[Pulse] Gamist Initiative System

[David Bapst]

Hey all,

This is part of CRPG-inspired Gamist RPG I developed last spring, and then set aside for six months while I collected my thoughts. I've come back to it with a new vision of what I want, and I'm still finding myself at a loss on how to fix what I think is a big problem of the game (but fails to ever become a problem in playtesting).

Anyway, first the basics: My system is Gamist, which a focus on combat and fighting monsters. Not the most original system, sure, but I wanted something that really felt like the exciting battles I use to play on my SNES and Playstation. No realism, but alot of constant action. My playtests last spring tended to involve little anything but combat, with a focus on careful, calculated character design and tactically using the elements of the combat system. In retrospect, I suppose I was trying to do what CCGs do... redesigning my expectations of the combat system, trying to make it as elaborate as possible to allow more varied tactical choices. Character creation was as complex (if not much more so) than designing a deck in a CCG. Actions in the game depend on a very small number of stats modified with alot of the options open at character creation. Each action is a dice pool rolled of d6s, with a 0.5 chance of success. In the game, Characters get GP by just taking actions in combat (used for effectiveness) and get playing cards (for effectiveness again) by killing the other players when it's their turn to be monsters. Character death is never permanent... in fact, character death was more like being in Jail in Monopoly... you could choose to add dice to the other player's actions, or horde points for you to stop being KOed. I tried to keep the mantra of "always give the characters some tactical choice" in mind in all aspects. I really tried to amp up the

Now the problem.

Okay, familiar with how Feng Shui or how the ZODIAC Final Fantasy systems work with initiative? You use tokens, when you have a certain number you can take an action, which sort of action reduces tokens, and then you have to build yourself back up (or down) to the number that lets you take an action. (The idea seems to be coming popular again; WW announced Exalted 2nd would be having something like it... meh).

I realized this is actually an excellent model for Gamist combat systems (although out of the above games, only ZODIAC is Gamism). I gave it my own twist, though. Instead, the characters can spend tokens whenever they want for all sorts of actions... someone's attacking you? Well, you can defend for 2 or keep the tokens and attack when you get more tokens (I called the tokens Pulse, and after a while this became the name of the system). You could defend other players, you could join in on their attack, you could do all sorts of responsive stuff, that kept you interested in what everyone at the table was doing.

It was my favorite element of the system. It worked out (mostly) well in playtest. But... the inner system designer cries out at the chaos, at the disorder in one part of the described system.

See, in playtest, I found what would happen is that I'd hand out each Pulse one by one, until finally someone said "I attack!" (or cast a spell, or whatever). Then everyone would explode with what they were doing now, and sometimes there would be confusion cause I'd get three people talking at once (especially problematic is the person controlling the monster tried changing what he was doing, or another person tried to change what they were doing, instantly forcing everyone else to change what they said, so on and so on).

Now, it worked really well 95% of the time. And the rest of the time, it never actually turned ugly. Mostly cause my players are good friends who have played DnD and because I used my authority as designer and group alpha (maybe beta?) to enforce who was doing what. But it felt stupid and idiotic doing that, even if I only had to use my authority rarely... it meant that my system couldn't handle the strain, it was shredding and the social contract was the only enforcement left.

My head keeps playing with it. I keep wanting to institute some logical turn procession, and then I go "Every time I hand out a pulse?!" (In one combat, a character goes through possibly a hundred pulse; it isn't comparable to rounds in DnD). A turn structure would slow the game, kill the intense pounding action I liked. I also thought that maybe disputes would just be solved in favor of whoever has the least Pulse in their pool... considering that there seemed to be slight tendency for hoarding pulse, I thought this might work, but then what happens in a tie? (Sidenote: Argh. Stupid ties. Trying to figure out a myriad of systems to work around ties is idiotic. I'm beginning to wonder what would happen if I just never said what happens if there's a tie.)

Hrm. Does anyone have a suggestion?

[Callan S.]

