Event-based timing (as opposed to turn-based timing)

[Darcy Burgess]

Hi John,

My last wasn't meant as a poke at you -- rather, it was a general flag that I was throwing up to clarify my intent.  You just happened to be a convenient example.

Regardless, no harm, no foul, so great.


Hi Tom,

Here's something that occurred to me the other night -- how would you handle aborting actions under this system -- my gut tells me that it could get a little fiddly.

Cheers,
Darcy

[tex]

Thanks for your thoughts, Bossy.  I give answers and other responses inline.  : ]

Realistically, all characters do not realize combat is imminent at the same time. The faster characters should be allowed to start as second one before the others because they are slower to grasp the situation or because they were surprised.

I agree.  My example was very simplistic.  Section 6.1.1, page 43, "Surprise and Hesitation" is how Orp handles matters of reaction time and "flinching."  This stuff is not specific to combat or even precise timing necessarily; a person can be surprised and suffer hesitation in all sorts of situations.

In fact, this is related to how you plan to cope with reactions, typically dodging and parying. How many seconds does it take for a character to spot an attack and decide which parying movement is adequate, indempendently from the time it takes to raise a shield between the sword and himself? What happens to the action the reacting character was doing, for instance what happens to the spellcasting if the mage decides to dodge a missile? Does he have to interrupt the incantations? The answer depends on how much simulation and how little clumsiness you want in the system. As far as I skimmed through ORP rules, reactions are incorporated in success rolls so they don't have to be actually declared, right?

Much of this gets into combat as a specific thing.  That'll be another thread once I've knocked that chapter into shape; do you mind if we put off the discussion until then?  : ]

In the general case, though, you're right:  Characters usually get a "reaction" roll automatically, because many matters of antagonism or competition (where combat is just one kind) are resolved in Orp via opposed rolls.  Naturally, this can and should be reasonably excepted by the GM.  For instance, if a character isn't able to resist or chooses not to, the GM should think about using an unfavorable fixed target number.

If the character is "resisting" something while also trying to do something else (for some reason, I imagine two kids scrabbling over a playstation controller while one of them is trying to keep playing), that's probably a forced kind of multitasking (see previous posts) with possible forced interruption (see page 33, section 4.6).

Conversely a character may want to delay the effect of a finished action in order to synchronize it with external events. For instance Hardbrat wants to delay her kick to let Frostboy to freeze the villain before (because everybody knows the villain will then sprinkle like a smashed ice cube). Another example: John Soldier points at the door and aims 20 centimeters above the knob, but he doesn't shoot yet (until the door opens).

I think you've uncovered a possible gap in my system:  I've never considered the times when a player says "I want my character to do X but only in response to Y," like a d20-style Readied Action.  Right now there's no rule to do that explicitly, though I think it's pretty easy to get the same results at the gaming table with the present mechanics, since characters can "do nothing" for as long as they wish and then try to "do something" in a single pulse.  The GM doesn't have to use d12 pulses as event duration; the rules simply suggest that as a default.

For more conveniently doing this in more tactical gameplay, I'm going to develop a "readied action" optional rule.  Thanks for the idea!  : ]

Hmm . . . you do raise another interesting implication too.  I have to put it in my todo list that sometimes the GM can make slowing down actually more difficult instead of easier.  That way sometimes GMs can have more explicit control over what a person must sometimes risk or sacrifice to achieve perfect timing.

I would feel very uncomfortable to make the duration of an action totally random, especially using a single die. I'd prefer either a bell-curve roll (2d6, unthinkable in ORP) to make durations less variable or a stat-based roll (d12 - stat, I know substraction is evil) to take character's forte into account. In general I would strongly advise the GM chooses wisely the duration instead of rolling.

You know default Orp was almost 2d6 + stat + skill instead of d12 + stat + skill, so it's not that anathemous.  : ]

I can see what you mean about being nervous about that much variability tucked away in action durations.  In fact, in the extended example of the timing rules on page 34 (Section 4.9), I think I have my hypothetical GM running in sort of a hybridized way.  For example, he lets a player draw a sword in a single pulse, and has an orc make an "unresisted" attack against the same character (who is dazed and off his feet) later on in a single pulse.  Movement appears to be at a fixed rate (as I mused about in previous posts) while most other actions appear to be d12 in duration.

I'm hesitant to automatically modify durations based on some character attribute for the reason that better attributes are already favorable:  They lead to more frequent successes with better margins.  Instead, I provide the Rushing and Going Slow rules under section 4.4, page 32, to let characters leverage their better attributes to go faster at a probability cost.  This way, a person has to be truly special in order to both succeed noticeably more often and in less time than everyone else.  I don't want to exaggerate the advantage of better numbers, you see, especially not by adding complexity to every character action.  The Rushing and Going Slow rules need to be there anyway, so that pretty much seals the deal.

Not that I would get annoyed if people did it the way you suggest.  Customizability and flexibility are the two most important design goals; I think I reference the Customizing Orp chapter about a dozen times in the book.  : ]

It seems that if you incorporate all subtelties beyond simple actions (reactions, multitasking, delaying, etc.), the system could quickly become clumsy. As it is I don't think it is hard to learn but it looks like quite demanding for the game master since he has to keep track of the time of each character's action. Have you already actually practiced this system? I'm curious to how long (how many pulses) a single combat sequence can be.

I will say that the Combat chapter actually simplifies the game by effectively removing rolls, believe it or not.  That's a teaser for the next thread, or me trying to manipulate you into reading Chapter 5, I'm not sure which.  ; ]

I've playtested it briefly for some friends and met with relative success.  I think at the next major revision (out by the end of the year, I bet) I'm going to start playtesting in earnest.  I do think I've kept the thing to myself for too long.

Obviously the number of pulses in any particular discrete usage of that part of the rules can vary by a lot; it's hard to answer with no context.  In the example combat I have in the rulebook, I think it's over in something like a dozen pulses, which works out to be two or three actions for everyone.  I would expect that to be the case for most D&D-like encounters, I imagine.

While I was thinking about all this, Darcy came by and said:

Here's something that occurred to me the other night -- how would you handle aborting actions under this system -- my gut tells me that it could get a little fiddly.

Hi Darcy.  The GM has a few options, but the default is that whenever a character has an opportunity to change their mind about an action (due to new information becoming available on some pulse) they basically have to succeed at a roll or else they continue doing whatever it is they were doing.

I think the interpretation of this is obvious most of the time.  The most common result is the action just fizzles:  If you were lining up a shot or trying to pick a lock, the bullet remains in the chamber or the lock remains unpicked.  Some events would remain partially completed, with interpretation left to the GM about what that means.  In the case of movement, it'd be the obvious thing:  The character is stopped partway to the destination.  In the case of, for example, fixing a busted engine, the engine will perhaps remain half-fixed (maybe the difficulty is reduced later on).  Is this the kind of fiddly you were imagining?  What do you think?

I would call this an application of "interruption", where page 33, section 4.6 gets into it specifically.  Now that I look at it again, that section needs more attention.  I've not really documented the fact that I want players to use this rule when describing how their players interrupt themselves, firstly.  Secondly I think I need to follow my own pattern of giving a default so the GM isn't left headscratching about what's most appropriate.

Thanks to both of you; I've gotten three or four good ideas out of it.  : ]