So, at the moment, the Exemplar revision is shelved along with a few complete pages, and the Dark Spell (diceless) revision is up. Right now it's at about 45 pages. Anyway, the point of this post is...

Counting seconds.

So, here's the deal. The game is a diceless, static level + resources expended vs. static TN or opposition's static level +resources expended system. But here's the sticker:

A. Combat rounds are variable in length, ranging from 4 to 7 seconds, and are handled by a single contest. Length is decided upon by the winner. Although each combatant decides how much resource to devote in the dark at the beginning of a round, t is impossible to know if some modifiers to the contest apply until the round is through.

B. You may have multiple skirmishes, each with combat rounds of different length, going on at once.

C. You may have characters using spells or powers that take a fixed number of seconds to activate during combat.

D. There is no "initiative system" as such. Instead, it is assumed that whenever a character finishes doing one thing, they may start another. Or they can do two things at once, possibly even three, but splitting your attention can result in a -1 penalty (which is largish, since the scale is rather grainy).

For example:

The action begins. Sebastion the Sorcerer begins to cast Flame Bolts, which has a 3 second casting time, even as William the Warrior and Fredrick the Frightening engage one another in combat. As he fights, Fredrick will attempt to identify Sebastion's spell, and then possibly use magical countermeasures.

So. Identification takes place one second after a character begins to observe a spell. Since the GM tells Fredrick's player that he has an incantation and some gestures to work on, he knows that the difficulty to identify is either 4 (for a common spell) or 5 (for a rare spell). Fredrick has an Occult of 4, so decides not to risk any currency. Flame Bolts is relatively standard spell, so the GM tells Fredrick's player that his character is able to recognize it. Knowing that Flame Bolts has a 3 second casting time, and thus Fredrick has 2 more seconds in which to react, he waits another second and a half and then casts Counterspell (1/4 second casting time), pumping up the difficulty to resist with a bit of currency. The low casting time means that his combat performance is not effected.

The Counterspell goes off at t=2 3/4, a quarter second before the Flame Bolts would. Sebastion spends no currency to resist, and, thanks to the pump-up given by Fredrick, the sorcerer's baseline skill isn't enough to beat the difficulty. Sebastion finds himself with an instability in his gathering lattice of magic. He's already blown his chance to compensate with one form of currency (spending Willpower to boost his skill to resist), and is faced with a choice: dissipate the magic by spending 3 Sorcery (another form of currency that is abundant and replenishes relatively quickly), or let it explode in his face and lose 2 Vitality (the third, final, sparsest, and most necessary currency).

He levies his Sorcery pool and dissipates it, and then immediately begins casting a Daze. This is a cheap spell that will give Fredrick a penalty and negate his spellcasting ability for 15 seconds if he fails to resist, and, like Flame Bolts, has a 3 second casting time (but costs 1 Sorcery instead of 3). Sebastion pumps it up with 3 points of Willpower. After a second (t=3 3/4) Fredrick is again able to identify the spell without wasting Willpower.

Not wanting to be bothered further by Sebastion, Fredrick casts a Power Drawing Rune (1/2 second casting time) and then a Slay Being (1 second casting time) immediately thereafter. This brings us to t=5 1/4. The Rune costs 4 Sorcery to trace. The Slay Being normally costs 6 Sorcery and 1 Willpower, but the Rune reduces the Willpower cost by 1 (and also increases the difficulty to resist by 1). Fredrick spends an additional 2 Willpower on boosting the difficulty of Slay Being anyway.

Here's where IIEE gets fucked up. Let's say that, before all the spells began to fly, Fredrick and William had tied the contest, making the round's duration default to 7 seconds. As soon as Fred goes over 1 second of spellcasting time, he gets hit with the -1 penalty for splitting his attention. This means that William now wins the round, and thus gets to determine its length, among other things. Let's say he redefines the length to 4 seconds.

But as of t=4, Fredrick had not yet cast a second's worth of spells. He had only cast the Countermagic, which took 1/4 second, and half of the 1/2 second-long Power Drawing Rune. Thus his total would not have been penalized, and thus William would not have won the round, and thus the round would have lasted 7 seconds instead of 4. HOWEVER, at t=7, one second of casting had been completed, so Fredrick would have taken a -1 penalty, so William would have won the round...

This is a damned IIEE temporal paradox.

Ow. My brain hurts.

Help?
--Jeff[/img]

This is why Execution and Effects happen after Initiation.

I could be (in fact, I probably am) wrong about the details of the terminology, but I think that all of this time-slicing and levying penalties occur during the Initiation phase. You've declared what you want to do, now you start doing it, including figuring out what will influence the Execution Phase to come.

But establishing the length of the combat round is (apparently) done in the Effects phase, because it is an Effect of winning the situation.