See, in playtest, I found what would happen is that I'd hand out each Pulse one by one, until finally someone said "I attack!" (or cast a spell, or whatever). Then everyone would explode with what they were doing now, and sometimes there would be confusion cause I'd get three people talking at once (especially problematic is the person controlling the monster tried changing what he was doing, or another person tried to change what they were doing, instantly forcing everyone else to change what they said, so on and so on)

This actually sounds really cool. I love that someone does something, and then everyone else rushes in to step on up in competition with it. I love how their all changing tactics in reaction to other players as well.

I think the problem here is...they have to turn to you to see if their action works. How about this...the rule is that they nut it out amongst themselves! They don't have to turn to you to ask if they have a clear line of sight for their arrow or can they charge so and so. They just assume what they can do and say their going to do it. And they are allowed to change in responce to another player actions.

The GM's role is to wait until everyones finally decided on their actions and the debating has ended amongst players. At this point the GM can say whether the arrow doesn't have a clear flight path. HOWEVER, this will probably set off yet another debate, just for this issue. So the GM should be flexible in their approach to the world and players asertions...adopting asertions from from players, unless the GM's disagreement about the arrows flight path would produce even more intense tactical debate. In other words, don't disagree with the players because it isn't how you imagined the world is or how the world works. Disagree with their assertions if you guess it will lead to even more intense gamist debate! That's what you want and that's when you should disagree! :)

Get what I mean, by letting the players give authority to themselves (so you don't have to act as alpha male)? And as GM, you shit stir them/disagree if they gave themselves too much authority and the gamist debate wasn't quite as powerful as it could have been?

[David Bapst]

Hey Callan,

Hrm. Well, sure... that's not too different from how I did it in playtest. It's still falling back on the social contract to work us past those tough bits.

Isn't relying on social contract as a safety net an undesirable design aspect?

As an aside, I got rid of needing the GM for setting input in battle. A monster might be immune to normal attacks (or to magic, or it might counterattack everytime it's attack, and so on) but there isn't vague "real world" stuff like "can I hit him with an arrow from back here?" Sure, it meant I removed improvising stuff (no one ever does it much in DnD anyway), and removing the idea that the players and the monsters were almost always at some optimum distance for attacking. (This should be familar to anyone who plays Final Fantasy). If you have the pulse, you can attack. I have abstracted combat to such a point  Whether it has an effect is based on the monster's fixed traits. I felt it was important to leave the only questions that might come up as rules questions which can be given definite answers.

-Dave

[knicknevin]

OK, I can think of a couple of suggestions; shoot these down as you wish...

1. Whoever speaks first, goes first; so whoever fires the first shot leads the action and everyone else is then responding to that...that might not sort out all your timing & resolution conflicts, however, so...
2. Changing your mind costs; in other words, if you change your mind about what you want to do, you have to pay some of your Pulse to do so, so there is a limited amount of changing any player can do and they are discouraged from doing so because it will burn up their Pulse, robbing them of potential actions.
3. Pulse Variablity: Does it have to be handed out 1 by 1? Is there some way that players could vary the amount of Pulse they receive? That way, players wouldn't all have the same amount at the same time and wouldn't be able to afford the same actions all at once. Variation could rely on a die roll, be a reward/penalty based on their previous actions (succesful actions could rob Pulse from target players as a bonus) or be tied to character abilities, e.g. mage-character gets more Pulse to cast combat spells, berserker gets more Pulse for all out attacks.
4. Highest Bidder; actions could be determined by bidding, either secretly or openly, with whoever bids the most being first to take an action; they could take any action or combination of them up to the cost of their bid, then the next highest bidder would respond and so on. Of course, players might then get into the habit of bidding their whole Pulse pool on every action and you'd still need to set a time when the bidding occurs, so you'd need further rules to answer that...

Anyway, hope thats some suggestions you can chew on.

[Graham W]

That sounds fun. I like that.

If you wanted a purely mechanical solution to everyone acting at once: could you start the players with different numbers of pulses? One player could have no pulses, the next has one, the next two, and so on. Who gets which number of pulses could be a reflection of marching order, or quickness to react, or anything, really.

Alternatively, could you assign each character a different number of pulses that they have to spend to take an action? Perhaps the quicker characters could act with less pulses (and perhaps they could be penalised by taking more pulses to defend, or something).

