move Close and Bash" and action B is "Trying to Flee as Fast as You Can". If A's success overcomes B's success, B's player is bashed and stands in melee. This is maybe the REAL underlying dichotomy, separating movement and action as one earlier poster said. With that mechanism I still stand upon Gamist tactical ground, but I have a better immersive fluff feeling. This is another option and yes, right, I don't need initiative here but a simple Order of Speech (if I don't use secrecy). How nice?

The other standard option is, as I have put it in my earlier message, going towards a mixed solution, keeping initiative or order of action but twisting it several different ways up to the point of rendering it meaningless but still existant.

I'll let you know what this all had become, thanks again for your insights.

What is the difference between simultaneous actions and turns? Not simultaneous declarations from players, I'm talking within the fiction itself here.

It seems you know magic the gathering, so I'll chuck out an MTG concept; interactivity.

When two players are racing, they each act on their turn, because they are each doing actions that are seperate. It's like they are doing a constant dps to each other, but it's divided into the two turns to make it easier.

But the moment the game goes interactive, and their strategies start intersecting, it goes to the stack, a special part of the rules to handle such things. This is the rule structure where timing appears. Now to be fair there can be passive interactivity that doesn't use the stack, but for every situation where the order of actions actually matters, the stack comes in.

So if you want to create a rules light system, your main issue is solving the timing question for interactive actions.

That is where I started with my system, which is currently floating while I build the rest of the game;
initiative only covers responsive/time based actions.

This means one fundimental change from what you seem to be assuming, you don't run to point x, but get disappointed because the enemy is no longer there, that's zeno's paradox! You charge at that guy and he tries to get away. Timing is not important, only the effect per round system, as in racing above.

You could measure total path lengths in squares and turn it into a difficulty for the check, but with partial success getting you half way there etc. Now this actually doesn't help so well when one path is dependent on the other, as the curve length depends on their relative motion. Now you can skip all this stuff out, and just measure the distance in streight lines. Bear in mind that this would mean that a cheetah will always catch a gazelle (or whatever they hunt), because in this rule set the prey is not able to take advantage of ducking and diving to throw them off. One abstraction you could do if you want to factor this in is for the chased to take a penalty to their role in order to add an equivalent or greater penalty to their opponents roll, or use intelligence/tactics rolls etc.
So how to do the above without a map? Simply turn the starting separation into "headstart". Technically this doesn't cover pythag stuff when one person is running off to the side, but many grid systems fudge the pythag anyway so it's no great loss.

Now I hope how you can see that this principle allows you to turn movement into a simple continuous opposed action, without the temporal discontinuity that effects timing problems (if your a maths head, you'll probably see I'm talking about the distinction between the differentiable and non-differentiable).

If you can reformulate those actions that don't care about timing so that they come out of your initiative system, you shrink the problem to the point that you can actually encompass them with light rules.

Now the next step is to find those thresholds; "you can't shoot me now because I'm behind a wall", "you can't hit me because you're unconscious" and ensure that actions that fulfil them; that have the capacity to interrupt, are compatible with your initiative system.

I have ideas about declaring actions and information incentives (I designed my own system last year, but I'm only revealing it in bits cause the thinking's the big bit), but I thought I'd do one thing at a time.

Patrice,

I want to point out that the "Free and Clear" concept, in which players all declare their actions at the same phase, in any order, and may change their actions in response to each other's as many times as they wish (this Free & Clear being the way declarations are handled in Sorcerer and the Rustbelt, among many others, although Rustbelt is the only one I know of in which the sequence of actions is irrelevant) -- this works just fine in competitive play.  It might take some considerable time to get everyone satisfied with their declared actions, but that will quickly go down once everyone becomes acclimated to it, and resigned to the fact that the very nature of the F&C structure makes it impossible to play the "GOTCHA!" game that many competitive players are used to.  (Which is exactly what it's for).

So don't be afraid to try it.

Also, I just remembered another thing I wrote that uses F&C action declarations, and no initiative, and is competitive (and also intended for Gamist play).  Ride! With Great Justice (http://www.angelfire.com/indie/btw/ride.htm).  It's untested, but I have every confidence it will work.  The relevant bit is the Motorbattle system.  Here's the rundown of it:

A Motorbattle is split into rounds, each of which contains 4 phases.  You can take 3 actions in a round; spread 'em out, blow 'em all in one phase, whatever you want.  The kinds of actions you can take are Attack (inflict "damage" or negative effect), Block (reduce the effectiveness of someone else's action), Recover (remove damage), Deflect (redirect damage from one target to another), Enhance (increase the effectiveness of your own or someone else's action), or Special (combine any of the previous).  Everyone states their intents in the Free & Clear style.  Once everyone is satisfied, dice are rolled, and all actions take place at whatever time they need to to have the degree of effect indicated by the rolls.

Movement in this particular game is not an issue, because the combatants are all on high-speed vehicles, in constant motion, and it's assumed that you can get into range as easy as breathing.

Could be crunchier than what you're looking for, but it's a thing.

Hi Patrice,

I think the focus idea is just buying initiative after actions have been declared. It makes initiative more dynamic and involve actual choice, but really it's still just initiative. Maybe you don't want to escape initiative, you just want to escape initiative that involves no choice?

Also, just in regards to this

QuoteI could say that action A is "Move Close and Bash" and action B is "Trying to Flee as Fast as You Can". If A's success overcomes B's success, B's player is bashed and stands in melee.

As far as I see from the wording, move close and bash doesn't stop movement or maintain any degree of distance after having bashed. If A suceeds, he bashes B before he can run away. But B then runs away.

You might be adding special abilities that aren't actually there in the written words, then getting caught up by them and seeing a problem.

I've been thinking a lot these last hours about the later posts and I must admit you're damn right Callan. My solution isn't one because, whatever you call it, whether movement is included in a an action or not, there is still movement. It sounded like you escaped Zeno, Joywriter, but after much reflexion, it seems to me that the system you plan, however intersting (and it is), doesn't escape the two fatal flaws I'm beating the bush about. You may treat movement as an opposed check, and consider it in straight line, break it down into a vague distance or range or headstart notion, it is still simultaneous movement. Let's take the cheetah example: I'm the cheetah, I declare a charge and a few chews upon my prey. Alas, the opposed movement check states that my prey escapes. Where has the attack I declared gone? In the wind. Here comes Zeno again, under a different guise. That might be tactically adequate, considering pytha ceteris paribus but that would also involve a very frustrating gameplay. The other failure is that, the Order of Speech has now become so important that it is an initiative in disguise in itself. So the solution isn't really one whereas...

...Free and Clear is. I will definitly give it a try. It's maybe just a matter of player's habit. I thank you, Marshall, for clarifying with an example as well, because I realize I didn't quite get what you were proposing in the first place. I'll give it a try.

Well, I've come to three ideas so far (or maybe you've as well, should I say): Secrecy, Free and Clear and the Usagi 2nd-like system, which I would tweak with a MTG logics. I actually want more than just buying initiative after declaration, Callan, but I don't really care about the system being philosophically and purely initiative-less, I want it to feel like it, and not from the choice perspective but from the flashing action perspective. I want it to be Tigers & Dragonish and really feel that the "ok, hit me, I'm dumb and static" feel we (or maybe just I?) all have during other player's turns is something to avoid. So... What I need now is trying to imagine these gameplays and maybe to test a few options.

