Hi all,

I posted this on RPG.net and was told to check out this forum. So here I am :) . Bear with me as I learn some of the terminology and concepts that seem to be in use here (GNS, etc.).

I'm becoming dissatisfied with the standard turn based rounds and initiative determination. By standard I mean the one found in D&D, Storyteller, and GURPS (it's also found in a bunch of other games). Essentially, the basic system in these cases is "roll initiative, make your action, end of round." They might allow for ways to get more than one action (such as splitting dice pools in Storyteller or getting more cards in Deadlands), but they adhere to relatively well defined combat rounds. In this regard they are more like wargames as opposed to an interactive story.

Disclaimer: I'm not dissing war gaming or more "rulesy" oriented styles of play!!!!! Indeed, on occasion I enjoy playing that kind of game. I just want to find a system that I feel is better suited to a cinematic, "fast and loose" style of play. Also, I don't want to remove crunchy bits altogether - I think both have a place.

Combat would not be split up into rounds - it would just happen, although the rate at which the GM describes things would increase. If I ever need to figure out who goes first at some task, I can always roll opposed Dexterity checks or just wing it. I think it would be safe to say that combat under such systems would require a high level of GM involvement and interpretation, which some people may not like.

I've downloaded the Nobilis example of play from Hogshead's site, and that combat example in the sky seems to be more along the lines of what I'm looking for. However, I don't want to plunk down ~$40 just to be inspired by the combat system, no matter how good it may be :)

Any thoughts you'd care to give on the matter would be appreciated.

Welcome to The Forge!

Perhaps you could describe how several players describe their character/s actions and how NPC actions fit in? I'm having a little trouble seeing what your desired goal is.

GURPs doesn't have a "round" system, from what I've experienced.

The players and NPCs have a combat speed (or something) and they go in order of highest to lowest. They take one action each and then they start over. It's not divided into "rounds," more like an order. The slowest person goes and then the fastest person and it starts all over.

As for what else to do, I think games are either "turn based" or "real time."

If turn based doesn't float your boat, I'm afraid real time would turn into a shouting match rather quickly.

Andrew Martin wrote: Welcome to The Forge!

Perhaps you could describe how several players describe their character/s actions and how NPC actions fit in? I'm having a little trouble seeing what your desired goal is.

What about sometthink like a variation of the Feng Shui system.

Feng Shui does use rounds, but it works like this (bear with me)

Each round is divided into 20 segments. Characters get their first action on segment X determined by initiative (this is fairly unimportant). Every action you can perform takes a certain number of segments. A Punch might take 2 segments say, while firing a gun only takes 1 (cocking the gun might take 3, and reloading might take 6).

These numbers are made up by the way, I don't recall how many segments things take, it's been years since I played it.

So anyway, lets say I sart on segment 17, and I punch someone. I can next act on segment 15 because my punch took 2 segments. Maybe then I draw my gun (lets say this takes 4 segments). On segment 11 I can now shoot. This takes 1 segment, and on segment 10 I can now reload, taking 6 segments. And so on.

There were other considerations like how long it took to move certain distances, and you could parry or block at any time, but it added to the time until your next go (if I'm next due to act on segment 11 as in the example above, but I do a 3 segment block in the meantime, my next go will actually be segment 8 instead of 11).

Yes, a hell of a lot of book keeping, but it's probably the closest I can think of to what you're looking for. Instead of starting new rounds at 20 each time, just start the combat at 100 or so and you'll never have to worry about rounds.

Brian.

zaal wrote: A combat example might be this: Bob and Joe are in a bar and both are concentrating on each other. Bob is pissed at Joe, so Bob walks up to Joe and throws a punch. No initiative dice are rolled - this is just an event which Joe responds to (I'd rule that Joe could respond, since he was focused on Bob - if he was talking to someone else, he might not have seen Bob in time). Let's say he ducks out of the way. Bob swings again - this is just another event - and Joe again dodges. Bob gives another punch, Joe dodges, and , seeing an opening, returns with a strike of his own. Incidentally, Joe's "taking of the initiative" (can we agree that's different from initiative order?) is what I'm having a devil of a time trying to model - the switch from being on the offensive to being on the defensive.