As a general rule, I think players should be unable to take an action back after they've said they'll do it.

[Callan S.]

David,

I do think falling back to social contract is poor design.

Now, it worked really well 95% of the time. And the rest of the time, it never actually turned ugly. Mostly cause my players are good friends who have played DnD and because I used my authority as designer and group alpha (maybe beta?) to enforce who was doing what.

But I don't understand why they wanted you to enforce who was doing what? While people might keep changing responsively to each others actions, I'm seeing that as a feature, not a bug.

The only thing I'd see going wrong is where two players get stuck in a loop, going back to actions they already stated before, neither settingling but instead repeating previous actions (mexican stand off). A rule for it: You can never go back to an action you have previously changed from.

[Darcy Burgess]

Another option to reduce bickering (although, I believe that structured bickering can be useful.  Sorcerer essentially uses this as its entire declaration system...) would be to have that first initial burst of stuff be played off in an order determined by a blind bid on the players' parts -- each Pulse they spend bumps them up the initiative order.  The down side is that those pulses are gone, whether they "won" or not.

Another way (which could be complimentary) to help reduce "bunching" would be to introduce some sort of random element into your pulse system.  Initial thoughs include using two different colour chits drawn from a bag -- with one colour being worth a "half-pulse".  That may mitigate the "automatic" spacing between the "go" moments.

For what it's worth.

[nsruf]

How about using playing cards to count pulse? You deal them face down, one per player, going clockwise around the table until a player shouts "go!" or something. Then, everybody who wants to act puts down some cards and all reveal simultaneously. Initiative is determined by the highest card used by each player: actions are declared from lowest card to highest and executed from highest to lowest. Defense does not have to be declared - you simply discard the appropriate number of cards.

As an alternative, if different actions have a vastly different pulse cost, skip declaration and use the number of cards put down by each player to decide what they can do.

This system would maintain the tension of who decides to act first, maybe even increase it as you wait for a high card, but is much more orderly once the cards are on the table.

[Hans]

In the description you provide, it seems that the reason there is chaos is that the players perceive they will gain some advantage by being louder and faster on the annoucement than the other players.  This in and of itself is not necessarily a problem if it is really the case.  Does the system reward the loudest and fastest?  It sounds like it was not your intention to do so, but instead to create a subjective feeling of "constant action".

I can think of two ways that might break this situation:

* There could be a system of "penalties" that the GM can hand out, penalizing players for extreme rudeness.  This still relies on social contract, but it now only requires the players to trust the GM to be fair (or at least humourously unfair) in handing out the penalties, instead of having to trust the other players as well.  The GM could "fine" players Pulse, hand out "Anti-Pulse", or something similar.

* You could have a formal "pass/knock" system, like in many card games.  When I have the control (initiative, whatever) I can declare actions until I pass/knock, at which point there could be bidding of some sort, or the play could pass to whoever has the most pulse, etc.  My actions may not be "resolved" yet, and I may have an opportunity to take back control, but it is clearly delineated in the system when my chance to do that is.  There is no advantage to be gained for me to be louder or faster.  This makes me think of the "Edge" counter in the old Vampire collectible card game.

One of the difficulties I would see here, though, is that any system that clearly has a structure to who has control at any moment will naturally cause true Gamists to start slowing down and thinking very carefully through their actions.  If there is no advantage to being fast on the uptake, then there is every advantage to taking your time and making the right choice.  This could be completely counterproductive to your stated intent for a lot of "contstant action".  Current D20 Fantasy is exactly like this.  In some groups each turn of a combat can feel like you are playing Star Fleet Battles or Third Reich, as all the possible vagaries of flank bonuses, attacks of opportunity, etc. are considered.

As a wild thought, a mechanic that would really give a feeling of "constant action" is not one that rewards declaring first, but rewards those who declare quickly.  The example mechanic that comes to mind is a chess clock.  A set of extra cheap sand timers might work.  Each timer represents the amount of "Pulse" the character has.  When it is there turn to declare, they turn it upwards so that sand starts to run out.  When they are finished declaring they lay it on its side.  If they have no "Pulse" left, they are done declaring, and whatever they last declared is there actual action for the round.  Digital timers or mechanical timers with bells (like egg timers) would be better, as there is no ambiguity as to when the "Pulse" is used up.  However, this requires mechanical props (albeit dirt cheap ones) and is probably impractical for an indie game design intended for actual publication (as opposed to strictly home fun, or something that will actually be published by Hasbro). 

