Has this way of doing initiative been thought of before?

[Sindyr]

I present this as in idea for people to comment on, tweak, use in whole or in part, etc - with the understanding that I retain any and all rights to use for myself this system and any discussion that comes from it.
>---------------------------------------------------------------

I came up with what I think is the best initiative system I know of, but possibly also the most cumbersome and slow. Perhaps it could be tweaked to improve its playability. Anyways, this is what I figured out in rough form.

The GM has an abacus. Each line of beads on the abacus represents a different character.

Time is divided up into "moments" (MMTs).  Every action takes a certain amount of MMTs to perform.  This is affected by many things.

For example, a man with a DEX of 14 using a weapon with a speed of 6 may take 4 MMTs to strike an opponent. Someone with a higher Dex, better technique, or faster weapon may do it faster, while someone with a lower Dex, slower weapon, or someone who is tired or ill may take more Moments to complete a strike.

When a scene of conflict begins, one side usually initiates the conflict. Both sides roll for initiative, with the side that started the conflict potentially getting a bonus.

The result of the roll says how many MMTs "behind" each character is.

For example, if two characters [Art and Brad] are facing a man that suddenly starts turning into a werewolf [Clyde], both sides make initiative rolls. It may turn out that Art rolls a 12, Brad rolls a 15, and Clyde rolls a 10.

Since Brad rolls the best roll, he is the one that everyone else is behind.  So Art gets a 3 MMT penalty and Clyde gets a 5 MMT penalty.

Clyde already started his action - turning into his werewolf form - and this takes 3 MMTs. Since he is facing a 5 MMT penalty, he will lose 2 more MMTs before being able to do anything else.

This is where the abacus comes in.

The GM pulls up the abacus, and slides all the beads over for the top three lines to the left. The GM assigns the top line to Art, the second line to Brad, and the third line to Clyde.

First, as the action that started this whole thing off, the GM slides 3 beads to the right on Clydes line of the abacus.

Second, as a result of the initiative rolls, the GM slides another 2 beads onto the right on Clydes line, and also slides 3 beads to the right on Art's abacus line.

Even though Brad won the initiative roll, he has to lose at least one Moment as he is acting in *reaction* to seeing Clyde start to transform - so the GM adds one bead to the right on Brad's abacus line.

So right now, Brad has one bead, Clyde has 5 beads, and Art has 3 beads.

Now, from here on until the end of the Moment by Moment action, there will be no new initiative rolls, and all further action is done Moment by Moment.

The GM narrates: "Art, you notice that Clyde seems to be *changing*, *shifting* - into *something*"

The GM now slides one bead from EACH line to the left, leaving Clyde with 4 beads, Art with 2, and Brad with none. This means Brad can declare an Action.

Brad declares, "I am taking out my sword and slashing at the neck of this *thing* in ONE motion, using my advanced maneuver, "Draw and Attack as one action"

The GM says, "According to your stats, your skill, and knowledge of the techniques, and the speed of your weapon, you can perform that action in 3 Moments." The GM slides three beads from the left side to the right on the abacus line for Brad. This leaves Art with 2 beads, Brad with 3 beads and Clyde with 4 beads.

Next moment. The GM says, "Clyde is growing more hairy, his snout(?!) lengthening, his haunches lowering his frame... meanwhile, Brad's sword hisses from fro his scabbard..." The GM slides one bead on each line from the right to the left, leaving Art with 1 MMT, Brad with 2 MMTs, and Clyde with 3 MMTs.

The GM continues, "Clyde is now unmistakably transforming into something like a combination of wolf and man, but larger and more feral and vicious than either... and Brad sword sweeps towards that monster..." The GM slides one more bead from each line to the left... Art now has NO beads left, Brad has 1 MMTs, and Clyde has 2 MMTs.

So the GM turns to Art - "What are you doing?"

Art says, in a surprise maneuver, "I pull my gun and shoot Brad." While Brad has a fit, the GM notes that that will cost Art 2 MMTs - and slides 2 beads from Art's abacus line from the left to the right.