Patrice,

Oh, I just thought of another thing.  It didn't come to mind before because I think of it as "having initiative," but your last post made me wonder if it would "have initiative" in the way you're describing.  Because it certainly doesn't have the "world of statues" effect, and it's very SNAP BANG actiony.

It's another game I'm working on, working title "GRiM," and it's based on Castlevania.  Fights work like this:  everyone has a finite set of maneuvers written on index cards, with stuff like "SNAP STANCE: ENERGY 5 / Strike / Power -2 / Speed +7 / Ends in BRUTE STANCE" and movement & target-area vectors relative to your position.  Everyone picks a maneuver, puts it face down, and everyone reveals at the same time.  If you're in the target area of an attack, you get hit, period (whether or not you get wounded is another thing, but you get hit, which has effects of its own).  But you can interrupt an attack with a faster attack, or you can move out of the target area with a fast movement; if either of these is possible, we roll for what I call "initiative."  So, say you played a maneuver with a movement vector that ends outside of my target area, we roll Speed vs. Speed, and the winner's action happens first (so, if you won in this case, my attack would miss, because you made it out of range in time; if I won, you would be hit, and, due to the effect of being hit, you would not reach your destination unless I knocked you into it).  Like I said, I think of it as "having initiative," but it's good in that you don't roll for initiative unless it turns out to be relevant at this very moment, and in that one guy isn't moving around in a world of statues while everyone else waits.

This system I have tested, and it is fun, fast, and crazy-exciting.  (Partially because I enforce a time limit on selecting maneuvers -- if you're too slow, your guy does nothing)

So, take it or leave it, but it's another thing to think about.

-Marshall

Sorry to keep you in the blur about the other core aspects of the system, game and universe I'm working upon. It sure has a great incidence on my options and what I seek for initiative and as the matter broadens, it begins to touch other aspects of the system. I didn't mean to keep you in the shade but this question alone sounded complex enough to be deserving a post of its own. And well, other aspects of the game are complex as well. Not complex to play nor to design, but complex to think and pre-plan before the actual design so I didn't want the post to extend to the system at large. Maybe my mistake because it sure does make difficult the finding of the appropriate initiative. Yet, what you all have said sparked enough ideas and meaning to help my thinking about it.

You slowly come close altogether to the conclusion I'm getting at myself, if I discard the systems I have to test like Free and Clear. It's no big wonder since you're helping me in here to find my own solution and I'm grateful for that. Let me explain: You're getting at a finite set of actions, which I have in my game system (cheers) and at a limited initiative, which is what I was thinking about in the first place. Yet, the GRIM system (all bow to Castelvania nevertheless) boils down to the Action plus Move idea I had presented before. It works because you play with Secrecy (...everyone reveals at the same time...), which is another option stated before.

So, yeah, we have a few solutions and a wide range of mixes between these solutions, including the system you're just presenting here.

Quote from: Marshall Burns on December 11, 2008, 07:14:04 PM
Fights work like this:  everyone has a finite set of maneuvers written on index cards...[EDIT]...but it's good in that you don't roll for initiative unless it turns out to be relevant at this very moment, and in that one guy isn't moving around in a world of statues while everyone else waits.

This system I have tested, and it is fun, fast, and crazy-exciting.  (Partially because I enforce a time limit on selecting maneuvers -- if you're too slow, your guy does nothing)

I've based a set of miniatures rules on a very similar concept....and yes, it's very fast paced, and avoids many of the pitfalls of initiative and waiting for other people to act.

V

Could both of you explain how you do define the target area and vector? Do you use a grid and state fixed numbered positions or does it function with a more flowing logic in  your systems? Does it work with the targetc area just stated as "Close, Left", for instance?

Simplest option, a melee is defined at the centre of the conflict. Participants choose to step into the melee zone at this focal point, or they choose to interact with it from a distance.

Basically, there are three ranges. Melee, Ranged, Gone.

A character may choose actions that exclusively move them into or out of the conflict, make some kind of action against an opponent (or some combination thereof). Characters out of the conflict may interact with it through ranged actions, character in the thick of it may use pretty much any kind of action at their disposal (or may used ranged actions to affect those near the combat, but not in the thick of it).

Note that this is a fairly abstract version of the system.

At the start of the round, everyone's position is defined with respect to the melee focal point. Cards are selected by participants from their available hands. Cards are simultaneously revealed. Priority actions occur, based on the actions revealed. Movement then occurs. Regular actions then occur.

Priority actions include pinning an opponent and preventing them from moving, or performing quick punches and snap shots. Regular actions include heavy hits and effects that take a bit of preparation (there is a chance that these will fail simply because the opponent has moved out of the way by the time they are ready to go off...but this is counter balanced by the fact that they have a whole heap more impact on the game if they are successful).

So long as the subject of the action is still in a relevant location, dice are rolled to determine the success degree of the action.

In a system like this, pretty much every action has an offensive factor, a defensive factor and a movement factor.

Offensive factor is an innate bonus to perform this type of action.
Defensive factor reduces an opponents chance of performing an action.
If you wanted to have a chance that people simply can't escape combat, or wanted to simulate difficult terrain, then the movement factor could modify a characters chance of actually getting from one range to another.

You could introduce additional levels of range to the maneuvers as well...actions that require touch distance, actions that function at short range, long range actions, extreme range actions, then beyond combat range.

Characters moving out of the range of one conflict, could move into the range of another conflict. Basically though, if things are getting complicated with a number of fights occurring, then a character must choose which conflict to become involved in during a given round.

I'm probably not explaining this as well as I could, but I hope you get the idea.

V

Yeah, pretty much what I was thinking. It's an abstract of the idea of encompassing movement into the actions plus the JoyWriter straight lines movement system, space localisation being subsumed into Range Tiers or Distance. Sounds as a good system for miniatures gaming. Thanks for clarifying!

Hi Patrice,

I ran into a similar quandry as you did. I'll tell you of an idea I came up with. It's a fun idea and I'm pretty certain it is unique, but I'm not sure it is feasible, as I have yet to build a fully-defined system for it.

My line of logic is this: in all of the gamist combat resolution systems I've ever seen, you could say that the combatants "follow" the clock. In other words, the clock "ticks" one unit of time, and each character involved in the combat must perform actions in order to catch up to that unit of time. This arbitrarily quantifies time, making it feel quite artificial, which has always bothered me. It occurred to me, why not let the players actually lay out their actions first and let the clock do the catching up, synchronizing the characters' actions as it goes.

The idea I came up with would be to sort the order of the characters in terms of who declares their action first, not who acts first. At the very beginning of a combat, whether someone is even allowed to declare an action depends on whether they are:
         (a) aware of the potential opponents, and
         (b) interested in acting first, as opposed to simply reacting to the actions of the opponents.

Since (a) and (b) are mutually exclusive, we have three groups:
         (1) unaware of combat,
         (2) aware, but wanting to wait and react to the opponents/situation, and
         (3) aware and wanting to act right away.

