First read the 4 steps of action thread if you haven't already.

Now onto something I'm interested in. What about interrupting actions, how can one deal with the them well?

I'm thinking of this situation:

"You see the missiles about to strike Belindas mech, it's so trashed she'll probably be blown to bits!"

"I throw myself in front of her and take the blast!"

I take this example from Robotech since our GM frequently allowed for it. Usually it was allowed after everything but the damage was worked out. For example it was already established that Belinda was going to get hit. She had already tried to fire a counter missile at them to blow them up but it failed, she was out of moves (or maybe she dodged but failed).

At this point our GM would allow people to do a dramatic save (in this case despite this actually went against some of the decisions already established, such as Belinda trying to dodge but failing... the failure would imply that she had indeed been struck, but the GM allowed backpedaling on that)

In Robotech you have "attacks" which you can tweak to be used a little like currency. "As long as you have attacks you can take action". This was my inspiration for the token based initiative thing I threw out here in the forum.

Now, some games tweak this by allowing you to "save" actions (especially if you have initiative), to be able to do interrupt moves. Many ignore it altogether.

In a director stance thing where the players narrate the outcome I still see difficulties with this, as usually one person gets to narrate at a time, and with interruptions you get three persons involved of which one enters at a later time to interrupt the narrative in a way.

An interesting way to deal with this could be to let everyone roll their combat "point pool" for a round. Now everyone gets to narrate stuff. 1 thing per point (so far the usual thing), but you can outbid people. "You want to do x, but I spend 2 points to make it a y" and let people retroactively modify the round into a completed segment of time.

For a more conventional action resolution thing, I had some idea too, some variation on the save action thing which didn't encourage everyone to save their actions, but I forget what (I'll get back to that later, but it wasn't all that revolutionary anyway).

One interesting thing is that the board game Space Hulk incorporated interrupts for the Space Marines side. It might be interesting to relate. As usual the game was divided into seperate phases: Space Marines move and attack then Genestealers move attack and do their stuff.
However, every round the Space Marines got to draw "command points" (a number between 1 and 6). For every command point you could do 1 points worth of action in the Genestealer phase, but command points could only be spent when a model who saw a genestealer take action within its line of sight and only that model could use command points. Only one action could be taken for every action "seen".
Although it was not strictly modelled as an interruption action, it worked similar in execution. It might be interesting as an example of a method to work it into a freeze frame system.

> What about interrupting actions, how can one deal with the them well?

So far, what I've found best is for players and NPCs to declare and do actions in reverse order of initiative as determined by character's Speed attribute and position. Having a better initiative allows one to interrupt another character's action and complete your action first before the interrupted character can complete their action. In play it works very well.

Hi there,

When using the Zero or Sorcerer model of order/organization, interrupts can occur, but they are stated before the action begins. No one gets to change-up their plan of action during the actual flow (except for aborting to "yikes" defense).

Two points:

1) These systems rely on a kind of "free and clear" stage of deciding upon actions completely independently of the characters actually beginning those actions. It's the "intent" stage completely divorced from the "initiation" stage. I can't think of any RPGs besides Zero and Sorcerer that use this model, but it works incredibly well once people get used to it.

2) The order of action is determined by the highest value of the dice. Therefore some of the interruptions work, and some don't - exactly as in the other (in my view, more cumbersome) systems.

Best,
Ron

I remember a middling edition of Champions allowed acts like the example. I liked it and always kept it in the back of my mind. In Scattershot we give players two actions per turn as a 'resource for management.' You can forfeit either of them before your turn to defend against an attacker; up to both, if you like. (This does leave you with few options, come your turn though; ah the price of management.)

We also allow 'following actions' that turn any action into a 'flurry' of action. This can be exceptionally telling when forfeiting an action. For example, when a fencer practices a successful 'parry' they may back it up with a 'following action' of 'riposte,' it still counts as a single action being forfeited. I see very few games with simple 'action as a resource' to be managed systems, but I prefer them.

Any thoughts?

Fang Langford

Fang wrote:
I remember a middling edition of Champions allowed acts like the example. I liked it and always kept it in the back of my mind. In Scattershot we give players two actions per turn as a 'resource for management.' You can forfeit either of them before your turn to defend against an attacker; up to both, if you like. (This does leave you with few options, come your turn though; ah the price of management.)

