I was thinking a little on how to make a combat resolution system which would translate down to a AHQ style boardgame without much trouble and still incorporate things like interrupts and simultaneous actions.

For example, Sorcerer/Zero seems to handle simultaneous actions and some interrupts very nicely, but I don't see the I1 seperation (Let me refer to the phases of IIEE as I1, I2, E1, E2 respectively) working very well with the boardgame aspect. In a boardgame you're pretty much stuck with either action resolution or a very very abstract conflict resolution. Going in-between which is possible in an RPG is difficult. OR so I see it anyway.

Enough of background. I was thinking of how to make things work and come up with the following idea.

(Note, this game does not separate IIEE but runs each freeze-frame style. On the other hand "holding actions" are built in and can be done in the I2 and E1 stage)

1. Actions are declared in initiative order (this is not rolled, this is based on whatever stat one has for initiative)

2. Each player can then choose to either act or wait

3. If the player chooses to wait, the order goes to the next player and so on.

4. Otherwise the action is resolved.

Action resolution:

1. Player states intention. This automatically means they started their movement. No retraction is possible. (I1 & I2 are merged... Intention also means initiation)

2. Any waiting player with higher initiative may declare a response to this action. This response would then be resolved before the current action is resolved. If several players declare a response to the same action, the responses are done in initiative. Note that the response might be responded to in turn by another player as long as the latter has higher initiative.

3. E1 phase, if the action declared in step 1 is still possible, it is now carried out. If for some reason it is impossible, move back to step 1.

4. Waiting players may now declare dramatic interrupts to prevent the outcome of in the E1 phase. A dramatic interrupt can't be more than a single action which is then declared and resolved in this phase. A dramatic interrupt cannot be interrupted by a second player. If several players delare dramatic interrupts they are performed in initiative order. Critical results cannot be interrupted.

5. E2 final effect is determined by damage rolls and so on.

More details:
I1:
Player may either state an abstract goal "I attack A" or a specified goal "I try to impale A's heart with my stake!"

E1:
Roll determines failure, standard success, special success or critical success. A critical success gives another action. This one might be chosen to be another attack, movement or any other possible action. The player must choose if it is resolved as a simultaneous/chained action or a separate action. If it is simultaneous/chained the second roll is done in the E1 phase too. Establishing several actions in the same action narration. Separate actions may be held to be used later in the phase and create it's own action resolution.

E1 narration:
* Failure means the GM and/or player narrates a failed result

* Standard success means the player gets to narrate a standard succesful action.

* Special result means the player gets to narrate an advantageous action. If a specified goal has been stated, the player should narrate this result, otherwise the player can narrate any advantageous action*

* Extra actions created by critical successes can either be included in the player narrative as simultaneous actions ("I do a double kick hitting the two guards in the head at the same time") or chained actions "I give a knee to the stomach which makes him bend over and continue with a second knee straight to his face!")

Dramatic successful dramatic interrupt are narrated by the interrupting player.

Finally the effect of the actions are all narrated by the GM.

Gee, that sounded mighty complicated, but it should be easier in actual execution (I hope).

Two quick objections you might have:
1. Why not use reverse initiative statement and straight initiative execution?

2. Why not use Sorcerer/Zero or something else simple, this seems a little comlicated.

Answers:

1. This is essentially what it does but it obfuscates it's real nature. Why? Because I feel the rollback is counter intuitive, especially if you translate this down to a boardgame. This way actions happen "in order", which I feel is a good thing to get the feel of flowing action. I might be wrong, put that's my impression.

2. The sorcerer system is neatly packaged but is more about cooperative scene-building than pure action-resolution. I don't see it working so well for a board game. It's not that it's not good, it's just not appropriate for the job.

Hi there Christoffer,

If I'm not mistaken, what you have is essentially Magic: the Gathering. One has "instant" cards and "interrupt" cards, and they work in linear order overall but with tiny "reversals" when an interrupt is played.

It's essentially the way that a lot of written RPG systems end up functioning in practice, especially those which are a bit loose in terms of the order of actions. It works ... well, all right. A lot of in-play argument crops up because people mistake I2 for E1, in a system like this. If you keep the distinction between those very very clear, perhaps adopting the clear distinction in Magic between "instant" and "interrupt," then I think you might do well with it.

I agree entirely with your assessment of the Sorcerer/Zero system, and how it's not suited to your goals. The system you've proposed would work better.

Best,
Ron

Quick question that sprung in mind when I was last checking IIEE;

With I1, if declaration=initiation, can players ask for an estimate of difficulty on a task before declaring it?

That is, the character may know how difficult it is to jump over a flailing shark tooth Ziyagyzag better than any player in real life would, and knowing that difficulty is going to change what choices the character would make.

This has always been a source of contention in many games as unstated assumptions cause conflict between many GM's and players. "I jump over the hole" "Ok, you get 10 feet across, but it's 200 feet wide, down you go!"
"what?!?"

So do you place responsibility on the pllayer to request details before initiation, or do you place it on the GM to make everything astoundingly clear before players act?

Chris

Hi Chris (bankuei),

Your final question puzzles me. Whom are you addressing? The answer can only include me indicating the entire range of role-playing out there and look at you, quizzically.

I'll try to answer more substantively, though I'm afraid of derailing the thread. Understanding the nature of a conflict or a task prior to anything to do with IIEE is a key part of role-playing. The name for play like you describe ("leap" "Aaaaaa!") is simply, dysfunctional. Some solution to that problem has to be in place before play of any kind can proceed.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: If I'm not mistaken, what you have is essentially Magic: the Gathering. One has "instant" cards and "interrupt" cards, and they work in linear order overall but with tiny "reversals" when an interrupt is played.

It's essentially the way that a lot of written RPG systems end up functioning in practice, especially those which are a bit loose in terms of the order of actions.

A lot of in-play argument crops up because people mistake I2 for E1, in a system like this.