You'd only have to sub-sort these three groups. First, for group 1, you might roll or use the characters' awareness to figure out how long it takes them to clue in. This awareness time might be short-circuited as combat progressed. These characters would then filter into one of the other two groups. For group 2, the characters would simply wait. They could choose to jump into combat at any time (ie actively move themselves to group 1). The characters in Group 3 would act effectively simultaneously, but the players would declare actions in order of each character's speed (or agility, or some die-roll+dex, whatever) and have the character start performing those actions if not interfered with, such as by running into an invisible wall. Resolution would happen on the scale of the actions themselves, not on "rounds" or "turns".

Group 3 characters could not interfere with the "brief" actions of each other (except accidentally). They could interfere with longer actions, but only after they "notice" the action they want to interfere with. Until that point, they are committed to their originally stated intentions. For example, a holy knight could declare that he wants to go kill a goblin grunt. Next, the GM could declare that a nearby goblin-mage is preparing to cast a line-of-sight disintegrate spell. The holy knight's player would obviously be well advised to change his action to something defensive, such as ducking behind a tree. However, the knight is committed to attacking the goblin grunt for however long it takes the character to notice the goblin-mage, such as with a "Sense Motive" or "Awareness" check.

Group 2 characters suffer the natural time penalty - the opponent gets a head-start since the action is already in progress when the Group 2 character decides to react. Additionally, the Group 2 player must still roll a similar "Sense Motive" check as discussed above, if the intention of the action is not obvious. (Although if they fail the roll here, they are not committed to continue waiting, depending on the context; a wizard might wait to watch an enemy mage to see if he'll cast a spell, but decide to cast a "Detect Illusory Mage" spell when the mage doesn't seem to do anything significant after some time.)

In the rare case that everyone falls into group 2 right from the start, ie everyone waits to see what everyone else is doing before acting, you could do a roll to see who loses nerve first, and how long it takes.

Patrice, please let me know if these ideas interest you. If so, I'd like to talk some more.


Dan Blain

I think I kind of lost you somewhere on page two, but I can add on an example of a game without initiative which I play every week.

Tunnels & Trolls is a game where combat is totally without initiative. Everyone of the players roll their attacks and add them, and then the "monsters" do the same. Bigger total wins and the difference is damage to the looser. You can embellish it a lot, but that's the rules. Ron have posted some fun Actual Play threads that might give more details.

The system is well worth checking out, and to compare to Vincent Bakers Storming the Wizards Tower.

Quote from: Patrice on December 12, 2008, 05:30:55 AM
Could both of you explain how you do define the target area and vector? Do you use a grid and state fixed numbered positions or does it function with a more flowing logic in  your systems? Does it work with the targetc area just stated as "Close, Left", for instance?

In GRiM, it's on a grid.  You have little grid diagrams on your maneuver cards(one for movement, one for range), with an X indicating your current position, and shaded squares indicating the movement or attack range pattern relative to your position (and you play the card turned to reflect your facing).  As far as attack range goes, it can skip squares; like, say one of your maneuvers is tossing a bomb, and it doesn't hit the first two squares in front of you, but hits a 3x3 chunk after that

Games with movement use initiative systems to solve the "where are you at what time" problem, right? And a lot of your issues seem to be in answering, "Is this guy close enough to this other guy to hit him?"

Abstract movement a little. Not a lot. Treat melee attacks like short range attacks. Give your brain a moment to absorb that. Say, "A melee attack allows you to hit any target who passes within 4 squares of you during your turn." This makes combat a little crazier and chaotic, and there might be some unpleasant square counting behavior, but it might solve your problem -- at least the movement order one.

Then all actions happen simultaneously. Use this turn progression:

1. Free and Clear. Everyone declares actions and revises until everyone is satisfied.
2. Plot movement. Figure out where everyone moves and ends up.
3. Resolve attacks. Figure out who hits whom.
4. Resolve effects. After everyone has attacked, figure out who gets damaged, who dies, etc.

This means that you can't say, "I tackle her and intercept his attack, preventing her from killing my brother!" If she wants to kill your brother, the best you can do is make her attack on your brother more difficult this turn. Your tackle effect will occur simultaneously with her sword attack on your brother.

This means that a character can be considered to be in more than one square at a time during a turn. A character occupies every square he moves through that turn. It's a quantum physics thing. ;) So if you move four squares, all five (yes, including the one I started in) of those squares contain you for positioning. I move three squares, so four squares contain me. If any of my three squares are within melee range (let's say two squares) of any of your four squares, it's possible for me to attack you in melee, cuz I can reach you, cuz combat is chaotic.

Okay, I remembered another way to handle this. Interrupts.

I wrote a game called Hellball (http://adam.legendary.org/download/Hellball.pdf), where you play pro football players who are being blackmailed by The Devil and forced to visit Hell and play a demonic football game (with no fouling rules) against demons to save your Coach.

Anyway, in Hellball, there's a simple initiative system -- and I know you were trying to avoid one -- but this is different, because it might solve some of the passivity problems you have with such systems. Players roll initiative then act in order from worst to best. During any player's turn, if you haven't gone yet, you can interrupt and go. When you're done, you're done, and can't interrupt anymore, and the interrupted player continues his or her turn.

So imagine you, me, and Bob are playing Hellball. I roll worst, Bob rolls next best, and you roll the best initiative. I go first. I start my six movement: one, two, three -- I get close to you and you interrupt me! You move -- one, two, three, four, five -- tackle!! We roll the tackle and I go down. My movement is ended now, and I might use the rest of my turn to try to get up or whatever, but I have been effected by your interrupt. You and I are both done now and can't interrupt Bob's turn, though.

Oh, something that comes to mind if your using a grid is that characters have a sort of 'reach' zone around them of X amount of squares. At the start when everyones declaring their moves, if someones inside your reach, you can effect them. It doesn't matter if their move is to run ten miles away or teleport, if at the start they are within reach, you can affect them (with whatever move). The character manages to get over there and do what the move is, before the other leaves. There, order doesn't matter, only starting position.

Quote from: Patrice on December 11, 2008, 06:55:44 PM
I'm the cheetah, I declare a charge and a few chews upon my prey. Alas, the opposed movement check states that my prey escapes. Where has the attack I declared gone? In the wind. Here comes Zeno again, under a different guise. That might be tactically adequate, considering pytha ceteris paribus but that would also involve a very frustrating gameplay. The other failure is that, the Order of Speech has now become so important that it is an initiative in disguise in itself. So the solution isn't really one

Yep, that's only the first step. I've chopped my answer down into sections so that it will be more easy to digest, rather than my old technique of chucking a huge splurge of text at someone. My general objective for this stuff is abolishing the "I go, you go" turn structure for something that handles the simultaneity and also the just-off-simultaneity of real life. So after sorting out how to make the timing-independent actions work you can implement a timing/interrupt system for the other bits, as well as exploring action declarations.

Now firstly I would call the specific action you refer to a conditional action gamble. The fact you lost an action is just part of the system, and even logic as you suggest! Now explicitly this means that you must accept the chance of loosing that action just as you accept the possibility of loosing an attack when you roll the dice, or that the plan "I'll play Russian roulette to get the money to buy a car" may not lead to you getting the car (overkill!). Does it have to be a part of the system? Well I think it is similar enough to any fortune in the middle mechanic to be an acceptable level of frustration. Remember also that although they do not catch them, they may get closer to catching them, so it's not a dead loss! I was reminded of the PIE system, where it is suggested that partial success on "I kill them!" are turned into wounds that make the next round easier, literally partial successes, you just need to fill up the rest!

