Rounds are for Boxers, silly.

[Ring Kichard]

Integrated initiative
Or
A System Plug

I was inspired to try this technique after hearing about a game - possibly superheroic - which interpreted its dice rolls two ways simultaneously: after rolling, you would arrange what dice you could into strings of consecutive values; the longer your string was the better you did, and the higher the top die was the faster you did it, or something like that. The idea of initiative in combat immediately came to my mind. If you interpreted the speed as initiative order, you could do away with combat rounds and other artifacts of the system.

"Say what?" You ask. Fluid, flexible, blisteringly fast combat, that's what. Compared to most other systems this is less patterned and more purposeful. It incorporates planning, skill, and chance. It uses two similar dice per player, and requires, at most, two rolls per action.

All right, enough hype, here is the mechanic. Every rolled player action is checked on two, ten sided, dice. One of these dice is designated the How die (as in, who what when where why and how) and the other is designated the When die. The How die is measured on a scale of 1-10, ten being the best. The When die is measured on a scale of 10-1, one being the best. Simple, isn't it.

One application of this design idea with a generous probability curve is to allow the player to chose the When and How dice after they are rolled. This way the player looks at his dice and the low number rolled determines when he acts and the high number rolled determines how well he does. Whenever someone acts he immediately declares his next action and rolls to see when he will act and how well he will do. I have written  a system based on this mechanic; you can see there how it can be extended.

"So what?" You ask. How does this dirt simple mechanism live up to all that hype? For starters...

Smooth transition into combat
 Many games have a "combat time" rule that kicks the game into a completely different method of play once people start trying to hurt one another. This does not have that sharp divide. Normal character actions are done with the same mechanic (the How die) and the speed (the When die) only matters in contested situations. Whenever a normal character action would result in combat the speed has already been rolled, and there is no need to go demand that everyone roll initiative. Each player chimes in whenever they like and rolls to succeed. The system takes it from there.


Fang's Dilemma
 Simply stated, Fang's Dilemma refers to the statuesque behavior of inactive characters. Taking a swing at someone is like attacking a statue until they get an action later and take a swing back at you, in many systems. Some solutions to this problem have been a gift action when attacked, a riposte rule, or some other way of giving defender's teeth. This mechanic opens many solutions to that problem. If you give a defender a re-roll when attacked, she may gain a chance to strike back, sometimes ever before her attacker, depending on how her low die rolls.

Sizing up the action.
 Because a character can be said to be acting in the time between the roll and the resolution, it is possible to determine how well someone is doing something and act accordingly. The dice rolled stay on the table until the action resolves, so if a player has left himself or herself open (to a counter attack in a sword fight, for example) a player with the right initiative can strike at that weakness. This also is related to separating the stages of the action (somewhat like IICE) into intention, initiation, action, completion, and effect. Each stage is represented by a player activity: the player says what he wants, that's intention; the player rolls the dice, that's initiation; The player waits while his character is doing things, that's action; the players dice are given the go ahead by the system, that's completion; the dice are evaluated, that's effect.

Doing it now.
 Because there need only be one roll on the part of the attacker and possibly one roll on the part of the defender (depending on how the system is expanded) for an attack, and because there are only two dice involved with no math beyond greater-than or less-than, the system can be extraordinarily fast. There is no need for everyone to roll initiative at the beginning of every round, no need for complicated initiative schemes or time consuming math.

"Now what?" you ask.  In addition to this shameless system plug, I'd really appreciate criticism of the ideas above. Comments, suggestions, and random thoughts are all highly desired, as well. I know you've all seen a million systems pass through these boards, and I could really learn something from your experiences.

[Le Joueur]

Cool idea Richard,

A few points...

Integrated initiative
Or
A System Plug

I was inspired to try this technique after hearing about a game - possibly superheroic - which interpreted its dice rolls two ways simultaneously: after rolling, you would arrange what dice you could into strings of consecutive values; the longer your string was the better you did, and the higher the top die was the faster you did it, or something like that.

That would be Godlike or Wild Talents.  And as I remember, it's the other way around.  The more dice in the string (called "width"), the quicker it is; the higher the number of the string (called "height"), the more effective it is.  A really neat idea but for the 'handling time' of stringing your separate dice together.  (I'm not sure, but I think a separate roll is made for the effect; "width" is damage and "height" is hit location, if I remember.)