Combat is just a progression of events. Let's not worry so much about multiple combatants at this stage ;) . Does that help, Andrew?

Zaal,

Here's a fast and lose system:

Use an egg-timer and a number of tokens, set the timer up with the starting player, any other player involved can steal it (and turn it upside down) by expending a token. They can narrate game effect, but must pass through each wound level to reach the next most severe one. Some wound levels could include things like, effortless dodge, or graceful parry, as well as flesh wound, or cut to the face. (Which is related to an odd little system I'm currently mixing around.) The player in control of the hour glass when it runs out gets to narrate the tail end of the fight, but it needs to end then. This means fights will likely damage, but rarely kill. Of course the fight can continue in the next area, but you'll be lower on tokens then, which is always a risk.

Hope you enjoy,

-Mendel S.

When I and an old buddy many years ago gamed together using the ancient, but interesting BRP superhero system SUPERWORLD we actually visualized action scenes it terms of what they would look like in terms of comics panels. There was an actual superhero game (a British import) that instituted this as a formal game mechanic.

The equivaent in the 'cinematic' world to the comic is the storyboard. Action scenes are often plotted out image by image particularly if they are complex.

In resolving the actions narrative control could mean the right to describe the content of one or several storyboard panels. The length of various scenes could be set to be a certain number of panels and the players have to describe the resolution within a certain number of panels. This would stimulate a very 'cinematic' thinking style which is what such games are trying to do.

The concept of a round is usefull if only to make sure everyone has a chance to have their character do something before anyone else gets to go again. Without checking the rules, I'm pretty sure this is the only sense in which Hero Wars has rounds. Highest ability goes first, and everyone gets a chance to be proactive, then start again. There's no fixed duration for a round, or even any suggested value so far as I can remember. A round might be a quick exchange of blows in a sword fight, or a an hour long exchange of arguments in a court case.

Simon Hibbs

Lots to talk about here.

First, have you considered that one need not have a "combat system" at all? I am a pundit, if you will, for the notion that RPGS don't always need combat systems. Click here for my Rant on the subject. Take the right pill Neo. I think it might be the solution you are looking for, but people seem very resistant to the idea at first. Keep an open mind.

Second, round based combat of sorts can do what you want. Definitely check out the systems mentioned already (Hero Wars, Feng Shui, etc). Hero Wars has a free quick start download that may give you the idea (www.glorantha.com). You might also want to check out Dunjon from Anvilwerks (can be found on the Independent Games Page).

Another free game that might do what you want and messes a bit with the round idea like Hero Wars does, is Paul Elliot's Zenobia, free from his site. This is my favorite concept right now. Essentially, each "round" is a contest between the foes. As such, there is no "I go, you go". Both combatants roll, and the winner gains some advantage. What this does is to say that the idea of "Initiative" is just another factor of ability. The result is combat which is by far more dramatic than any of the other "round" style systems you've mentioned.

BTW, there have been many attempts at creating a more, "real time" sort of combat system. Starting with Champions an such systems early on, and including Feng Shui. The problem is that most of these systems, while interesting, and often fun, themselves, only seem more "realistic". They do little for drama. In fact, most are som complicated that they become just a more intense tactical effort than anything else.

Finally, you'd be remis if yu didn't check out The Riddle of Steel. While crunchy, and sorta round based, it does it in such an innovative fashion that it is both dramatic, and realistic at the same time. You can also find out about them on the indie games page here at The Forge.

Hope that helps.

Mike

Hey Zaal,

I'm sorry I missed this one earlier; welcome to the Forge.

I'm attracted to posting to this thread because I'm one of the system-junkie mavericks around here (and ain't afraid to say so).

zaal wrote:

Andrew Martin wrote: Perhaps you could describe how several players describe their character/s actions and how NPC actions fit in? I'm having a little trouble seeing what your desired goal is.