This isn't a paradox, it's just broken. You're not going to be able to finish the Execution phase until you know how long the round is. So you've got to know that before you can get into the Effects phase. Which means you can't do it in the Effects phase.

Am I missing something?

Jeph wrote:
Counting seconds.

As soon as Fred goes over 1 second of spellcasting time, he gets hit with the -1 penalty for splitting his attention. This means that William now wins the round, and thus gets to determine its length, among other things. Let's say he redefines the length to 4 seconds.

But as of t=4, Fredrick had not yet cast a second's worth of spells. He had only cast the Countermagic, which took 1/4 second, and half of the 1/2 second-long Power Drawing Rune. Thus his total would not have been penalized, and thus William would not have won the round, and thus the round would have lasted 7 seconds instead of 4. HOWEVER, at t=7, one second of casting had been completed, so Fredrick would have taken a -1 penalty, so William would have won the round...

This is a damned IIEE temporal paradox.

Slightly more radical: Drop the rounds completely.

What advantage do they provide?

If you want to model OODA loops, then add in a "change your mind" delay (varying based on a character stat) that a character must delay when shifting from melle to spellcasting, between different spells, between major "types of actions". Waiting to cast a counterspell is a major action - so if you have a fast switch time, and the other guy doesn't, you may be able to feint a spellcast (other guy waits t counter) and then shift to a melee attack and nail him while he's still trying to suss out your spell. But the timing still flows from the length-of-actions (and length-of-switch) without worrying about rounds at all.

Might be useful to play with an analog clock with no power - just twiddle it to show "time now" for everybody.

Good ideas. I'm considering three main options:

(a) Simply say that you cannot cause a paradox like this. If something along the lines of the above example could happen for certain round lengths, then the round may not be set at any of those lengths.

(b) Give rounds a fixed length. 5 seconds, probably.

(c) Give rounds a variable length that is determined not by who wins, but by what stances the players take. Every round, characters have the option of fighting defensively (+1 or more to total, may not injure enemy), offensively (-1 to total, +1 or more to margin of success for the purposes of determining levy to enemy's Vitality pool), or neither. I'd probably start the duration at 6 seconds, subtract 2 seconds for each character fighting offensively, and add 2 seconds for each character fighting defensively.

At the moment, I'm leaning heavily towards option 3.

I don't want to drop rounds completely, because, as they stand, they are more like "clashes" between two characters, and allow you to resolve an entire exchange with one check. Without rounds it'd have to be blow by blow, which would lead to greater Willpower expenditure due to the greater number of checks being made and thus an overall throwoff of the balance that surrounds the pools of currency.

It may be prudent to quote the active close combat section, as it stands:

Active combat is used when characters are facing off against unique or important foes, or any other instance in which detail or time is more important. At short range, it is played out in a number of rounds, each of which represents anywhere from 2 to 10 seconds. The loser of each contest has their Vitality pool levied by a number of points equal to the amount by which they failed. If the victor wishes, they may reduce their enemy’s Vitality loss in exchange for various cool tricks, such as disarming the enemy or knocking them to the ground. Each such trick reduces the Vitality loss by one or two points, as decided by the Game Master.

If one character ambushes another (or attacks them with their back turned or while they are doing other things), the ambushed character is the only one that may suffer a Vitality loss.

Active combats do not have to be just one on one duels. Up to four characters may gang up on one other. Each of the gang members’ totals are compared separately to the outnumbered character’s total. The outnumbered character suffers a -1 penalty to their total if they have at least three assailants. Even if multiple gang members have their totals beaten, only one may lose Vitality. This "main target" must be declared at the beginning of a round.

Note that even when a character may not lose Vitality, their opponent may still throw them around, trip them, disarm them, fling sand in their face, and so on and so forth--if in close combat. As an option, a character in close combat may fight on Full Defense for a round. This makes it impossible for them to cause their enemy to lose Vitality during that turn, but grants them a +1 bonus to their total and lets them perform one trick on their opponent, should they win the contest.

Fighting without weapons causes a character to suffer a -1 penalty on their combat totals. Large weapons like swords, spears, and axes, increase the Vitality loss dealt to the enemy by one, as long as they would lose at least one point of Vitality anyway. Conversely, armor decreases the Vitality loss suffered as a result of losing a round of combat by one point, unless the enemy’s weapon would obviously penetrate the armor with little trouble. Characters using a two-handed weapon, a weapon in each hand, or a one-handed weapon and a shield gain a +1 bonus to their combat totals.

As you saw in the paragraph about how arms and armor effecct combat, there are really two types of combat modifiers: those that alter the combat total in general (and thus apply to both offense and defense) and those that alter Vitality loss (and thus apply only to a character’s ability to wound another, and do not alter their ability to defend themselves). The following situations are examples of circumstances under which the combat total and amount of Vitality loss dealt are adjusted separately.