If you interpreted the speed as initiative order, you could do away with combat rounds and other artifacts of the system.

"Say what?" You ask. Fluid, flexible, blisteringly fast combat, that's what. Compared to most other systems this is less patterned and more purposeful. It incorporates planning, skill, and chance. It uses two similar dice per player, and requires, at most, two rolls per action.

From reading the whole article, I think what you've got is arguable.  Let me delve into it.  Right off you do get rid of the 'messing with your dice' time involved with assembling the "strings" and counting up "height" and "width," so that is faster than Godlike.  And I'd have to say that your system doesn't actually incorporate planning, you push that into the players hands, technically.

All right, enough hype, here is the mechanic. Every rolled player action is checked on two, ten sided, dice. One of these dice is designated the How die (as in, who what when where why and how) and the other is designated the When die. The How die is measured on a scale of 1-10, ten being the best. The When die is measured on a scale of 10-1, one being the best. Simple, isn't it.

One application of this design idea with a generous probability curve is to allow the player to choose the When and How dice after they are rolled. This way the player looks at his dice and the low number rolled determines when he acts and the high number rolled determines how well he does. Whenever someone acts he immediately declares his next action and rolls to see when he will act and how well he will do. I have written  a system based on this mechanic; you can see there how it can be extended.

I'm not sure the example really lets the player "choose the When and How dice after they are rolled."  It pretty much looked like it is decided when the player decides what skill he'll use and the positive Spin and negative Spin decide for him.  Also, I'm not sure how generous the probabilities are when you can roll as low as a 1.  It isn't completely clear, but there seems to be a lot of room for "whiff" rolls (when the dice take away the 'reality' of being highly skilled, leaving an expert rolling a really low number).

"So what?" You ask. How does this dirt simple mechanism live up to all that hype? For starters…

Smooth transition into combat
Many games have a "combat time" rule that kicks the game into a completely different method of play once people start trying to hurt one another. This does not have that sharp divide. Normal character actions are done with the same mechanic (the How die) and the speed (the When die) only matters in contested situations. Whenever a normal character action would result in combat the speed has already been rolled, and there is no need to go demand that everyone roll initiative. Each player chimes in whenever they like and rolls to succeed. The system takes it from there.

Okay, let me see; everyone throws their dice and the "When" die puts their actions into an order.  It's hard to tell from your Dirt example, but this seems to be for a set of single actions (not a single-roll-for-the-whole-combat kinda thing).  What happens when you complete the last "When" die's action?  It sounds awfully like time for "Round 2."  Likewise, if your resolving combat actions in an everyone-gets-a-skill-roll cycle is nothing like the potentially infrequent "Chancy" die rolls 'non-combat play.'  (Along the way you're going, having a "Chancy" roll every now and then, and then bam, you have combat and every action becomes "Chancy," not as smooth a transition.)

I do like how you've tossed out an initiative mechanic - long an enemy of mine - but I think you might want to make what kinds of actions "would result in combat" more clear.

Fang's Dilemma
Simply stated, Fang's Dilemma refers to the statuesque behavior of inactive characters. Taking a swing at someone is like attacking a statue until they get an action later and take a swing back at you, in many systems. Some solutions to this problem have been a gift action when attacked, a riposte rule, or some other way of giving defender's teeth. This mechanic opens many solutions to that problem. If you give a defender a re-roll when attacked, she may gain a chance to strike back, sometimes ever before her attacker, depending on how her low die rolls.

Well, actually Fang's Dilemma is how real combat doesn't 'take turns,' but role-playing game combat (offered as an emulation of the real thing) does.  Statuary is one usual application of turns, not inherent in Fang's Dilemma.

Also, I don't understand how Dirt avoids turning everyone into statuary while someone decides what to do with their "When" die determined turn.  (Although I think that may have more to do with how it was explained than the actual mechanic.)  Yours seems to leave them statuesque until their "When" number comes up.  Can you explain it again?