Most combat systems I'm familiar with divide combat time into discrete bits (rounds). Somehow the order is determined, a player takes his turn, and then awaits his next turn. In this regard combat is more like a board game - it is relatively rigid and structured.

It may be that this is the only playable way combat can be managed, but I don't feel this truly captures the essence of certain cinematic games high fantasy, super heroes, over-the-top martial arts, etc....

There are times when it might be important to see who goes first. In this case I imagine you would roll opposed quickness/dexterity checks. This is essentially an initiative mechanic, but it pertains only to those involved in the check and isn't necessarily required for all interactions in combat.

zaal wrote: A combat example might be this: Bob and Joe are in a bar and both are concentrating on each other. Bob is pissed at Joe, so Bob walks up to Joe and throws a punch. No initiative dice are rolled - this is just an event which Joe responds to (I'd rule that Joe could respond, since he was focused on Bob - if he was talking to someone else, he might not have seen Bob in time). Let's say he ducks out of the way. Bob swings again - this is just another event - and Joe again dodges. Bob gives another punch, Joe dodges, and , seeing an opening, returns with a strike of his own. Incidentally, Joe's "taking of the initiative" (can we agree that's different from initiative order?) is what I'm having a devil of a time trying to model - the switch from being on the offensive to being on the defensive.

zaal wrote: Combat is just a progression of events. Let's not worry so much about multiple combatants at this stage.

The only reason we even kept the 'rounds' has to do with everyone getting a chance to shine. We've never found a way to keep from forgetting someone without something as rudimentary as rounds. Considering all the differences inherent in applying 'advantage' directly instead of through initiative or turn-order, going 'round the table seems almost unconsciously intuitive.

I've been considering the following system:

Actions cost tokens to perform. Active actions ("I stab him") cost somewhere in a range of 2-6 (lower is better), determined by how fast the character or action is. Defensive actions ("I block with my eye") cost 1.

When you declare an action you set the required number of tokens in your "wait" pile.

If you have no tokens in your wait pile you can declare another active action. You can declare defensive actions any time you need them - but they continue to add to your wait pile normally.

The GM ticks off combat incriments (seconds, hours, or whatever), each incriment everyone removes a token from their wait pile.


This seems more fluid and less stair-steppy than normal combat rounds, and it lets you easily change the speed of different actions/weapons (6 tokens for a spell, 3 for a dagger stab)...but I'm, as of yet, not comfortable with the amount of overhead or time dely it creates.

FYI for the historically-minded. The British superhero game that used "Frames" to analogize "rounds" to comic panels was called Golden Heroes. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the publisher.

Best,

Blake

Well, here's a mechanic i'm presenting as an option in the game i'm making.

Instead of "X attacks per Round", it's "Attack takes X amount of time". Which gives you the option to actually impose a Round.

If done in a simple way, then all Characters have the same Attack Time. If less simplistic, Characters each can have a different Attack Time, but only one per Character. More complex is a Character has a different Attack Time for each weapon or attack method.

Initiative is based on rolling 1 die, the faster/better the initiative the smaller the Initiative Die rolled. For example: Super Fast = 1D2, Very Fast = 1D4, Fast = 1D6, Normal = 2D4, Slow = 2D6, Very Slow = 3D6, and so on.

Now for an example:
Every Character has a unique Attack Time, but only one for all of their attack methods.
Foo and Bar are fighting. Foo has an Attack Timing of 5, Bar has an Attack Timing of 6. Foo has an Init Due of 1D6, Bar has an Init Die of 2D6.
Foo rolls a 2. Bar rolls a 10.
So sequence of attacks will go:
2 - Foo
7 - Foo
10 - Bar
12 - Foo
16 - Bar
17 - Foo
22 - Foo & Bar
27 - Foo
28 - Bar
...
etc

Now, a Round can then be randomly put in whenever appropriate. It would reset the counter to 0, and players would roll new Init Dice, etc.