The GM says, "Brad, roll a perception check, with a penalty because you are in the middle of an action." Brad rolls, and makes it - which is good, because Brad's player would have had a conniption if his character was shot by his so-called friend without even a chance to dodge.

The GM tells Brad, "Not only do you notice Art whipping out his pistol, it seems to be coming up in *your* direction, *not* the werewolf's.  Also the wolf appears to be fully transformed, growling, and considering his options." The GM again removes one bead from each player's line, leaving Art with 1 bead, Brad with 1 bead, and Clyde with 1 bead

Brad immediately says, "I am abandoning my action for an emergency dodge. Art, you're a prick." An emergency dodge is a wild 1 MMT dodge.

Since Brad is abandoning his attack, ALL his beads are slid to the left. The GM then slides one bead back to the right, to represent Brad's dodge time. Now Brad has 1 Bead, Art has 1 bead, Clyde has one bead.

The GM narrates: "As Art's pistol fires, Brad abandon's his blade attack on the wolf for a wild dodge, jumping away," Both Art and Brad roll, Art misses Brad; "which saves him from Art's bullet - and the werewolf focuses in on the action..."

The GM slides another bead from right to left on each line, leaving all 3 with no beads...

The GM says, "Art, Brad - you may wish to write your answers on a pieces of paper and hand them to me for secrecy - what do you two do?" And the GM secretly decides what the NPC werewolf is going to do...


The basic idea here is that the beads represent a stack of moments that a character has committed (at least at the time) to an action. The action unfolds over those moments, culminating in the final Moment, whereupon a character can declare their *next* action, adding Moment beads back on the stack again.

While this may seem cumbersome, I bet that with an abacus and some practice, this could be done fairly quickly, with a minimum of halting gameplay, while making the experience richer and more "realistic".

What do you think?

-Sindyr

[MPOSullivan]

not bad.  a bit too much "work" for my tiastes, but not too shabby.  it kinda reminds me of Feng Shui ,actually (if i remember the system correctly, that is).  In that, a round is broken down into a number of segments, characters find their initiative order and start going, each action they take spending a certain number of segments in the round.  they each then act on their next numbered segment.  it works well for the game world (emulating action movies) and, aftter some initial confusin is actually quite simple.  if you haven't taken a look there yet, maybe that'll help you refine.

laters,

   -m

[Sindyr]

What I like about this idea is although you have Moments, there is no other subdivision of time, no turns, segments, rounds or whatnots - just freely flowing time, as hectic and continous as life itself.

[Sindyr]

An interesting potential problem: what do you do when the 5 adventurers face 20 enemies?

Maybe group the kobolds in groupings called MOBs, treating each as a seperate entity?

[Andrew Martin]

Brad declares, "I am taking out my sword and slashing at the neck of this *thing* in ONE motion, using my advanced maneuver, "Draw and Attack as one action"

The GM says, "According to your stats, your skill, and knowledge of the techniques, and the speed of your weapon, you can perform that action in 3 Moments."
...
Art says, in a surprise maneuver, "I pull my gun and shoot Brad." While Brad has a fit,...

The GM says, "Brad, roll a perception check, with a penalty because you are in the middle of an action." Brad rolls, and makes it - which is good, because Brad's player would have had a conniption if his character was shot by his so-called friend without even a chance to dodge.

Brad immediately says, "I am abandoning my action for an emergency dodge. Art, you're a prick." An emergency dodge is a wild 1 MMT dodge.

... the experience richer and more "realistic".

What do you think?

I'm unimpressed by how Brad and his character were both made to seem like fools. Is this an intended result of your system?

I'm impressed by how "unrealistic" the system appears. Can you describe your context for "realistic" please? Is your system intended to reflect real world combat or cinematic combat or is it to be a replacement for another game system's initiative system?