Sizing up the action
Because a character can be said to be acting in the time between the roll and the resolution, it is possible to determine how well someone is doing something and act accordingly. The dice rolled stay on the table until the action resolves, so if a player has left himself or herself open (to a counter attack in a sword fight, for example) a player with the right initiative can strike at that weakness. This also is related to separating the stages of the action (somewhat like IICE) into intention, initiation, action, completion, and effect. Each stage is represented by a player activity: the player says what he wants, that's intention; the player rolls the dice, that's initiation; The player waits while his character is doing things,

Whoa, stop!  Isn't this statue status?

that's action; the players dice are given the go ahead by the system, that's completion; the dice are evaluated, that's effect.

Doing it now
Because there need only be one roll on the part of the attacker and possibly one roll on the part of the defender (depending on how the system is expanded) for an attack, and because there are only two dice involved with no math beyond greater-than or less-than, the system can be extraordinarily fast. There is no need for everyone to roll initiative at the beginning of every round, no need for complicated initiative schemes or time consuming math.

One roll each?  Then how does the system handle different types of defense?  Or different qualities of diffense?  (Comparing enduring-a-blow to blocking-with-a-shield; comparing a well-done parry, to a fumbled one.)  Without any math, all defenses would be exactly the same in a 'one roll' system.  If you mean a one-roll-for-each-exchange, both roll when either effect a skill, then it doesn't really seem any more "blisteringly fast" than any other fairly abstract system.  (High abstraction mechanics are frequently "fluid" and "flexible," at the price of detail; definitely a subjective choice, but not a bad one.)

If you really wanted to ramp up the speed, I'd suggest three dice, "How," "When," and 'Versus.'  'Versus' tells what a defender defends with.  But again that does nothing for the "whiff" factor.

"Now what?" you ask.  In addition to this shameless system plug, I'd really appreciate criticism of the ideas above. Comments, suggestions, and random thoughts are all highly desired, as well. I know you've all seen a million systems pass through these boards, and I could really learn something from your experiences.

I really like what you've got started here.  If you can deal with the "whiff" factor and do something about 'transition to combat' (to make it suit your desires) and Fang's Dilemma, I think you'll have a really powerful mechanic.  Go for it!

Fang Langford

[damion]

Comments on the system:
1)I like the idea of skills based on tasks the charachters has
accomplished in the past.  Neat.

1.5)The iniative thing is cool but could be unbalalanced in small fights. If one person rolls a poor iniative the other side could go multiple times before they roll a bad enough when for the other person to go.
Also the sequence was a bit unclear.
1)Everyone rolls
2)Lowest When goes.
In combat, does this mean the other sides roll get's used as the defence role or is that roll used when they get to act?
Also does the 'bonus' for someone else going apply to a charachters next roll, or the roll they make on their action.
Particuraly strange is the fact that by attacking someone, you
make their attack/defence better?
There are some weird interactions here that probably should be sorted out.


2)The most important thing to a skill is the spin. A positve spin means you do it well and quickly and a negative spin means you do it slowly and poorly. For instance it is impossilbe for a negative spin to accomplish something quickly and well, likewise it is impossible for a positive spin to be both slow and poorly done.

3)Having both rolls have the same ordinality(say, higher is better)
makes it more interesting for players to pick the one to be how and one to be when. This gives a tradeoff between speed and success.

There are some interesting ideas here, which I wish I could understand.

[Ring Kichard]

That would be Godlike or Wild Talents.

Good to know who I get to credit, thanks.

Also, I'm not sure how generous the probabilities are when you can roll as low as a 1. It isn't completely clear, but there seems to be a lot of room for "whiff" rolls (when the dice take away the 'reality' of being highly skilled, leaving an expert rolling a really low number).

Yeah, the current system doesn't allow for choice, I may take that out for something better.

As to the probabilities...

Code Select Expand



Odds of rolling as well as or better than the target number on at least one d10, out of two.

TN     |10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |

Odds   |.19|.36|.51|.64|.75|.85|.91|.96|.99|1.0|



After your feedback, I'm reconsidering the negative spin.

Okay, let me see; everyone throws their dice and the "When" die puts their actions into an order. It's hard to tell from your Dirt example, but this seems to be for a set of single actions (not a single-roll-for-the-whole-combat kinda thing). What happens when you complete the last "When" die's action? It sounds awfully like time for "Round 2." Likewise, if your resolving combat actions in an everyone-gets-a-skill-roll cycle is nothing like the potentially infrequent "Chancy" die rolls 'non-combat play.' (Along the way you're going, having a "Chancy" roll every now and then, and then bam, you have combat and every action becomes "Chancy," not as smooth a transition.)