But to get to your real point(as I see it), there are two bits left untouched; the interruption/thresholds I referred to before, and then there is the declaration order, the "gotchas" as Marshall puts them. As it happens, "gotchas" are one of my favourite things! My horribly unfinished system tries to deal with that problem by generalising on the form of gotchas with standard actions within the rules like "blend" "overbalance" etc, so those who might be susceptible to them have advance warning. It also does some other clever stuff in a really integrated way, so it's tricky to split it up!

Basically, I allow three layers of action changing which appear or disappear as appropriate.

The first is declaration of actions, which operates on a free and clear mode unless someone asks for initiative, which means they want to gotcha someone! If so you declare actions in order of perception/wisdom stat, which just means that the high wisdom character gets to work out what the lower wisdom character is doing but not vice versa.
From that point on you can choose to rush, which is the system for deciding the order of actions. It means that one character can choose "counter" and you can choose to race his counter, acting before it. This is the pacing system, so unlike Adams version, she says, "I'm going to swing for that guys brother" and you say, "I'm going to tackle her to the ground", you look at her player, and you get into a resource bidding war about the other kind of initiative, timing. Actions can have special interrupting effects if they pre-empt something, although the risk of failure means that pinning all you hopes on downing someone can be risky.
But what is the risk for wise guys? Well apart from a more general system there is a way for daydreamers to get a handle on stuff. They literally do the action "get a handle on stuff"! This is based on the "pause for breath" action in Inquisitor, where someone can spend an action on changing all their actions after that point. Now obviously that is a powerful action, but it is weakened by the fact that you can literally hit someone before they know what's going on, and because it is a kind of knowledge check to study the environment around you, so it has it's own risk of failure, especially in the dark!

So what is the purpose of all this business? Well the first system allows people to play insightful old monks who can anticipate your every move, but lets players know that if you do a power swing at him he is probably going to overbalance your character.
The rush effect allows you to adjust the timing of your actions once their all locked in, so you can choose to try to punch someone twelve times before he blinks, but it will either be unlikely or take up a lot of energy (depending on the resource system you use). It also allows all the cool interrupts with a nice slower tension-moment between players even during the fast flowing scene.
The "what's going on?" action allows people to play characters who have low perceptiveness and still come out with the rabbit from the hat, perhaps because they know who they are fighting.

As far as I can see they need to come as a set, it took me a while to pull all the other mechanics of my system off to make this set, and I'm not sure I would go any simpler, apart from possibly rush + free and clear. But think of all those juicy gotchas!

Sorry guys I've been lying down with a flu and didn't read your answers so far...

And there's quite a lot, as I cheerfully suspected it. Well, ShallowThoughts, I think you're aiming at something different from my goal because the underneath question, from what I read of your post, seems to me more connected to combat awareness and fog of war than to initiative. I mainly state it because you have a brand new initiative system with the way you design your order of speech (look: Speed? Agility? die-roll+dex? Doesn't it ring a bell?). Of course, the question of who's aware of the action and who's willing to get into it is fundamental to initiative design but eventually, once you'll have it sorted, you'll come to the sa

How 'bout...
A system where the character who goes first is the one who initiated the action sequence, and their player then 'tags' another character (presumably the one they're most closely interacting with).  Add a caveat that no character can be tagged again until everyone has been tagged, and maybe encourage/demand that players can't tag another PC without mentioning them somehow in the description of their action.  Ideally it should be pretty obvious who you're tagging.

CAPTAIN LEADFOOT:  I can't take anymore of this monologue, I'm going to attack Dr. Longwinded.
DR. LONGWINDED (played by GM): "Hah, you've played right into my hands, why I've waited for this moment since..." he's going to continue his monologue while signaling the henchperson on his left to press the button...
HENCHPERSON A (also played by GM):.. who does so, which activates the crane which starts to drop Polly Pure into the vat of mutagen.
POLLY PURE: Er... I struggle?
(other players wait expectantly)
POLLY PURE: I mean... I struggle in such a way to as to inspire Sir Molasses to rescue me before I grow another leg.
SIR MOLASSES: Do I have to rescue her?
GM: No, but her 'inspire' action will give you a bonus if you do.
SIR MOLASSAS: Ok, I'll try to get her out while shouting, "I'll rescue Polly while you take out the Doctor" to Leadfoot.  To be clear, I want to tag Leadfoot, not Dr. Longwinded.
GM: Actually, there's another henchperson in the room still...
SIR MOLASSAS: Ok, I'll add, "...and watch out for the dude sneaking up behind you."
HENCHPERSON B: Er... who I guess fails his attempt to sneak up on Captain Leadfoot.

I could see a game like this working, as long as the players approached it with the right attitude.  It would encourage characters to interact with each other in interesting fashions, provided the system made such interactions useful.  At the very least it should keep everyone involved and should make it less likely for parties to fall into the rut of, "I hit hit, he hits me, repeat"

...to the same, was I typing (with tissue-glued fingers and winter gloves) question, left untouched: what happens to group 3 people? You seem to discard the question which is the main one for me in this thread. So it seems to me that you're facing an entirely different question, not a less interesting one, though, but a different one. You might find a piece of answer in JoyWriter's late answer as well since he designed his "initiative" system with wisdom or perception or awareness as the stat defining orders. Wouldn't that also be a solution for your trouble as well? Well, it's a clue anyway.

Holy Sh**! I forgot T&T! I've been shedding tears upon Castle of the Bear (almost)! And yet, I've forgotten  T&T! Thxs a great deal for reminding me this game, Ante, it is maybe a possible clue as well, and a very potent one: To abstract the fight to the point where the question of initiative would become irrelevant. Would that allow me to design something gamist enough? I don't know and must give the question quite a moment of thinking and maybe a few tablets of C vitamin and paracetamol as well cause the flu's lingering. I'll be back upon this idea in a few days.

Yes, Adam Dray, that is what we have in one of the three options so far. That's the Free & Clear option and its whereabouts as defined upon a grid by the Marshall Burns in above-message and further clarified by Callan. I think Free & Clear is the assumption you've been basing yourself Callan or I am mistaken? Definitely, a threatened reach is one affordable (and "cool") option but I'm unsure whether a reach would be possible without the "moving into a threatened square" phrase segment. If you retain only "starts in a threatened square", this allows quite a lot of rule-bending. This is another thing I have to think upon, I'm just telling you my first glance's insight.

Thanks for thinking further upon it JoyWriter. I don't quite agree with the fact of losing one's planned and spent action because of an opponent or another player's one being "Fortune in the Middle". It's in the middle, right, but it's not Fortune because it's not involving a random event but the planning of another player (whether impersonating a character or the opponents). Would we call that Fortune? It's more tactical wits or common sense I would say.

I came to a conclusion close to yours with the gotchas! JoyWriter. We've got interrupts and thresholds. We can set, define an initiative order, and we can offer tools to everyone to thwart, gamble and reverse it. Instead of trying to go initiative-less, I'm slowly going towards a less-meaningful initiative. This is the other option. Free & Clear, Secrecy or that (or maybe abstracting it like T&T now that I've been reminded it). The Hell system, going worst to best and interrupting sounds really really fun too. It is this kind of ideas I'm thinking about more and more. And I think, JoyWriter, that you're slowly getting somewhat close. Because what you have is (coolness, right) a new way of defining an initiative system in which interrupts, counters, shuffling and the like change the actions and generate gotchas! I love gotchas too and that's why I'm telling you *cough* the same thing I'm telling myself: Why would you NOW still want to avoid an initiative system since what you have is exactly the same thing except that what you've designed is cool enough to make it sound and lively?