Is that what you were asking?

Mike Holmes wrote:
First, have you considered that one need not have a "combat system" at all? I am a pundit, if you will, for the notion that RPGS don't always need combat systems ... I think it might be the solution you are looking for, but people seem very resistant to the idea at first. Keep an open mind.

BTW, there have been many attempts at creating a more, "real time" sort of combat system ... The problem is that most of these systems, while interesting, and often fun, themselves, only seem more "realistic". They do little for drama. In fact, most are som complicated that they become just a more intense tactical effort than anything else.

Finally, you'd be remis if yu didn't check out The Riddle of Steel.

zaal wrote: Your argument makes perfect sense to me, and I think it's along the lines of what I was looking for.

There's gotta be a way to capture the drama without sacrificing playability! :) Well, there may not be but it's worth testing the waters.

I guess I should also say I don't hate "round/turn" based combat, because I have been able to achieve entertaining results with it. I just want to see if there is a way to increase my enjoyment.

Incidentally, Riddle of Steel is what sent me on my quest to see if there were other RPG combat systems out there. It intrigued me that their could be alternatives to the "standard" system - I had never even thought of that before :) .

I don't mind crunchy bits if they don't hamper the feel of the game; it's just been my experience that with crunchy systems players tend to focus more on the rules than with the action itself. That's a perfectly valid way to play, but it doesn't do much for me.

Hmmm... I've been toying with a system (not specifically a combat system, but a system for tense action scenes in general - including combat) that looks like it may have some similarities to toth's ideas above... and Feng Shui (which I have only heard about and not yet read... sigh...). I call it the Moment system.

Time, in tense situations, sometimes seems to stand still and sometimes seems to move too quickly. In any case, subjective time in scenes like combat is much more important than objective time. Subjective time, I measure in moments.

I'm still working out the kinks, but here's what I'd like it to accomplish:

1) A switch from real-time into moment-time. In round-based speak, one person's round may be significantly shorter than another's... though this won't be a round-based system. Also, a moment might not be the same length of time as the one before it. Frex, in a swashbuckling swordfight, both combatants might pause for a moment as their swords cross and trade banter. This moment would likely be longer than the moment in which one of them lunges at the other.

2) A system in which actions can be continuous, rather than discretely staggered. Actions should take time, but they aren't exclusive of each other. Frex, a character might leap across a chasm (taking 8 moments to do so), but draw (2 moments) and fire (1 moment) his pistol a moment into the leap. The gun then goes off when he is halfway across the chasm. The guy he's firing at could potentially be acting at the same time.

Ultimately, I suspect I will need to have an objective timing mechanism to use as a common denominator. I'm still toying with it, though.

~szilard

Le Joueur wrote: With all the possible flurries and the explicit 'advantages,' it makes 'around the table' seem much more like "a progression of events" without 'leaving anyone behind.'

Just to jump ahead for a second, we encountered serious problems with the number of combatants ... when there are more monsters than player characters ... just treat them as 'sides' (instead of everyone getting bored while the gamemaster goes through the actions of every single orc). This simplifies the bookkeeping and keeps up the tension I like to see in cinematic combat.

Mike Holmes wrote: From Rolemaster of all places, specifically "Run Out the Guns" we get the idea of combat "cascades". That is, essentially, you play out all combats as single opponent vs. single opponent from start to finish, before you go to the next pair.

Mike Holmes wrote: Cool, then what's the continuing problem. Simply don't have a separate combat system.

Iguess I'm not getting what you mean. Capturre which drama? How?

... do little for drama. In fact, most are som complicated that they become just a more intense tactical effort than anything else.

There is, have you looked at the other systems that I and others have mentioned?

I think you're going to like it around here. Your sentiments are shared by a lot of people here.

By "Real Time" I'm talking about all these gus who are trying to do something where each action has a different length and they are resolved at the end of their lengths and the like. Avoiding "rounds" by doing something even more complicated. These are the sorts of systems I was saying are no more dramatic than rounds are.