I do like how you've tossed out an initiative mechanic - long an enemy of mine - but I think you might want to make what kinds of actions "would result in combat" more clear.

Maybe I can clear this up; my intent is for a player to roll again after each action to determine their next action's quality and duration.

While I agree that there is going to have to be some discussion of what sorts of things are "chancy" (that seems to be the word I've picked for now) Combat just starts whenever characters try to interrupt each other with contradictory actions. It's like all the characters – when they make skill rolls – are always in a lite combat system, but you only pay attention to the initiative interpretation of the die roll when it matters.

Further, combat never really starts, except in the sense that there is a point where characters start breaking one another. If no one contests an action, or order of actions never matters, the When portion of the die interpretation could be ignored (not likely if players are brawling).

Also, I don't understand how Dirt avoids turning everyone into statuary while someone decides what to do with their "When" die determined turn. (Although I think that may have more to do with how it was explained than the actual mechanic.) Yours seems to leave them statuesque until their "When" number comes up. Can you explain it again?

Argh, clarity, my old nemesis.

To make a synopsis of it, when a character tries to do anything it's important he might fail, roll two dice. Interpret them on the opposing scales. When you finish the action, declare any new action, and roll again. If anyone else wants in, while you're doing all this, they can declare and roll, too. Whoever rolls the lower When die goes first. When they finish, they roll again.

If you really wanted to ramp up the speed, I'd suggest three dice, "How," "When," and 'Versus.' 'Versus' tells what a defender defends with. But again that does nothing for the "whiff" factor.

The idea is to use the How die already on the table as the Versus die. They roll again after the block when they declare what they are doing now that they blocked instead of what they originally intended to do.

1.5)The iniative thing is cool but could be unbalalanced in small fights. If one person rolls a poor iniative the other side could go multiple times before they roll a bad enough when for the other person to go.

There are two added rules to fight this problem, one of which, at least, is staying in my larger design. One is that on some blocks (failed opponent's attacks) the defender re-rolls. The other is that after every action by anyone in which you do not re-roll you can adjust your one die up or down by one.

Also the sequence was a bit unclear.
1)Everyone rolls
2)Lowest When goes.
In combat, does this mean the other sides roll get's used as the defence role or is that roll used when they get to act?

Yes, if you're attacked before you can act your roll becomes a defense roll instead.

Also does the 'bonus' for someone else going apply to a charachters next roll, or the roll they make on their action.

I think you mean adjusting up or down your die, and that applies every time someone else goes and you don't re-roll.

Particuraly strange is the fact that by attacking someone, you
make their attack/defence better?
There are some weird interactions here that probably should be sorted out.

While this can happen with re-rolls, I always thought of it as a riposte or an attack at a revealed weakness.


And a gigantic thanks to both of you! It looks like I need to work on clarity.

[damion]

One thing I would suggest is that you have when someone goes,
everyone else reduce their 'when' die by 1 instead of a choice.
This avoids all the people who going later suddenly having really good skill rolls, also it avoids the 'If my friends spar, my lockpicking get's better...'
Also it avoids making skill dominant in large fights. (If you and your opponent are in the middles of the 'when' pack, you'll both get to increment your How die to the max, so, highest skill wins)
You could probably come up with ways around this, but the 'waiting icreases your skill' just seems weird.

Now in a contested action, that means both sides in the contest have to reroll-(and not get the increment bonus). Correct?

[Le Joueur]

Absolutely fascinating...you go girl!

And as for clarity, forget it and go for an example that 'pushes the envelope' instead.  Strut your stuff.  Just a suggestion.

Fang Langford

[Ring Kichard]

One thing I would suggest is that you have when someone goes,
everyone else reduce their 'when' die by 1 instead of a choice.
This avoids all the people who going later suddenly having really good skill rolls, also it avoids the 'If my friends spar, my lockpicking get's better...'
Also it avoids making skill dominant in large fights. (If you and your opponent are in the middles of the 'when' pack, you'll both get to increment your How die to the max, so, highest skill wins)
You could probably come up with ways around this, but the 'waiting icreases your skill' just seems weird.

I thought of it as taking your time to do it right, as a strategic consideration.