PS Sound a funny narration system Wheloc! Tagging is fun.

Quote from: Patrice on December 17, 2008, 07:11:19 AMDefinitely, a threatened reach is one affordable (and "cool") option but I'm unsure whether a reach would be possible without the "moving into a threatened square" phrase segment. If you retain only "starts in a threatened square", this allows quite a lot of rule-bending.

I don't understand? Is combat run over a number of turns or just one single turn? If it's on multiple turns, wherever you move to, where you stop at the end of one turn is where you start from on the next. If that's within someones reach, they can affect you.

Oh.

Right.

Didn't quite get what you meant in first place. Yes, this is an option then. Still feels a bit strange to me, only because it sort of disallows hit & run tactics, or should I say maximizes them at the very contrary but it turns the practical effect of the movement, its resolution phase in the prior order of actions. I dunno if I'm very clear... It's just that it is a good practical solution but its feel is a bit odd to me. That would mean that, if I want to slash you on the run and I'm able to, my hit would actually take place on the next round because you would start close enough to me at its start. Did I get your meaning?

I figured I'd see how others responded to this thread after my initial reply, so maybe this is coming a bit late, but I think I'll offer a follow-up anyway.

The thing with the "Gotchas" and interrupts in RPGs is that, in my opinion, they somewhat border on metagame play. Someone brought up the game Magic The Gathering, where instants are allowed. This is NOT the same mechanic, because that game truly is turn-based (as opposed to being turn-based-but-simulating-simultaneous), and the instants are therefore wholly NOT metagame.

So, if we're shooting for a system that simulates instantaneous actions but which doesn't involve metagamey interrupts, we have to decide which character (not player) goes first, at any given point during the combat. The system I'd suggested earlier does, I admit, sound like a fog-of-war type mechanic (especially now that I read back over it), but I think that's because we're all more familiar with the "1 round-1 round-1 round-1 round" format of combat instead of the "do your stuff until you decide to change action" style I'm trying to express. This system applies to beginning initiative, but I believe it works mid-combat, and so I'll attempt to set up a scenario that demonstrates it. (I'm keeping the numbers small and the combat-values rough just for the sake of clarity.)




Let's take a group of three blood-thirsty faceless goblins (named A, B, C) who are in combat with three PCs, Fighter, Thief, and Wiz. At the moment (meaning, at the point at which we, as outside observers, jump into the situation already taking place among the players and their respective characters), Fighter is attacking all three goblins and defending Wiz, who is drinking a healing potion. Thief is behind the couch trying to sneak behind to backstab B.

The three PCs are happy with this situation, for now. The DM is happy with this situation for now. They continue their actions, simultaneously, uninterrupted. Suddenly, however, something changes.

QuoteDM (upon rolling the first successful spot check): "Uh oh, C makes eye-contact with you, Thief! Fighter, roll to see if you notice the awareness in his eyes. Wiz, you can't see him past Fighter, so you are disallowed the roll."

Fighter: "Got it. I spotted him."

DM: "Okay. Who's doing what?"

Fighter: "Well, we absolutely must reduce their numbers. I'm going to focus my efforts on C, to distract him and hopefully allow Thief in for a kill."

Thief: "Word! Even if C hits me, I'm goin' in."

Wiz: "Well, I'm done drinking the potion. I guess I'll cast another buff on Fighter."

(Now, everyone starts performing these actions in order of character's speed or possibly a combination of speed and who-noticed-first. Fighter aims his next attack at C, Thief creeps up behind B's back, and Wiz starts the actions for casting a spell.)

DM: "You've damaged C, Fighter, but he's still got some fight left in him. He is withdrawing, and it looks like he's preparing to attack Thief. Thief, you're in danger from C but B still hasn't noticed you. Wiz, it looks like A has spotted your attempt to cast a spell. He's slinking past Fighter. Roll a spot."

Fighter: "Do I see this?"

DM (making a judgement call): "Afraid not .. your attention is on C. Nice roll, Wiz. You see him coming."

Wiz: "Uuuuh .. I can NOT afford to get hit, even after the potion. I'm going to let the buff spell fizzle and cast magic shield instead."

DM: "That's fine, but A has already taken a few steps in your direction. There's a good chance he'll get a swing at you before you're done casting."

Wiz: "I've got no option, since running will just get the attention of the other goblins. That's a chance I'll have to take."

As you can see in the above example, the changes in actions occur naturally. Most of the time, people will do the same thing until there is a change in the situation. The fighter can just, say, roll a bunch of attacks in a row while the thief sneaks and the wiz casts, assuming the goblins don't change their actions or die, or there is another change of context. The clock follows the actions instead of meting it out by rounds.

Now, whether this system is feasible, and whether it is as fast as other systems ..... I can't say. I like the concept though. The one potential flaw I can see is that players will still act somewhat metagamey. In the quoted example, Wiz could have easily changed his action to something that would distract C (thereby helping the whole group), instead of casting a spell that the character would have cast given that he is ignorant of C's actions. However, I'm inclined to allow this type of thing since it just serves to make the game a little more fun from the players' perspectives.

Dan Blain.

Yeah. You see, here's initiative again with actions determined by order of speed and the like. I think you might simply be aiming at a Free and Clear system as presented by the Marshall Burns, that's a bit of what your example renders except that you added an "awareness" condition to the action-changing in order to avoid pure metagaming. Of course if you really play Gamist Free and Clear, you might find yourself in curious situations like:

A: I run and duck under the rock

B: OK then, the sorcerer shoots his fireball at the rock's base.

A: sh**. No, OK, I run around.

B: In this case, he will shoot death darts at you.

A: That won't do... Let me try...

Etc.

Your "awareness" input allows gotchas! in the Free and Clear system. That's its main interest I think.
On the other hand, let's talk MTG again (I was the one taking MTG in the discussion). You have interrupts and instants played last to first. Isn't that metagaming? You take a risk everytime you play this because you don't know what the opponent player has in store for you. Okay you take turns, very basic ones. But the ability to play instants during another player's turn and to interrupt or counter his actions goes well beyond a standard "Defense" or "Reaction" value, it's the opportunity for you to take the action at whatever of its course and to change it regardless of your initiative order (your turn). You maybe have 3 instants, or maybe can play these only once during the encounter. This is on the edge of metagaming without indulging into pure metagaming as you fear Free and Clear would become without some objectivity or awareness regulator. I like this MTG (or Usagi Yojimbo) idea: warp the turns logics but have turns. It seems to me much easier than trying without turns, except with some of the above-stated solutions (Secrecy, Abstraction, etc) which are compelling but won't fit that easily in what I'm designing. Actually, the different aspects of the design will come together in a single picture after a few posts and topics I think, but I can't really afford to expose everything in just one message. Or maybe not yet. It's sometimes easier to say "I love water" and dilute it with 12 different softs every time you drink it than to refuse to drink a single drop of water ever.