I think you didn't take the right pill.

This is how you resolve the situation that you describe without a combat system. If you think that Joe was surprised (sunday punch), Bob just rolls his Punch against some target number (probably low), or some dodge skill if the GM thinks that Joe saw it last second, etc. In the example he misses anyway. Then you just go to a contest of punching skills.

If Joe is not surprised, then combat is just that Punching contest. In this case, Joe rolls higher than Bob. The Gm looking at the result says, "Bob swings at Joe, but misses, swinging wide. Joe counterpunches, and smacks Bob right in the jaw, landing him on his ass."

What Initiative problem?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: By "Real Time" I'm talking about all these gus who are trying to do something where each action has a different length and they are resolved at the end of their lengths and the like. Avoiding "rounds" by doing something even more complicated. These are the sorts of systems I was saying are no more dramatic than rounds are.

I think you didn't take the right pill.

This is how you resolve the situation that you describe without a combat system. If you think that Joe was surprised (sunday punch), Bob just rolls his Punch against some target number (probably low), or some dodge skill if the GM thinks that Joe saw it last second, etc. In the example he misses anyway. Then you just go to a contest of punching skills.

If Joe is not surprised, then combat is just that Punching contest. In this case, Joe rolls higher than Bob. The Gm looking at the result says, "Bob swings at Joe, but misses, swinging wide. Joe counterpunches, and smacks Bob right in the jaw, landing him on his ass."

cruciel wrote: One thing I'm confused on is how do you resolve difference of speed between characters in such a system without treating it as something like "number of resolutions per event (actions per round)"? I know this is not relevant for "real people" games, but is quite important for superheroic games.

cruciel wrote:
One thing I'm confused on is how do you resolve difference of speed between characters in such a system without treating it as something like "number of resolutions per event (actions per round)"? I know this is not relevant for "real people" games, but is quite important for superheroic games.

Le Joueur wrote:

cruciel wrote: One thing I'm confused on is how do you resolve difference of speed between characters in such a system without treating it as something like "number of resolutions per event (actions per round)"? I know this is not relevant for "real people" games, but is quite important for superheroic games.

How about letting faster characters 'do more' on 'their turn?'

Fang Langford

O.K., I'm making this up as I go along, but I think I might have a combat system idea that would handle all of your concerns.

Much like an initiative roll, we let both combatants roll. However, this roll will be adjusted. A few adjustments you might consider:

• Each character would add a fighting skill number, most likely.
• If you're concerned that speed should be a factor, include a bonus for that.
• I think that whoever won last time should get a bonus, for reasons that will appear evident in a moment.
• I would also include a fatigue penalty if a character has taken several aggressive or tiring actions in a row.
• Surprise might be included, that is, if one side potentially surprised the other, that would give a bonus to this roll (and thus this roll would determine whether the opponent was surprised enough).



Now, what the roll tells us is not who goes first; it tells us which character is the current actor; the other is the reactor. Thus, although we still could call them "rounds", it's not he goes, she goes, but rather one acts and the other reacts, and then we roll again.

Note that this achieves several desired effects:

• The one with the greater skill is more likely to hit more often.
• Because there is a bonus for having just been the actor, there is a tendency for one side to make several attack/actions in a row.
• Because there is a penalty for extended strings (stated as fatigue) there is an increasing likelihood that the reactor will become the actor with each round.
• The number of attacks each side gets is ultimately related to the skill level and speed (because those are bonused into the system) but aren't mechanically connected to the ratio of attacks against attacks; you hit more often because you take the initiative more often.



Obviously I've never tried it; but it looks like with a bit of tweaking this would give you that cinematic combat feel you're seeking.

--M. J. Young

But why do you need this roll? Why not just roll opposed combat checks, and just narrate whatever you like in terms of speed, initiatve and order.

Order makes no difference in the end. All we really care about is who has kicked whose ass. If you really want it random have both roll a die, and high roller wins. Classic "initiative".