Also I noticed that the system doesn't actually reflect the GM and players declarations of actions. Instead, the system goes backwards and forwards in game time to the disadvantage of all. Note how the players were given the information that Clyde is shapechanging into a evil monster bent on attacking the group, yet the system brings the action back to the start of that process! The system needs to better reflect the starting point of the conflict as determined by the GM.

[qxjit]

I think this could be a lot of fun.  In fact, I was talking with a friend about something like this the other day, but decided there was probably too much involved. Using an abacus seems like it should solve most of those problems to me.  Determining the MMTs for each action would have to be either simple and fast, or largely pre-calculated.  The resolution system to see whether an action succeeds or not seems like it would have to be quick as well, and hopefully intergrated with the initiative system.  Overall, I feel like I want to try this now and see how much fun it is.

As for whether play is richer or realistic, I don't think this initiative system on its own will make play either of these.  If it's accompanied by Kung Fu action and over the top narration, it would be rich, but wouldn't correspond to the real world much. On the other hand, it could be used laboriously time real-world actions while using relatively bland narration, making play a bit less rich in terms of narrative detail, but somewhat more realistic.  In other words, it seems like a pretty versatile framework in which to build a complete combat system.  Or any time-crunchy resolution system for that matter (timing social actions or some such).

[Darcy Burgess]

my initial reaction was "sounds like 2nd ed. AD&D with weapon speed mods".

I was wrong.

In general, as a fan of crunchy mechanics (at least, in theory -- I tend to throw them out at the table), I think that this idea has great legs.  I could really dig playing a session of Twilight 2k with an init. system like this.  It lends itself very nicely to a cinematic, "shot-by-shot" feel.

Some concerns:
some ground rules may need to be layed down -- why was Brad able to make the perception check when he still had beads on his stack?  why was he able to default to an emergency action when he still had beads left?

etc.

essentially, you need to codify what specific things CAN and CAN NOT be done when there are beads on the stack.

apart from that, I think the idea has great merit.

however, I also concur with the sentiment that it seems a little odd that the Werewolf's action was subject to initiative penalties -- the other characters are reacting to him, not the other way 'round.

two possible solutions:

1) assign a flat MMT rating to the transformation.  roll for initiative, but the "triggering" character can't suffer a _penalty_ as a result of the roll (in other words, in your example the NPC would have had an initial stack of 3MMTs).

2) assign a flat MMT rating to the transformation.  call for perception checks at the initiation of combat.  Use margin of success/failure as your initiative modifier.  Again, the "trigger" character should have no mods other than the flat mod based on what they're doing.

In both of the above cases, DEX or similar characteristic should/could factor in.

[Sindyr]

Yeah, I totally do NOT have the details worked out, in the above example I was basically winging it.

Just wanted to portray the basic idea of using MMTs and an abacus as opposed to larger blocks of time like rounds, segments, turns, etc...

As far as how *I* would implement the idea  - at least in the *first* round beta testing - I would probably start with something like:

- allow for MMT's to be spent on *active* perception checks, such as when the player *asks* for information...
- allow for passive perception checks - when the GM needs to see if the character notices something.  Usually penalties will apply, especially if the character is focused on aother action... (this is what I did with Brad noticing Art about to shoot him)

- Allow for ONE initiative roll at the beginning of the entire dramatic part of the scene, to see how much ahead or behind the characters and npc's are with each other. (In the above example, I wasnt sure how to combine this with the fact that it was Clydes start of transformation that started the Moment by Moment action. Perhaps as the Initiator, he cannot be "taken aback" and cannot therefor suffer a penalty, as you have suggested.)  

ALSO, two other notes:
Firstly: no player should see the abacus - players dont KNOW exactly how many Moments their opponents actions take - so the tension is so much higher - AND like real life...  
Secondly: the initiative rolls only happens ONCE, at the beginning of the scene. From that point on, no new initiative roll is made or is needed until the characters leave Moment by Moment action, and need for some reason to re-enter it.