Patrice,

Have you considered changing the way you look at initiative? Perhaps you would find it more "realistic" to look at initiative in terms of its usual, English meaning, instead of the meaning it has taken on from D&D.

In other words:

* D&D - initiative tells us who acts first and when

However, in the real world, the word initiative means that you're the one who is active, the one who is driving the action, and therefore the one who others must react to. You're the one who is "leading" the action.

Fighting pretty much all happens at the same time, in the real world--people don't take turns. But, looking at a fight, you can often see who has "initiative" and who is on the defensive, capable of reacting but not acting.

Maybe that might be a more fruitful model?

Under this way of looking at things, initiative means that you have full choice of what to do, whereas those who do not have a limited choice, in reaction to whatever you are doing.

For instance:

* The one with initiative is the only one who can "attack". Those without initiative must seize initiative first, before they can do so.

But, perhaps there is some other advantage to giving up initiative, like a bonus die or the chance to change your action. Maybe declaring your action first gives you initiative... but your opponent now has the advantage of knowing what you are doing.

Any combat system (like T&T) where everyone rolls simultaneously, and then one party damages the other, can be considered to do this. Perhaps the winner of one roll is the one who gets to choose whether the fight continues or whether they wish to break off... etc.

Quote from: Patrice on December 19, 2008, 11:54:55 AM
Yeah. You see, here's initiative again with actions determined by order of speed and the like. I think you might simply be aiming at a Free and Clear system as presented by the Marshall Burns, that's a bit of what your example renders except that you added an "awareness" condition to the action-changing in order to avoid pure metagaming. Of course if you really play Gamist Free and Clear, you might find yourself in curious situations like:

A: I run and duck under the rock

B: OK then, the sorcerer shoots his fireball at the rock's base.

A: sh**. No, OK, I run around.

B: In this case, he will shoot death darts at you.

A: That won't do... Let me try...

Etc.

<snip>
.. it's the opportunity for you to take the action at whatever of its course and to change it regardless of your initiative order (your turn).

Yes, it's somewhat like the Free and Clear stage, but the awareness fights even pure gamist motives. The "curious situations" you mentioned come up only if the characters either broadcast their intentions instantaneously, or you're playing with metagame in effect. You see, your example is a snippet out of context. On the first line, why is A trying to run under the rock? On the second line, how did B's character know to shoot at the base of the rock?

The three categories I mentioned earlier were intended for the beginning of combat, but groups 2 and 3 work equally well during combat and players will move between them with respect to a given CHANGE in SITUATION. The groups prevent players from endlessly going back in time. Regardless of a player's wishes, that player's character may only react to a change that the character is aware of.

I suspect it's still not clear how this could function in actual play, so let me demonstrate by rewriting your "curious situation" with two possible outcomes (though infinite are possible). For the system I'm proposing to work, your example requires some context: let's assume A wanted to jump behind a rock because B's character is giving him the big hairy eyeball and preparing a Magic Missile spell for his face. (If A wanted to jump behind the rock for a different reason,  this would obviously play out differently.)

QuoteA: I want to run and duck under the rock. <note the declaration of intention first, not action>

DM: B, make the Spot check.

B: Got it! In that case, I'll prepare a fireball to shoot at the rock's base instead. That'll hurt him despite the rock's cover.

A: sh**. No, OK, I run around.

DM: A, hold on. Roll a check to see if you can tell that B has changed spells to adapt to your move.

A: I failed! D'oh!

DM: Ouch, too bad. You duck behind the rock, only discovering that the spell was in fact a fireball when you happen to notice your corpse lying below your ethereal spirit form.

And, an alternative outcome.

QuoteA: I want to run and duck under the rock.

DM: B, make the Spot check.

B: Missed it! Oy!

DM: B, you prepare your Magic Missile spell, when suddenly A darts behind a nearby rock. You try and twist your hand to nail him, but it's too late. The missile bounces harmlessly off the rock.

B: I think this would be a good opportunity to exit stage left. I'm ducking back into the door. <group 3 here .. wanted to act first. If he had wanted to see what player A would have done, he should have waited to declare his action.>

A: Oh! I throw a dagger as he's leaving.

DM: Roll a speed check followed by a Dexterity check. Let's see if you first catch him leaving, and then are able to throw the dagger fast enough.

B: Oh, can bring up a shield?

DM: Too late I'm afraid, you've turned around and so can't make the spot check.

Despite all this, I'm STILL not convinced the system is feasible, as I'm worried there's a loophole in there that would allow the game to, again, degrade under the scrutiny of gamists. Oh well.. will have to test it when I get a chance. In any case, I hope this clarifies.



Dan Blain

Quote from: Patrice on December 19, 2008, 11:54:55 AM
Of course if you really play Gamist Free and Clear, you might find yourself in curious situations like:

A: I run and duck under the rock

B: OK then, the sorcerer shoots his fireball at the rock's base.

A: sh**. No, OK, I run around.

B: In this case, he will shoot death darts at you.

A: That won't do... Let me try...

Etc.

There's two things to stop this.  One is clear-cut Effect (what results from applying the mechanics to specific situations?) and Effectiveness (what determines my character's ability to influence Effect?) rules -- for instance, making "I duck under the rock" have actual mechanical impact that can't be short-circuited simply by choosing a maneuver that would somehow bypass it.  I duck under the rock, you shoot the base of the rock with Magic Missile?  Okay, let's roll dice to see how that turns out -- maybe in my favor, maybe in yours.

The second thing is that it doesn't go anywhere.  In theory, the players could just go around and around like that for days, trying to trap eachother in a bad situation so they can say "GOTCHA!"  It's like playing Around the World in baseball -- throwing the ball from base to base, in hopes of tricking a player into getting off base to run for the next one so that you can throw him out.  But nobody falls for it, it's a non-game, and people stop trying to do it once they realize this.

I'm not sure your highlighting really helps to sort the question, Paul, because it explains furthermore why one should be the main stage player as the others would be reactive to him. This is exactly the feel I want to avoid. Yet... There are two very interesting points in your reference to Initiative's basic meaning.One is that it shows how Order of Speech and Order of Action is actually one same thing. In a social game (or contract or whatever), the first to speak is the first to determine the others into either being passive either tagging him along. Second, it sparks for me the notion of determining Initiative in order to find out who's leading the action, aka one single character or opponent. This turns the Initiative in a contest for action leading instead of a list or count of all the people involved. I'm definitely not aiming at this for this system, but it is a good idea to be keeping aside somewhere. I like the way it explains the T&T opposition system too. It gives it a narrative twist, and a good one.

Dan. I mean. Didn't you get at a new Initiative system there? It's like "I will pretend to ignore that because I'm not a metagame player but in case I am, I'll have to roll some dice". Reminds me of John Rawls. And of course you have to invite Speed, Perception, etc in order to sort the issues. Because if you roll, it seems difficult to escape the "who rolls 1st?" question. If a perception roll can change the development of the action, then the question of who gets the chance to roll it becomes an essential one. Sounds to me as a correction of Free & Clear that empties it of its logics. Yes, Free & Clear (I was just reading your answer Marshall) implies some kind of... Realizing that there's no gotchas! instead of rolling to involve gotchas! again because you then thwart your system yourself, or so it seems. I wonder if actually, what I call the Abstract system (like T&T) isn't Free & Clear undercover...