The "if my friends spar my lock picking gets better" concern is an important one. My thought was to balance this out with another "take your time" rule (inspired by taking 10 in d20) that allows you to increase your roll up to your skill level, giving you a minimal success if the problem is within your past experience, even outside of combat. If the problem were more difficult than anything in your past, you'd just have to go for it by rolling.

I think this adds a nice karma element when you can afford to take your time and do things right, and helps to cut down on the whiff factor.

Do you all have an opinion on this?

Now in a contested action, that means both sides in the contest have to reroll-(and not get the increment bonus). Correct?

Assuming we understand each other, Yes.

[gizem]

I like your mechanic, it's nifty! Can I change it a little and steal it (I'll credit you)?
Here's how I'd change it:
Roll two dice, the higher (not lower) you roll, the faster you go and the better you do. Then you get to decide which one is the How die and which one is the When die. This way if you choose to do something faster you'll tend to do it worse, and when you do it slower, you'll tend to do it better. This simulates the reality more accurately, because one can choose to do something quick and dirty or slow but good.
And to represent skill levels maybe I'd change the type or number of dice rolled.
So say, an amateur rolls 2D6 and a professional rolls 2D10?
Or the amateur rolls 2D10 while the professional rolls 3D10 and chooses 2 best results?

Regards,
Gizem Forta

[Ring Kichard]

I like your mechanic, it's nifty! Can I change it a little and steal it (I'll credit you)?

By all means!

Roll two dice, the higher (not lower) you roll, the faster you go and the better you do. Then you get to decide which one is the How die and which one is the When die. This way if you choose to do something faster you'll tend to do it worse, and when you do it slower, you'll tend to do it better.

This is actually how I started, and I may yet go back to this model. I think I moved away from this because

1.  If both dice are measured 1-10 (as opposed to 10-1) players have to make more decisions (good) but take more time (bad). I think the indecision factor might be kind of problematic.

2.  It expanded on the idea of moving a die up or down. If it were all 1-10 then you'd only want to move dice up (not like that's terrible, I just enjoyed the variety).

3.  This is the big one for me: The lower die is often quite low. What follows is the likelihood of the lower die equaling the given value on 2d10.

Code Select Expand



Value |10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Odds  |.01|.03|.09|.16|.25|.36|.49|.64|.81|1.0|



I chose to go from 10-1 on this scale mostly to avoid a lot of characters with a bad value in the lower die.

And to represent skill levels maybe I'd change the type or number of dice rolled.
So say, an amateur rolls 2D6 and a professional rolls 2D10?
Or the amateur rolls 2D10 while the professional rolls 3D10 and chooses 2 best results?

The first option has a lot of possibility, I'd say. The only problem I saw in this was the low level of detail. There are only a few dice, seven if you use coins and d20s, five if you only use d4 – d12.

The second option is headed toward sorcerer, isn't it? The nice part about that scale is that in addition to going up, you can also go down beneath 2d10 to 3d10 pick the lowest.

[Evan Waters]

Maybe I can clear this up; my intent is for a player to roll again after each action to determine their next action's quality and duration.

This could necessitate an "end-round" phase for everyone to recap what's happened and when so they don't get totally overwhelmed by the rush of things. Or maybe that effect could be something to shoot for, if you want a particularly tense kind of game (the right setting/atmosphere would be important.)

[Ring Kichard]

This could necessitate an "end-round" phase for everyone to recap what's happened and when so they don't get totally overwhelmed by the rush of things. Or maybe that effect could be something to shoot for, if you want a particularly tense kind of game (the right setting/atmosphere would be important.)

Yeah, combat will probably be a bit of a mess.  Part of my design sense loves this – the heat and fury of battle, and all that.  On the other hand, a recap when all the bodies have hit the floor might be an important technique.

"You all can now look around the remains of the town square, an see the two eunuchs Al Hasid impaled on the splinters of that oxcart, the puddle of blood pooling at the base of the well pump where that guard got his head knocked into the pipe repeatedly, and the pile of ruined vegetable stands toppled on the pack of dogs the warden let loose. Bloody footprints trail into an alley where the Warden's corpse lies."

I'm not sure about interrupting combat to deliver bits of that narration, though. Can anyone think of a better way than mine to do it?