[David Bapst]

Hrm. To everyone-

Thanks for all the suggestions. Some don't line up too well, so maybe I should elaborate what I've already said.

Alright, see, the way the order in how things work out on the same pulse is that all the actions are happening at the same time... everyone is defending, attacking, casting spells, etc at the same time. Each of those actions costs a different amount of pulse, and varies from player to player... you choose how much pulse you want to spend on what actions at character creation. But when it happens inbetween turns (pulse being handed out) it's all happening simultaneously, and people all roll their dice at the same time.

Also, the number of pulse you start off with decided with a roll by each player. Although this means how the battle starts is random, the characters soon hit some sort of target range (under 10) where they build up enough for whatever action they want to take, responding to events as they come along.

Specifically, I think it's a bit of problem when the verbal explosions happens; I've seen people (a) change what they were going to say or (b) two players are trying to figure out who will be attacking and who will be joining an attack (joining is a cheaper pulse, but all counterattacks (also cheaper pulse) go on you). (b) is an example of players changing what they were going to say (maybe both said they were going to attack, now they're just trying to figure out who gets the discount cost) but it's something I'd consider relatively innocent.

There's another problem (c) when someone says they're attacking at the same time the person controlling the monster says they're attacking, and there's now a disagreement about who gets to be the "counterattack" person.

Does all of that make sense?

Hrm. Now that I've reconsidered the problem, maybe just saying "You can't change your order once you say it, don't all say things all at once if you want to use the responsive pulse actions" is the best idea. I'll have to see how that works out in playtest. I imagine people will watch what people say carefully before saying their bit.

-Dave, who is happy to hear all these suggestions

PS Knickknevin: the idea of randomly generating Pulse each turn I found a very intriguing idea that I have to say was really quite delightful. It would work at cross-purposes with my desire for tactical thinking about conserving pulse and being able to predict the enemy's next move, but just the idea of that constantly shifting pulse is interesting.

PSS Hans: I wrote all that before your reply. I'll consider your suggestions though, thanks.

[Callan S.]

With the attack/counter attack, the attacker could bring his fist down on the table and anyone who wants to counter attack brings theirs down on top. It's pretty clear who's who then.

PS: I think there was some real potential with the system where people could change their orders.

[John Harper]

Seems like the Feng Shui model will serve you well. Here's may take on it:

Everyone starts with a number of Pulse based on some sort of "speed" trait. Roll the dice in your speed pool, add them up -- that's your Pulse for this sequence.

The person with the highest Pulse goes first. Ties go simultaneously. Perform your action, and spend your Pulse. Then the person with the next highest Pulse goes. And so on.

Here's the important bit: When someone takes action, and you want your character to respond to it, you can do so immediately by paying the Pulse cost. You can't initiate your own actions until your Pulse number comes up in the initiative order, though. So a lot of reactions will delay your turn in the order.

So, for example, Adam has Pulse 38. Brad has Pulse 30. Chris has Pulse 34. Adam goes first. He attacks Chris with his machinegun, and spends 6 Pulse to do it. Chris wants to dodge the attack, so he spends 1 Pulse to roll a dodge.

Now the totals are Adam 32, Brad 30, Chris 33. Now Chris has the highest total, so he acts. He shoots a fireball at Adam and Brad, for 10 Pulse. They both dodge. Now the totals are Adam 31, Brad 29, Chris 23. It's Adam's turn again. He's shooting his machinegun at Chris again, for 6 Pulse. But Brad wants to help Adam by throwing his grenades to flush Chris out of his cover. Brad spends 5 Pulse to throw grenades and his successes help Adam's roll (somehow). Chris spends 1 Pulse to try and dodge.

And so on. How's that sound? It's still pretty fluid, but it should always be clear who is acting and when.