But I also want to add that Not Having Initiative isn't some kind of freak mandatory feature I've sold to some producer and can't escape from however lame it gets the game, this is my independant game and I can turn around if it suits best. What I'm telling right now since a few messages is that I've sort of abandoned the idea because it gets the game in a direction that isn't consistant with its other aspects, either turning it into too much a cooperative play (and when I will tell you I'm planning an Arena play extension, you'll understand why I have to discard the whole idea of cooperation) either because it would have me redefine the whole design around and I don't want the game to revolve about initiative. There are possible paths and we've defined these a lot: the Free & Clear (either Burns or Dan system), the Secrecy, the Abstraction (T&T) and the twisting of an admitted Initiative (Usagi Yojimbo, or MTG). Yet I'm very happy to leave the question open for it brings along quite a lot of good ideas and striking notions. Plus I'm still not fixed upon which idea or which combination of ideas would render the best gameplay sensation. To be honest, I've ordered Usagi Yojimbo and I will delve in the attic to get my old T&T copy asap (if it's not lost, one never knows with my attic). I'll kick that fresh again after these few researches.

It sounds like you're winding down the thread, so here's my last thoughts on the subject.

You basically hit on the nose, in your first paragraph, what I was getting to. Since we are only simulating simultaneous actions, not actually performing them, we must resign ourselves to the fact that someone's got to explain what he wants to do first and allow everyone else a chance to modify their actions (unless you go into written down plans). The reason for setting up initiative the way I did is because it answers the question of who is the best choice for that main stage player. I claim it's the player who already knows what he wants to do, and is in the best position to do it (i.e. due to character speed). This, and other methods of initiative, do not ultimately resolve the issue of peoples' stated intentions colouring the actions of others, but I think they're fair enough approximations.

An Arena-play expansion, eh? Sounds pretty wild X-)


Dan Blain

Quote from: Patrice on December 19, 2008, 04:40:08 PM
the Free & Clear (either Burns or Dan system)

Just wanna point out real quick, in the interest of citing sources, that I first came across that structure in Ron Edwards' Sorcerer, and that Ron coined the term.

Quote from: Patrice on December 17, 2008, 07:09:24 PMDidn't quite get what you meant in first place. Yes, this is an option then. Still feels a bit strange to me, only because it sort of disallows hit & run tactics, or should I say maximizes them at the very contrary but it turns the practical effect of the movement, its resolution phase in the prior order of actions. I dunno if I'm very clear... It's just that it is a good practical solution but its feel is a bit odd to me. That would mean that, if I want to slash you on the run and I'm able to, my hit would actually take place on the next round because you would start close enough to me at its start. Did I get your meaning?

Your kinda thinking too far ahead and muddling yourself. Even in real life you'd have to run over, and then whilst running, slash me. That's two events, not one. Here you use one turn to run/move, and on the next turn (if you've moved to the right spot), I'm within your reach*. It's muddled  because your thinking of the prior move action as something to do with the slashing. It isn't - like in real life, it's just running (with scissors...err, I mean a knife! ;) ).

Or do you want to be able to make an attack every turn? There shouldn't be any turns where you just move/run/manouver? Genuinely asking you that, cause it'd be a valid design goal (but you hadn't stated as yet).

* Just to be clear, by reach I don't mean like D&D where it's one square, I mean several squares out from the character. That reach indicates the characters movement and action capacity.

I'm not bored at all, Dan, it's just that I feel I won't be able to answer much more than what I did so far until I've done some research and playtesting... But, who knows, someone might come up with something and open new tracks meanwhile, I dunno. Yup, I've got what you were developping, it's an Initiative system, right, but you use a kind of awareness-readiness instead of good old "roll plus Speed" systems. It's a nice change and it sure explains better why someone has the main part and others be taggin' along (it has issues and troubles, though, loopholes did you say, but nevertheless is worth trying).

Thanks Marshall, so the term's Ron-coined, acknowledged.

Well, yes, Callan, pretty much. I didn't realize it but I'd really like to make an attack every turn. Or else... Let's say, if I don't, it's not a turn. And yes, I was muddling myself, mainly because I didn't take into enough account my implicit view of the action. Do you remember the message in which I was heading for this equation: Every move is an attack, every attack is a move (move close and bash, flee as fast as you can, etc). Sorry for being launching such a topic with implicit ideas, but they won't reveal so much if I dont' rub them somewhat with other people...

Well, flee as fast as you can seems missplaced as an example of an attack *friendly laugh*, but okay.

Well, then for your goal I'd say reach was effectively infinite for all characters. Either everyone can reach anyone, or your ruled as not being part of the fight for being too far away (this is basically the same as T&T's system, actually). You can still have a grid, but measure the distance between figures and convert it into a modifier (or have set sphere's of influence around each figure, like a short, medium and everything beyond range, each with a set modifier to the attack). That takes into account moving, but ensures it doesn't deny you an attack.

Quotebecause it would have me redefine the whole design around and I don't want the game to revolve about initiative.

I dunno, it seems to me that functionally speaking, initiative systems are the most important feature of a combat system, and that everything else flows from initiative determination in one form or another.  For example, your initiative structure will frame what "an action" is, whether a wound is fatal or merely potentially so, or the implications of encumbrance and the like.  Actually resolving attacks is, relatively speaking, quite uninteresting, not least becuase the relevant decisions were all made at character creation and you are merely seeing them play out.   All of which means that IMO desiging the mechanic "around" intitiative is indeed the correct thing to do, as it will almost entirely control how such combats come out and how they "feel".

I'm not sure that the goal of being without initiative determination - unless you are willing to resort wholly to GM direction - is realistic, but it is entirely valid to attempt to design something other than the way the default approach to initiative works and therefore feels.

Quote from: Callan S. on December 19, 2008, 09:46:55 PM
Well, flee as fast as you can seems missplaced as an example of an attack *friendly laugh*, but okay.

Err. Right. As I'm reading you, I really think that the key is in the abstraction or abstraction level, not only for movement but for the whole action system. The basic level of abstraction such as you implicitly find in T&T, is "Here" or "Away", extra increments are always handy and possible with the same system "Touch", "Close", "Short", "Medium", "Long" and "Away". It's just an extension of the same logic. That would end with something like that:

With C at Medium range headstart.
A: Moving Short.
B: Moving Long.
C: Moving Short.
That would leave A & C at Close and B at Medium. B distance actions would be taken into account, but not brawl actions whether both A and C could use brawl actions. Yet, I haven't sorted order of speech here. I have to choose between Secrecy (no order) and Free & Clear. I could have the order of speech depend upon the actions, or the speed, or alertness, but I'm then all tangled up again in the same troubles.

The funny part, contracycle, is that this discussion has taken me into re-thinking a lot of my system without really providing me with an easy solution for initiative. That shows, of course, that initiative is essential to a system but I'm actually derivating it from its other aspects. Rather than trying to build an initiative-less system, I would say now that I would be content with that feel alone. Someone talked about a "World of statues" feeling. This is exactly what I want to avoid, but I'm not so serious about the game being philosophically or politically without initiative. As far as I went in here, I'd say that I came to the conclusion that if you speak out an action, whether this action actually takes place or not yet, you are defining what an action is, you are doing this action. And I realized that an Order of Speech is somewhat an Initiative in itself. That's why I went to a three-possibilities conclusion: Free and Clear, Secrecy or Initiative. It's not a matter of gaming anymore here, it's almost a matter of social organisation.