Plus, I like the idea of speed becoming a very real, quantified,  and important factor in dramatic scenes.  Sure, having a higher base stat or skill level can let you perform a given action using less Moments (faster), but so can learning special techniques (like a special combo sword draw and slash maneuver) or effectively utilizing the element of surprise or other environmental factors.

Oh, as far as why he was able to default to an emergency action whilst in the middle of another action, I thought there probably should be a mechanic allowing a person to abort an action with a small penalty (such as one or more Moments to switch gears) and stack up Moments to perform a different action. He would of course lose all Moments already invested in the aborted action, plus any Moments needed to switch gears...

[Sindyr]

Oh, another thing ...

We are not just talking *physical* actions, ANY (active) action during Moment by Moment time cost Moments to play... Casting spells, figuring out a code, etc...

Also, instead of using an abacus,one could simply have small containers in front of the players, so if the player wants to perform a 3 Moment action, 3 beads get dropped into the container.  Every passing Moment, one bead would get removed from each container, including the NPC containers.

Course, that may open the door for allowing for playing cheating...

In fact, ANY counting device could be used. Life counters from Magic the Gathering, Dice with the top face showing the number of MMT's left, anything that quick and easy to use.

I think the abacus may be the fastest...

Course if one has a laptop, one could write a simple proggie for this.

[Darcy Burgess]

I can't think of anything quicker or more elegant than the abacus.

the major bugbear to your system comes in handlnig large groups.

however, this is a typical annoyance in almost any system.

[Sindyr]

I am going to guess that the abacus may be the best answer...

As for large groups, I am unsure how to handle those myself.

What about this?  Let say that a group of archer are firing at our party.  Why not make this group into an abstract entity called a MOB, and treat the Mob as a whole? Damaging the Mob cuts down its offensive and defensive capabilities.  But this way the whole Mob acts as ONE entitiy on the abacus.

Or even simpler, for faceless groups of grunts, give them all roughly the same stats.  If they are performing roughly the same actions (firring arrows, attacking, etc) let ONE abacus line represent several individuals...

wait one moment!  This idea MAY be even better! Let's try it on for size:
Don't use an abacus at all.  Instead have a line of containers in front of you. (say ten small bowls or bins)

The rightmost bowl (or bin) is in space Number One, the bin to the left of that is in space Number Two, etc....

Have some kind of marker, playing pice, or nametage for each characters, npc and pc alike.  If a character declares a 4 Moment action, drop the token or game piece representing that game piece into the 4th bowl from the right.

After every Moment is over, take the right most bowl and dump all the tokens/pieces in the bowl out.  Each of those characterscomplete their action in this Moment.  Now move all the bins/bowls down one, so the bowl that was in the #2 space is now in the #1 space, the bowl that was in the #3 space is now in the #2 space and so on...  place the bowl/bin that you had just emptied out at the end in the leftmost position.

Now the characters who are not in any bowl/bin (ie, the ones just emptied out) can declare NEW actions, and be therefor placed again in the bowl/bin in the appropriate space.

I think system (while laborius to explain) could actually be used very fast in practice. If you wanted to, instead of moving the bowls, you could just scoop the first bowl empty, scoop the tokens from the 2nd to the 1st, 3rd to the 2nd, etc...

But the key here is that it would be easy to track the timings of DOZENS of characters - each character is simply a marker in a bowl.

What do you guys think of this idea?

[qxjit]

This still doesn't seem as quick and elegant as the abacus to me.   It also doesn't seem to emphasize that the characters are in motion as long as they are doing their actions.  It feels more like they are frozen until they complete the action, but that's aesthetic.  For many character combats, however -- yes, the bowls present a major advantage.  

If I were going to use the bowls, I wouldn't move them or the peices in them.  I would just mark which bowl was the current Moment and work from there.  If you arranged them in a circle you wouldn't have to worry about looping, but you would need as many bowls as the longest possible action, which might be problematic.

[Sindyr]

Better and better!

Although I totally get the aesthetic of wanting to feel like the characters are in motion by moving them each Moment, you idea of a Current Momet Marker is BRILLIANT!

