Initiative tweaking...

[Nev the Deranged]

Alrighty, I was running through some quick scenarios in the shower (no, the scenarios were not set in the shower, I was in the shower while thinking of them). And I was thinking about Initiative, Sorcerer style.

Initiative runs from high roll to low... cancelled ties don't count, because until you actually apply the rolls to whatever roll opposes them, they're just free-floating "who's got the drop on everybody else" rolls, right?

Now, the way I plan to handle scenarios like this is to have each player declare a GOAL, rather than a specific ACTION. Hopefully this will wean people away from D&D style swing-and-miss type sh!t and get them into a more narrative mode.

So, a PC declaration might be "I'm gonna try to get the gun out of Adrian's hand" rather than "I'm gonna swing the crowbar at Adrian's gun hand and hope he drops it" or whatever.

Okay, all well and good. Once the dice have hit the table, players can throw in details for bonuses- this means that Initiative won't get the bonuses, but actions will- and I'm okay with that. It seems sensible, since performing a groovy action doesn't mean it will be "faster" or whatever. (Although if this is totally against the mechanics as written, I wouldn't mind knowing).

Now. Suppose a player's declared goal is "I wait for Balthazar to cast a Shadow over the room and then try to escape."

Okay, there's gonna be some blur between "goals" and "actions", that's fine. The point is that Brad (Balthazar's master) has specified that he is going to WAIT until another character (Balthazar) has acted. Which is fine, except what if Brad rolls higher than Balthazar?

My take on this is, using the "got the drop on everyone else" concept, that if Brad wins high Init, declaring "I wait until X" is perfectly valid and that his action is postponed until X occurs, at which point it goes off with the full benefit of his high rolls.

Of course if someone attacks Brad before X happens, he may still have to abort or take some damage or whatever.

So my question is, how flexible should this be? If someone says they want to wait until after X player has gone, what if X player is incapacitated, or the situation changes dramatically so that their action is no longer valid?

I think most of this will work out in actual play, so I'm not super worried about it... but I just thought I'd see what people's thoughts/experiences were with the concept.

I didn't see anything in the actual canonical rules to support "waiting" or whatever, but that doesn't mean it isn't there... I haven't gotten that far yet in my page-by-page dissection of the book.

I have GOT to go to bed... @.@ I am haunted by visions of dancing Oreos, taunting me... maybe I shouldn't have eaten the whole package >.<

[Bill Cook]

I'm pretty sure you'd have to process your example in two rounds.

Round One

Announce
PC: I ask Balthazar to use Shadow.
GM: He will.

[.. process the round ..]

Round Two

Announce
PC: I escape under cover of darkness.

[.. process the round ..]

As for doing things in response to declared actions within the same round, that's settled during announcement.  i.e. Everyone keeps changing their proposed actions in response to other declarations until it's settled.

[Nev the Deranged]

I'm pretty sure you'd have to process your example in two rounds.

Round One

Announce
PC: I ask Balthazar to use Shadow.
GM: He will.

[.. process the round ..]

Round Two

Announce
PC: I escape under cover of darkness.

[.. process the round ..]

*** Okay, perhaps that was a bad example. I knew I should have gone with a scenario that was all humans. ***

As for doing things in response to declared actions within the same round, that's settled during announcement.  i.e. Everyone keeps changing their proposed actions in response to other declarations until it's settled.

***Okay, but still, someone could declare that they want to wait for a specific event to occur... an opening in an enemy's defenses, someone to complete an incantation, whatever. Is that just not allowed, or what?***

thanks..

[Bill Cook]

You can certainly announce to wait 'til something happens.  That's 100% allowed.  It being a passive action, you would not need to roll, and it would be ordered at the end of the turn sequence.

(If you're getting at whether players may announce actions as being triggered by other character's actions, the answer is no.  Not sure why one would want to, anyway.  During announcement, players freely amend stated actions in response.  As turns are processed, the only reaction left to an opponent is to abort and defend or persist.)

Sorry if I'm simply restating the game text.  I hope I'm on target to your query.

[Nev the Deranged]

I think I get it, based on some other threads I've been reading up on.

Basically, you can hear that Anton is going to try to grab Bjorn around the neck, and declare "I'm gonna jack Bjorn in the jaw with the desk lamp" and hope that your action comes in after Anton's. Or even try to come up with an action that would reinforce regardless of order.