[Hans]

...Specifically, I think it's a bit of problem when the verbal explosions happens; I've seen people (a) change what they were going to say or (b) two players are trying to figure out who will be attacking and who will be joining an attack (joining is a cheaper pulse, but all counterattacks (also cheaper pulse) go on you). (b) is an example of players changing what they were going to say (maybe both said they were going to attack, now they're just trying to figure out who gets the discount cost) but it's something I'd consider relatively innocent.

There's another problem (c) when someone says they're attacking at the same time the person controlling the monster says they're attacking, and there's now a disagreement about who gets to be the "counterattack" person.

I like the whole idea of saving up for future actions instead of interrupting, as you describe it.  I now use a similar idea in my HIGHLY drifted (I think that's the word) Storyteller System based game.  Players get an initiative score at the start of combat, and can spend "actions" to declare maneuvers.  If they have a higher initiative, they can interrupt another combatant, but their initiative is reducted by one for doing so.  So a high initiative person is faced with a trade off; spend their initiative advantage to interrupt others, or hold off and be able to plan their actions based on battlefield conditions as they develop.  Of course, that system is NOT simultaneous in any of the IIEE steps; the simultaneous EE of the IIEE in your system (if I both read you correctly and understand the terminology) adds a wrinkle.

The one main point I think I wanted to make (and you said you hadn't read my reply yet, so you might have not have seen it) was: is there a real or percieved system advantage to the players for the "verbal explosion"?  From your descriptions above, it sounds like there is a real advantage to the order in which things are declared (either because you get the first whack, or your cost in pulse is reduced).  As long as the players perceive this advantage, they will continue to yell and pounce on each other.  As soon as the advantage to first and loudest disappears from the system, the behaviour simply becomes rudeness, boisterousness or eagerness, depending on how charitable you are, and would truly (and rightly I think) be safetly left to the social contract to resolve.

If you wanted to maintain the element of "first off the mark" as an advantage, you could simply add a feature like in the children's card game Slap Jack, where the first person to see the jack tries to slap it, and the winner is the one whose hand is on the bottom.  This could be done with some kind of physical token, such as a playing card, thrown into the middle of the table, or a physical knock or slap on the table, or something similar.  For that matter, if they are real Hard Core Gamist, the slight physical discomfort of some kind of actual slap when you are on the bottom (and others slap your hand) might add to the fun (and possibly to charges of Battery, but you can't win everything).  The GM could flip over cards numbered from 1 to X (X being a reasonably high number of pulse), and the player who wants to go "slaps" the card when they want to go.

Once the "slap" occurs, the person who is the winner (for ties either GM fiat or a vote decides), can take their time describing what they do, with declarations of action proceeding in an orderly fashion from that point.  This removes the "verbal" element to the "explosion" and makes it much easier to tell who the winner is, since all you have to do is listen (or otherwise measure) for the "slap".  I think you describe (or at least hint at) a possible interesting trade off:  If you are first off the mark, you get an advantage of being first (your blow hits ever so slightly first, for example), but if you are more patient, you get an advantage as well (in terms of reduced pulse cost for the counterattack).

[David Bapst]

With the attack/counter attack, the attacker could bring his fist down on the table and anyone who wants to counter attack brings theirs down on top. It's pretty clear who's who then.

PS: I think there was some real potential with the system where people could change their orders.

Callan-
You've taught me a great lesson. Simplicity is not to ever be underestimated. This is not only easy and simple, but fits entirely in the spirit of the game. I shall have to think and play around with how this fits the spirit of the game. Thanks.

Seems like the Feng Shui model will serve you well. Here's may take on it...

John-
Thanks for that interesting alternative, but honestly I prefer my own system.

I like the whole idea of saving up for future actions instead of interrupting, as you describe it.  I now use a similar idea in my HIGHLY drifted (I think that's the word) Storyteller System based game.  Players get an initiative score at the start of combat, and can spend "actions" to declare maneuvers.  If they have a higher initiative, they can interrupt another combatant, but their initiative is reducted by one for doing so.  So a high initiative person is faced with a trade off; spend their initiative advantage to interrupt others, or hold off and be able to plan their actions based on battlefield conditions as they develop.  Of course, that system is NOT simultaneous in any of the IIEE steps; the simultaneous EE of the IIEE in your system (if I both read you correctly and understand the terminology) adds a wrinkle.