So I guess that would work like this:

Let say that it is extremely rare for an Action to take 10 or more Moments.  So, the GM has ten small bins arrange in front of him.  I would prefer to have them in front of me in a stright line, but one could use a circle too.

There is a very easilt identifiable Current Moment token (a small neon red ball/marble/die for example.)  When each Moment passes, all the character tokens in the bin to the left of the one that the Current Moment marker is in get scooped out and placed infront of the GM, and then the GM moves the Current Moment marker in to the newly empited bin.

When characters commit to new actions, he drop those into the correct bin.  So if a player declares a 4 MMT action, the GM counts from the bin the Current Moment marker is in 0,1,2,3,4 - and place the player's token in the bin 4 to the left of the bin that contains the Current Moment marker.

If you arrange the bins in a line they way I would prefer to, then you just have to "wraparound" - when at the leftmost end, continue from the rightmost bin.

If you ever DO have a 10 or more Moment action declared, thenyou can not use the bins for tracking it - but an action of ten or more Moments is likely to be special and dramatic, and wouldn't hurt to have it's OWN counting mechanism.  Just grab a 20 sides die (or a precentile if for REALLY long actions) and use that, apart and aside from the other token in the bin system.  place the approriate marker token near the die, if desired, to identify what the die is timing.

Whew!

Having a moving Current Moment Marker is the very FASTEST way yet I have seen to track this. Even with an abacus you have to slide beads on ALL lines representing motion...

However, I DO get tthe aesthetic idea... it's much more intuitive seeing the number of beads dwindle on each characters line on a abacus then to have the character have a stationary token and to have a time marker moving toward the char's token...

Maybe it would make sense to use the abacus system with all skirmishes of 6 or fewer, and the bin system for all ones with more participants?

Although, I feel I need to point out once more: In any gaming group, it is VERY likely (I think) that at least one of them will have a serviceable laptop.

In this day and age, it may make a LOT of sense, even for a tabletop pen and paper rpg, to have a lot of GMing tools preprogrammed and running on the laptop.

This initiative system could easily be one of them - with perhaps a simple press of the spacebar signifying the Moment passing to the next one.

Some good ideas.

GRANTED this is not as easy or "rules-light" as approaches like TORG, D&D, White Wolf, etc...

But I DO love the cruchy feel, the hectic and continuous nature of action under this Moment by Moment paradigm.

After thinking of this, it will be hard for me to go back to a system that has artificial discontinuity such as Turns or rolling for initiative again and again.

*This* system, to me, feels much more like life does.

[qxjit]

I arranged the bowls in a circle only because I didn't want to deal with the wrap-around, though that's certainly not a big deal anyway.  There's still something about the abacus that's pulling me, but the bowls are a great idea nonetheless.  Maybe it's because after I first read your post I was mulling over using stones with two colors in place of the abacus to have a more crunchy action-abort system (like, you can abort as long as there are any white stones left, but ones you get into black you've committed to the action).  

As far as the aesthetic issue, it might go beyond aesthetic if you wanted to say at least something about each character at each moment.  Your example in the first post has the GM doing this, and it's easy because he's sliding a bead across for each character, reminding him to narrate.  With the bowls he'll have to look ahead to see whose action is coming up and try to narrate all of those.

Using a laptop could be very good or very bad. It all depends on the user interface design.  The program would need to allow the GM fast and easy manipulations including entering actions for characters, but not limited to.  This is an intriguing idea though, if I have nothing to do one of these days I might try to write such a program.

[Sindyr]

"Your example in the first post has the GM doing this, and it's easy because he's sliding a bead across for each character, reminding him to narrate. With the bowls he'll have to look ahead to see whose action is coming up and try to narrate all of those. "

Yeah, that kinda of narration can be quite compelling, I'm thinking, and quite adrenaline pumping... be easier to use an abacus in that way...

Maybe it would be too clunky, but maybe use the abacus method for the players and significant npc's, other wise use the bin method for largescale conflicts.