Bob gets the "initiative" and wins the round. GM Narrates: "Bob comes in and before Rick can react, he just punches Rick's lights out."

Bob loses "initiative" and wins the round. GM Narrates: "Bob comes in ducking a high swing by Rick, and then proceeds to punch Rick's lights out."

Or just pick whichever you like. In the end it doesn't matter at all. The benefit of just letting the Narrator pick is that they can choose whatever they think is coolest.

The solution to initiative? Just don't do it.

Think of it this way. If you were rolling to see who won a game of chess, would you roll for "initiative"? It's actually crucially important to chess. But nobody would ever do it in play. Because it's not traitional to use Initiative for anything other than combat. And that's only true because the first RPGs came from "I go, you go" wargames. It's archaic, and outmoded, and can only possibly make any sense in a game where you've decided to make a special focus of combat (which is a valid option; it should just not be the assumption).

Even then, I think it adds little if anything as it's usually done. See TROS for how to do initiative in an interesting, realistic, and play enhancing way. In that game the most interesting note about "initiative" is made. That is, that who goes first is often just a choice. True, tactical initiative is gained not by going first but by gaining an upper hand and pressing that advantage. MJ's proposed system only starts to approach this correctly Speed adds to ability in combat in general, and as such may help gain and or maintain initiative; but again this says nothing about who will strike next so much as who has the choice. In TROS, the character with Initiative may choose, and correctly so in many cases, to allow the other character to attack first. Counterstriking is often more effective than just attacking.

Mike

Ok, I have to say something in defense of Initiative. I agree that when taken from the perspective of "realistic" combat going first is simply a matter of making the decision to do so.

However, for purposes of an rpg Initiative is a useful tool for keeping everybody from talking at once - its a perceived "fair" way to adjudicate whose voice is active. I think it speeds up combat if you use static values instead of rolling.

Mike Holmes wrote:
In TROS, the character with Initiative may choose, and correctly so in many cases, to allow the other character to attack first. Counterstriking is often more effective than just attacking.

cruciel wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote:
In TROS, the character with Initiative may choose, and correctly so in many cases, to allow the other character to attack first. Counterstriking is often more effective than just attacking.

Not to quibble, but you do mean "counterstriking is often more effective in TROS"...not in actual conflicts? (which I would argue against).

Valamir wrote:
This isn't really the thread for this discussion. But there are entire schools of defense dedicated to counterstriking. The Germans even have specific words for that style of fighting. So one cannot successfully argue against the idea that "counterstriking is often more effective" both in real life and in TRoS.

But you can represent both POVs just as easily without Initiative. Easier, in fact.

This,"Fair" that you speak of ??? What's unfair about everybody rolling at the same time against each other? If we were doing a contest of skills for Ping Pong, would you have us roll for initiative (or just give it to the guy who had the serve)? What's disorganized about that. How does it entail anyone but the GM talking and saying, "Everyone, roll!"

Have you looked at Zenobia? Tell me what's wrong with that system, and then I'll understand what's unfair or confusing about the much simpler and more dramatic method of simple resolution.

Further, TROS might not be right, but it lets you examine just such questions about counterstriking. If you feel that it's not realistic, a small tweak could be made to show your opinion. In most sysems it will come down to the simple preference of the narrator. In TROS, you can actually make statements about the outcomes, mechanically.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I think you didn't take the right pill.

If Joe is not surprised, then combat is just that Punching contest. In this case, Joe rolls higher than Bob. The Gm looking at the result says, "Bob swings at Joe, but misses, swinging wide. Joe counterpunches, and smacks Bob right in the jaw, landing him on his ass."

What Initiative problem?

Mike Holmes wrote: But you can represent both POVs just as easily without Initiative. Easier, in fact.

This,"Fair" that you speak of ??? What's unfair about everybody rolling at the same time against each other? If we were doing a contest of skills for Ping Pong, would you have us roll for initiative (or just give it to the guy who had the serve)? What's disorganized about that. How does it entail anyone but the GM talking and saying, "Everyone, roll!"