OK guys, sorry to delve this old thread back but I felt you would like to know, if only to payback your helpful participation, how I eventually solved the question for my game concept. Remember I was aiming at a system lite design and at a Gamist RPG.

Well, many of you will be disappointed, but I took Initiative back into the system, albeit a few corrections. Here's how it goes:

One single non-opposite one-die roll determines who is the Caller. The Caller will get both to declare his actions and to resolve them first, including whatever movement he planned. The Caller then chooses a character who will get to act second. So, the second tags the Caller. The second then chooses who will declare and act third, and so on until all actions are resolved. A new single non-opposite die roll is rolled if there is a reason for the action to continue and the whole sequence starts again. Please note that "character" encompasses both PCs and NPCs, creatures, whatever and that thus, the GM takes an active part in the tagging.

OK this is pretty basic Initiative system, but there's a twist and here it is: There are Abilities allowing to become the Caller (sneak types), Abilities enabling to choose who will tag along instead of the Caller (leader types) and Instant and Interrupt Abilities that can be played during another character's action turn (instinct types) regardless of Initiative order, resolved last to first. Moreover, there are Situations in which the Caller is automatically determined, whitout any die roll, story-determined.

It's Gaming, but it's full Fortune at the beginning with a Social notion inside which much haggling is more than welcome (tagging). And it's more like Casino Gaming than traditional RPG with stat-based system (there are no stats in my game btw) and it's teamwork induced by the system.

Here are my credits: Magic The Gathering for the Instants and the Interrupts resolved last to first, the Tagging idea from this thread, Situation-determined Init elements from Grimm (Fantasy Flight), everything else by myself.

I do apologize again and again for taking back Initiative into the design but all what's been said here has been very, very helpful. Thanks again.

Hey Patrice,
You NEVER, EVER have to apologize for going with what works rather than what somebody else things would be cool.  It's been said that one of the core skills a game designer must develop is the ability to ignore people when necessary, and it's mostly true.

I'm glad that you've hit on something that you like, and I'm glad that this thread helped you get there.  Even if you didn't use any of my input, it was still part of the process of getting to your solution.  That's what this place is all about, man!

-Marshall

If you know this already, I apologize .. but it's always possible it might help. Way back when I started playing Magic, learning this made the game infinitely easier for me, because I'm much better with things I can visualize than dry rules. Regarding the "resolve last to first" of Magic the Gathering, it all functions as a stack. Just how it sounds, it's like a stack of cards so each next card played goes on top of the stack. Then each card is drawn from the top of the stack, one-by-one, and resolved as it's drawn.

Even though myself and friends are pretty advanced players, for the stickier resolution-order situations we have to go back to this model and take it step-by-step.

Thanks a lot, Marshall. You're quite right to say that ignoring is one of the many designer's feats. I was maybe a bit too much polite here. Hehe. Thanks for your answer anyway. As a matter of fact, I don't know yet if that works as cool as I imagine. I'll have to give a try in playtest and we'll see!

Sure, Dan, that's the way it works. Last to first and step by step. It's pretty easy for a beginning character's game, but gets stickier as the character has access to more options. I even considered the idea of using cards, actual cards, but I discarded that, if I might say so.

Wow, that systems pretty cool! It's completely not my way of doing it, but it seems pretty interesting.

I had a bit of a brainwave when reading it.

It's going back a little bit to my love of gotchas, but it works like this:

You do all that taggy business like you have, but everything has interrupt potential (it's mainly to stop ability bloat, there is one way to do actions only).

Does the person who goes first actually get an advantage? Now obviously he gets to set the tone of events, but in terms of actually achieving what he wants, it seems like he could be doing pretty bad.

So what if he gets an extra action at the start?!
The reason I like this so much is that the first actions in this kind of chain are sort-of the weakest; because everyone gets to interrupt them. But they are also powerful because the ability to tag means more when you are disadvantaging the person you are tagging more.

But the idea is that the free first action, literally seizing the initiative, should put enough momentum into events to make people want to respond, so not mind if they are picked. Indeed the logic of the strategy encourages rapid exchanges, because you want to get your opponents action out the way as fast as possible so you or your allies can come in with a counter-counter!


But focusing on the actual system you brought, it sounds like quite an improvement on initiative cards, but with total tagging choice, how do you stop teams taking all their turns in a row, and this kind of possibly annoying result:

"1: I unlock and open the door, tag 2.
2: I lob the grenade in, tag 3
3: I close and lock the door, tag enemy 1
enemy 1: I just have to run away!"

Basically if people use actions that provide natural thresholds, then by acting in a team they can act without giving the other team a chance to respond. Admittedly a lot of instant style abilities would solve this, but I'd rather not use them, because of the way that defining actions in this way naturally fills out the volume of the rules.
Now I know that's taking rules efficiency a little strongly, as one of my favourite game sees no problems in distinguishing instant and non-interrupting versions of essentially the same ability, and what I have described sounds an awful lot like the tactics of a well practised swat team, so this is obviously a preference and not a universal criticism!

In general I'm definitely not against initiative in the sense of ordered actions, as you have observed that that is inevitable to keep track of whose saying what, but I want to make sure it doesn't stand in the way of the wonderful simultaneous interacting actions that can go on in real life, and that it interferes as little as possible with creativity. Your new system seems like it can do that, provided the interrupt action pallet steps up to the challenge.

Yes that's what I definitly have to check during playtests. From one side it supports teamwork in one way or competitive play the other, but on the other side it could have the effect you describe.

The only way an opponent would have to thwart such a team plan would be to use wisely its instants and interrupts. That would mean that an opponent without instants nor interrupts is almost a dead duck. I can accept this. There has to be minions, the stormtrooper kind of enemies, trivial foes and there has to be big shots, bosses, with loads of instant powers and interrupt capacities. At least there has to be in my game :). Likewise, some characters are good at getting themselves out of the way, at escaping danger or at leading a team. Others aren't. It's not their role and they can expect to be targeted quite a few times. Moreover, allowing the PCs to help one another through collaborative concerted action is something I want to fully allow.

I'm trying to build at the same time a definite pattern of possibilities for each "class" (profession, type, whatever). One would be about having initiative advantage and quickness, extra actions. I don't want to give this power to everyone, nor to blend everyone in the same field of possibilities. I want to create distinctive roles, that's why I'm keeping this option to one style of character only.

This is a responce to the top message. My experiences with the problem.

I've got a version of the Engle Matrix Game that doesn't use a turn sequence or order of play. Players start the game with a set od 15 to 20 coins that they use to buy the right to make something happen.

A player thwacks a coin on the take and "takes the initiative" other players may pay more coins an "steal the initiative". The player describes their action and a referee sets a "to happen" roll. Other players may jump in with counter-arguments and responce actions. Many dice are rolled and an outcome is decided.

The player who wins the rolling has a 30 second window to take the initiative. If they hesitate then someone else can jump in.

The thing of it is that nothing happens in the game without it being described in an action argument.

It is simple and fairly clean but really demands a lot of the players. They have to think of their feet well or they can get rolled over.

Chris Engle