Ron wrote:
1) These systems rely on a kind of "free and clear" stage of deciding upon actions completely independently of the characters actually beginning those actions. It's the "intent" stage completely divorced from the "initiation" stage. I can't think of any RPGs besides Zero and Sorcerer that use this model, but it works incredibly well once people get used to it.

Ring Kichard wrote: I guess my problem with this kind of a system is predictability. If everyone's actions are announced all at once, how do you 'pull a fast one' on someone by getting them to commit to one expectation of your behavior and then doing something else?

Are there any techniques that y'all use to make these invariant system elements unpredictable or adaptable, or are these just infrequent or unimportant areas of the system in your games?

Andrew:

Yes, the declared action in reverse initiative, roll actions in straight initiative order is a well known mechanic. Downside is that you need an initiative order (hello Fang!), although I suspect you could do this without initiative too.

The second problem is losing the dramatic interrupt moves which happens after results has been declared (check out the Robotech example). In this case the interrupt comes at the second (Initiation) or third (Completion) stage of action rather than the first (Intention). I'm also interested in mechanics which let's you reverse actions which has already entered the 4th stage (Effect).
It shouldn't be too hard to see how this lends to very dramatic scenes.

Other than that, I do feel this scheme is very workable, but I always wondered why not more systems incorporated it (especially those who don't have any interrup mechanics anyway). It seems like such an easy change.

Ron:

What you state in 1) is basically the scheme where everyone decides on actions, then all actions are resolved in a seperate phase? I think this has been tried elsewhere, but traditionally I guess it's rather rare. It's not much of a tweak and I can see the benefits of it. However, I don't quite see how interrupts are worked into the system. Can you explain it a little further or point me to some reference?

2) confuses me a little. The order of action is decided on what die and when? Where can I look at the details? Do you feel this system adequately addresses the effects I'm interested in?

Fang:

I did suggest a similar thing with the markers which essentially was a 4 action thing. In the end playing around with it felt that it wasn't perfect. Also the number of actions (4) was just a random number taken out of nowhere. I get the same feeling of the two actions of Scattershot. Or is there some reason for that number? It feels very arbitrary.

Anyway, this kind of method gives me the feeling of sub-combat round management. Basically by introducing two or 4 or x number of actions per round one actually divides the combat round into x segments, although unlike the fixed time phases of say Champions and many other games, these are dynamic. Still there is not much of a difference between these and the fixed phases systems. Except it seems to be a little more manageable.

Do you have any further motivation for your choices?

---

Actually this discussion gets me thinking that retroactively modifying events is a GOOD THING. In the Robotech case it adds a lot to the drama. Maybe it's a valuable area of research.

Hey Christoffer, good thread!

Pale Fire wrote: I did suggest a similar thing with the markers which essentially was a 4 action thing. In the end playing around with it felt that it wasn't perfect.

Pale Fire wrote: Also the number of actions (4) was just a random number taken out of nowhere. I get the same feeling of the two actions of Scattershot. Or is there some reason for that number? It feels very arbitrary.

Pale Fire wrote: Anyway, this kind of method gives me the feeling of sub-combat round management. Basically by introducing two or 4 or x number of actions per round one actually divides the combat round into x segments, although unlike the fixed time phases of say Champions and many other games, these are dynamic. Still there is not much of a difference between these and the fixed phases systems. Except it seems to be a little more manageable.

Do you have any further motivation for your choices?

Pale Fire wrote: Actually this discussion gets me thinking that retroactively modifying events is a GOOD THING. In the Robotech case it adds a lot to the drama. Maybe it's a valuable area of research.

Ron Edwards wrote: It's the "intent" stage completely divorced from the "initiation" stage. I can't think of any RPGs besides Zero and Sorcerer that use this model, but it works incredibly well once people get used to it.

Andrew Martin wrote:
Did you read my suggestion?

It's important for a character to gain the initiative, then they can "pull a fast one". It gains a really good sense of movie like action, it particulary works well in movie-like standoffs, where everyone is pointing guns at another, and all waiting for one person to voluntarily loose initiative (actually being forced to loose initiative by responding to conflict in another arena).