The one main point I think I wanted to make (and you said you hadn't read my reply yet, so you might have not have seen it) was: is there a real or percieved system advantage to the players for the "verbal explosion"?  From your descriptions above, it sounds like there is a real advantage to the order in which things are declared (either because you get the first whack, or your cost in pulse is reduced).  As long as the players perceive this advantage, they will continue to yell and pounce on each other.  As soon as the advantage to first and loudest disappears from the system, the behaviour simply becomes rudeness, boisterousness or eagerness, depending on how charitable you are, and would truly (and rightly I think) be safetly left to the social contract to resolve.

If you wanted to maintain the element of "first off the mark" as an advantage, you could simply add a feature like in the children's card game Slap Jack, where the first person to see the jack tries to slap it, and the winner is the one whose hand is on the bottom.  This could be done with some kind of physical token, such as a playing card, thrown into the middle of the table, or a physical knock or slap on the table, or something similar.  For that matter, if they are real Hard Core Gamist, the slight physical discomfort of some kind of actual slap when you are on the bottom (and others slap your hand) might add to the fun (and possibly to charges of Battery, but you can't win everything).  The GM could flip over cards numbered from 1 to X (X being a reasonably high number of pulse), and the player who wants to go "slaps" the card when they want to go.

Once the "slap" occurs, the person who is the winner (for ties either GM fiat or a vote decides), can take their time describing what they do, with declarations of action proceeding in an orderly fashion from that point.  This removes the "verbal" element to the "explosion" and makes it much easier to tell who the winner is, since all you have to do is listen (or otherwise measure) for the "slap".  I think you describe (or at least hint at) a possible interesting trade off:  If you are first off the mark, you get an advantage of being first (your blow hits ever so slightly first, for example), but if you are more patient, you get an advantage as well (in terms of reduced pulse cost for the counterattack).

Interesting. Thanks for the suggestion; I think you and Callan are correct... a simple hand slapping contest fits the game well. Hmm. In design, I found myself stealing concepts from Monopoly, card games and video games... I guess I just didn't explore the entire range of human gaming enough. I suppose if I wanted fast, brutally simple techniques, I should have thought back to the games played in the dorm (like Assassin and Spoons) and back on the playground. (It has struck me recently if a careful study of drinking games, their place in society, their memetic dispersal and the techniques they employ might be long overdue... but this is probably a thought some students think and never can follow through on. Careful analysis is hard when one is drunk.)

I am kind of curious why people like the idea of changing their action and causing chaos to be a benefit. I suppose in one light the mixups were kind of fun at first, but as time went on in the game, it just got annoying when discussions on who would attack who went too long. I'm cutting it out because it was working against my goal of a fast-paced game. I don't suppose anyone wants to argue for me to keep it in? I'm happy to hear a good counter-argument.
-Dave

[Callan S.]

I liked the chaos because it seems to me a rich source of SIS material. Remember playing D&D and how rounds were a minute and you'd think "Hey, that's bogus!" but it described it as everyone testing each others defenses, changing position, waiting for the right moment, etc. Well your system didn't do that in the abstract, it did it for real! I thought it'd be so cool to look back at all the changes and imagine just how that'd look as a fight.

However, arguing is crap. I'm not surprised it happens; Of course they are going to argue, because its worth it to at least try when you have important resources on the line. The thin chance of winning is an incentive/reward to pursue argument.

I think it's worth it to try and work out something with the arguing though. Perhaps it can be incorporated somehow? Like if two people start arguing, it's described in the game world as their circling each other. Once they argue, you declare they are circling each other. This circling status allows others to make some sort of attack on either of them, if enough real time passes (From another thread, a cool timing device is to spin a coin and wait for it to stop spinning). So now, while they are tempted to argue, they will also be tempted to take the earliest call the GM makes, or they'll get slapped. This will replace you having to alpha male a GM call through, because if they keep arguing, their fellow players will keep slapping their PC.