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.

Cool idea Richard,

A few points...

Ring Kichard wrote: 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.

Ring Kichard wrote: 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.

Ring Kichard wrote: 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.

Ring Kichard wrote: "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.

Ring Kichard wrote: 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.

Ring Kichard wrote: 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,

Ring Kichard wrote: 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.

Ring Kichard wrote: "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.

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.

fang wrote:
That would be Godlike or Wild Talents.

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).

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.

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?

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.

damion wrote:
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.

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?

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

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?

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

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

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.

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?

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.

Evan Waters wrote:
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.)