You CANNOT declare "I wait until Anton has Bjorn in a headlock, then jack him in the jaw with the desk lamp." because the Initiative mechanics of the game don't support that kind of monkeying with the turn-order once it's been established by the rolls.

'zat pretty much it?

So, only marginally related question, if Cedric throws a brick at Danielle, and Danielle decides to "suck it up" with one die:

A) how does whatever damage she sustains from Cedric's attack affect the results of her already-rolled action that she sucked it up in order to maintain? My initial thought is that the victories against Danielle become bonuses for whomever is defending/opposing HER roll that parses later on... but that's just a reaction off the top of my head.

B) based on the Algebraic Currency concept that I freshly understand, does the attacker get an extra die to add on to their attack, (since the die for defense is coming out of nowhere) in order to preserve the XdF vs YdF formula, making it X+1dF vs Y+1dF, where the "Y" pool is getting split... am I making sense here or being dense again?

*sigh* I just keep causing trouble, don't I...

[Valamir]

A) how does whatever damage she sustains from Cedric's attack affect the results of her already-rolled action that she sucked it up in order to maintain? My initial thought is that the victories against Danielle become bonuses for whomever is defending/opposing HER roll that parses later on... but that's just a reaction off the top of my head.

You may be reacting just off the top of your head.  Or you maybe having vague recollections of any of the numerous times where that very answer has been given in recent threads.  ;-)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

One minor point of clarification:

If a player's stated announcement is, "My character waits to see what happens," or, "My character waits until X happens, then ..."

Then that character will do absolutely nothing during the upcoming round. In fact, in the absence of a stated defensive action, I would not even award the +2 dice for full defense.

There is no "Wait until" action in Sorcerer. There is, instead, "Do it and hope it gets timed when I want it to be."

Best,
Ron

[Michael S. Miller]

B) based on the Algebraic Currency concept that I freshly understand, does the attacker get an extra die to add on to their attack, (since the die for defense is coming out of nowhere) in order to preserve the XdF vs YdF formula, making it X+1dF vs Y+1dF, where the "Y" pool is getting split... am I making sense here or being dense again?

When the defender "sucks it up," the attacker does *not* get a bonus die. Since all rolls in Sorcerer are opposed, then something has got to roll against the attack. This doesn't break algebraic currency, because that one die is not listed anywhere on that page. It's not a victory, bonus, penalty or score. It's just a difficulty--the easiest one, if I recall the difficulty chart correctly.

[Nev the Deranged]

Aahhhh..

 Okay, so it's not really a "suck it up" die, it's a "basic opposed action" die, generated by the system to give the attacker something to roll against, NOT by the defender at all.

 Gotcha. Thanks for the enlightenment an' stuff. ^_^

[sirogit]

I personally see better actions and faster actions as inter-related.

That is, better actions have the ability to counter worse actions, so even if they're described as actions that take more time, they counter the other's action to some extent so it's effect is applied first.

Example: Person A, joe shmoe, jabs at Person B, a ninja who is doing a rather fancy sweep kick after posistioning himself on the ground. Person B rolls higher. Person B gets more successes, meaning that he can duck under Person A's jab and sweep him. Person A now has the choice to jump out of the way or take the kick and go down swinging(Unlikekly to hit, as it's directly after a strong attack.)

Also, I think the iniative system validates good rolls for actions in which successes don't matter, like if someone was busting a ritual alter or something, he has enough Stamina to bust it obviously, but the question is will he be able to bust it before the cultist pins him to the ground? Here, having a higher roll would to some degree mean it's cooler and he lucked out, so we'll let him bust it before being pinned.

[Nev the Deranged]

Also, I think the iniative system validates good rolls for actions in which successes don't matter, like if someone was busting a ritual alter or something, he has enough Stamina to bust it obviously, but the question is will he be able to bust it before the cultist pins him to the ground? Here, having a higher roll would to some degree mean it's cooler and he lucked out, so we'll let him bust it before being pinned.

Good point.

I like the initiative system in Sorcerer, it seems simple and enjoyable. I just want to make sure I understand it thoroughly before breaking my players into it.

Thanks to everyone for the tips.