• If a character chooses to charge into the fray or otherwise fight offensively, they suffer a -1 penalty to their combat total. However, if they win the round, their enemy will suffer 2 additional points of Vitality loss.

• A character with a long, spearlike weapon that wins a round against a character who charged towards them deals 1 extra point of Vitality loss, as long as they perform no other tricks on that enemy.

• Characters fighting in moderate darkness, in heavy mist, or in any other circumstance in which sight would be impaired deal 1 fewer points of Vitality loss, should they win the round. In absolute darkness (or when a character is blind or blindfolded), they deal 2 fewer points of Vitality loss should they win a combat round, and suffer a -1 penalty to all totals that require coordination (including their combat total).

• Should a character choose to disengage from a combat (move out of close combat range with their opponent) but still win the round, they are considered to have gotten off a weak parting blow which causes 1 fewer point of Vitality damage than it otherwise would.

The length of a close combat round is assumed to be 6 seconds, if no participant is fighting offensively or defensively. Subtract 2 seconds for each offensive fighter, and add 2 seconds for each defensive fighter. The minimum round length is 2 seconds, and the maximum round length is 10 seconds.

I'd lean towards option 3 as well - it seems to avoid the time paradox, keeps the round flexible, and gives the players clear tradeoffs for different actions.

Thanks for explaining why you want to keep the rounds. :)

Is there a link to this game, so that we can read it? Just curious.

A slightly out-of-date version can be found here. Updates not appearing in that script include...

• those mentioned in this thread

• increase of daily Willpower recovery from 4 + 1 per 5 points of Vitality over 10 to 2/3 max Willpower pool

• a new spell ("Wasp Clad in Emerald"), small modifications to various other spells

• the addition of a few special abilities, and the CP costs changed for some special abilities

• the spell theory section including rules for identifying spells, common threads between the spells, expanded rules for elaborations and creating new spells, and an example of spellcasting in action with all the bells and whistles

• and the beginnings of the NPCs book, including advice on portraying NPCs, making NPCs on the fly, how NPCs gain EXP and how cut-scenes relate to that, a new set of special abilities called Creature Abilities and (and anti-special-ability thingies called Hindrances) to represent things like energy resistance, wings, claws, small size, natural blindness, and so on and so forth; as well as stats for both generic foes and fully fleshed out NPCs, mostly those mentioned in examples and the quotes at the beginnings of the sections and the enemies, allies, associates, &c. of those characters

I hope to have a new version up soon.
--Jeff

Now, why do you have rounds again?

If you have actions and are counting time by seconds (!) then I don't see what rounds are doing in there. Have vitality lose happen by action resolution, not round.

Rounds are there to make combat less of a currency sink.

Characters do not recieve a huge amount of currency. Starting characters will have usually have 10 Vitality, 12-18 Willlpower, and 0-26 Sorcery. This means that if they use too much in any one scene, then they won't be able to do as much cool shit until they get a good night's rest.

The game makes it easy to be competent without spending too much Willpower in a few ways. One is broad skills, so that most conflicts can be abstracted to a single check for scene-element-based (something somewhere inbetween scene-based and action-based) resolution. Another is combat rounds.

Rounds abstract an entire flurry of thrusts, maneuvers, parries, ripostes, feints, dodges, blocks, trips, kicks, and rolls into one check. Without combat rounds, characters would be checking for every attack, dodge, and parry. This would double the number of checks made in combat at least, probably triple or quadruple it, thus turning armed conflict into a Black Hole of Currency from which no Willpower can escape.

Thanks for asking this stuff, by the way; my game design mantra is "knoww what you're doing, know why you're doing it." These questions really make me go back and clarify my choices to myself. When I finish the NPCs chapter, there will be one last chapter on GM advice and setting in which I explain how to use some of the subtleties of the rules more thoroughly, among other things.

Am I correct in understanding that you are also more interested in the *outcome* and the *intent* more than the *details of execution*?

In which case, the imp forces me to ask.... Why do you worry about the seconds, instead of a ?faster?/more abstract system of allocating who does what when in a round?

I think a lot of the questions on the round/second business comes from the differing feel of the two systems: seconds seems a very gritty and detailed mechanic, while your rounds seem very overview/abstracted. You may be aiming for exactly that combination of feel; but it makes me (and others, I gather) think twice.

Jeph wrote: Rounds are there to make combat less of a currency sink.

I am not dropping rounds. That would create WAY too many "special exception" rules and other S&H time increasing inelegance. And really, they just say "check to see what will happen next every 2-10 seconds." Not exactly rocket science, especially since the inherant IIEE flaw has been resolved.

--Jeff