Ring Kichard wrote:

Andrew Martin wrote:
Did you read my suggestion?

It's important for a character to gain the initiative, then they can "pull a fast one". It gains a really good sense of movie like action, it particulary works well in movie-like standoffs, where everyone is pointing guns at another, and all waiting for one person to voluntarily loose initiative (actually being forced to loose initiative by responding to conflict in another arena).

Maybe I wasn't clear in explaining what I meant by "pulling a fast one".
In an open declaration session it's very hard to surprise someone. By this I don't mean just surprising someone's character but actually surprising some player. At the beginning of the round he knows what everyone is doing.

An example of this might be a surprise line of pikes to meet a cavalry charge or a hidden magic mirror of damage reflection. If, at the beginning of the round, I say, "oh, and I'm using my mirror of damage reflection," in a free round of initiative declaration people will hear that and play differently.

I just read an article about the design evolution of "Children of the Sun" from Misguided Games. Apparently the system uses tokens that you can use as an "interrupt" during play to either make sure your characters action happens first or to react immediately to a situation whether you've had your turn already or not. The system the game uses is actually called the "Token System".

-Chris

Err? Sounds like my token idea. Can I read up on the game somewhere?

For the past few days I have been thinking about "house rules" I could tack on to a D&D3E game I might have to end up running (in that I _really_ want to run something and my players _really_ may want to play D&D3E). This whole combat/inititative thing is something I hate about D&D3E so I was thinking about an alteration which could be adaptable to any system, but here is specific to D&D3E:

On a sheet of paper have listed a type of action (offensive, defensive, magic, special, etc) linked to a die type. When it is time for combat, everyone secretely picks an action and the associated die, and holds it in a fist (or under a box or cup). Then the GM can randomly pick (die roll or something) someone to "start." The player would then show their die. The GM would then ask the player who they would be affecting. If it is anyone but themselves, those characters would be "activated" and their intentions would be shown and targets pointed out. Once a whole "string" was complete (no one else is activated) the combat for those characters would be resolved.

Now an interim step could be put in if you wanted a "safer" environment for the characters - if you think that in a single second they could switch from offense or magic use to defense - players whose characters are shown to be under attack may then be asked to take their die back. They then should secretly either make no change or change to the defense die. Then they would be simultaniously shown.

Now, combat would be fought, but with this caveat - any 1 <-> 1 attacks (where A attacks B and B attacks A) - are dealt with first and damage is assigned, otherwise all damage is assigned at the end of the "string."

Now here is a part I am unsure of - if the "string" is long, what should be the order of the resolutions be? (other than A <-> B first) Should it be recursive (last man in the chain goes first and work backwards) or maybe once the (A <-> B)'s are complete it should go to checking some speed attribute?

I think this system might lead to deadlier combat but possibly to more cautious play. My thinking of it came from somebody's comment about initiative as a camera in a battle scene - moving from engagement to another - randomly and without bias.

This way, because of the random starting choice at the begining, there is no real standard order to a combat - it will always be organic and changing.

Now back to the system - Finally I would say for an engagement, run with FitM (1. declare general action 2. roll 3. describe outcome and dmg).

Now here is another question: Should it be as stated above, or should it be that once someone is "targeted" anyone else who is "targeting" that character should say so and reveal? The problem with the former is that it does create a certain "turn" system, in that if one of the non-activated characters wanted to attack one of the activated characters, they have to wait, and get the bonus of having that character (probably) be down hit points. The latter might be better for chaos/simultaiety of combat to best be modelled.

Okay, that was alot, but at least I kind of clarified my own thinking. Any thoughts or comments (should I move this somewhere else)?

-Shane

Andrew Martin wrote:
Bekki's player announces: "I'm revealing my mirror of Damage Reflection!" Bekki is hit automatically by Able's strike (in my combat systems, skilled characters automatically hit targets that aren't resisting, particularly when the target wants to be hit as well! :) ) Able's player then rolls Able's weapon damage versus Able's armour to see what the effects are on Able. Bekki's player smiles.