Have you looked at Zenobia? Tell me what's wrong with that system, and then I'll understand what's unfair or confusing about the much simpler and more dramatic method of simple resolution.

Not only simultaneous. Just to be clear, I've described the resolution in complete detail above. That is, if Joe makes his roll, the GM just decides what happens. No damage rolls, no hit points, no nothing other than the GM says, "Hmm. A successful use of Punch skill, we'll, I'll describe it as xyz."

Just like picking a lock. GM sees a successful roll, he says, "OK, you fiddle with the lack for a bit, and it pops open allowing you entrance." I'm suggesting resolving combat identically. GM looks at successful roll, he says, "OK, you both take several swings at each other, and finally, you land a good one on his lower jaw sending him sprawling."

As I've said, this seems so radical to RPG players that they just don't get it the first time I describe it (often they just assume that I'm skipping steps). I'm just reiterating to be sure that people can see what I'm getting at.


Here's a better question. Why do you want to detail each separate action (what we refer to around here as Task Resolution)? What's the game about, and why is such detail important? Note, that in the resoluton system I've detailed you can be as detailed as you like in your description. You just role for the combat as a whole, or at least for whole chunks at a time. What about the game you're creating makes it focused on combat to the extent that you need the sort of detail that you are looking for?

Mike

cruciel wrote: The "fair" I speak of is not true fairness, just fair chance to play as perceived by the players - no arguements about who gets to go first. Initiative decides who has the serve or who gets to be white in chess.

It's just lacking in detail and flexibility I enjoy.

Having to defend from what you are attacking and vice versa is too limitting for my tastes.

Simultaneous resolution also tends to break down with scale differences (super speed vs super strength vs a giant robot, and so on), sacrificing the elegance of their "damage produced from attack roll" system by depending upon complicated tables once the human vs human link is broken, and/or scale based bonus and penalties screwing up the probabilities to the point of rolling being pointless.

There's another simple difference of opinion that we are tripping up on - I don't like actions defined post-roll. Either the GM describes the results of your roll (which is too much like watching TV for my taste), or you let each player describe in more detail what happened post roll (in which case you're right back were you started with rounds of combat, except now you've added a second phase to resolution).

For a long time I declared: "combat takes too long, that makes it boring, how can I make it shorter?". But I discovered I don't actually like short combat, I just don't like high handling times and: "I hit it, I dodge, I hit it, I block, etc". Give me a three hour combat where the players enjoy describing their actions in vivid detail, speckled with relevance to plot and character dialog.

I like watching kung fu movies, not because I want to get to the point and find out who defeats who, but because I want to watch the action unfold in unexpected ways. So, from my point of view, I find that fifteen minute or less combats actually detract from drama, not enhance it.

Here's an idea, based on Mikes concept & a bit of ScatterShot:

Lemme know if you've heard this before:

What I don't like about Mike's idea is that there is no duration. Bob can punch Rick and end it by knocking him on floor with one roll, or the GM can narrate it so multiple rolls are required.

How about where combat lasts as long as the players think it should?
This would require a 'accumulated advantage system', like scattershot, TROS or Hero Wars.
There are two types of 'accumulated advantage', permenant(PA) and temporary(TA).
Temorary advantatge is gained during combat in a system similar to
TROS or Hero Wars. Basicly, it goes up and down and is gained and lost.
Permenant comes in two types, positive(PA+) and negative(PA-). Every time your accumulated temporary advantage changes, the difference is added to the appropriate type of permanent advantage. If your TA goes up, the increase is added to PA+.
Permanent advantage represents the 'stakes' of the combat.

The combat sequence is like this:
Rolls are made, temporary advantage is determined.
At any time, any one, GM OR other players, can end the combat.


Also, any side in combat can 'give up' some temporary advantage to prevent the combat from ending. There is a genra specific number of times the 'end can be postponed'. (Scattershot's Epic index is a great exaple here).

When a combat finishes, one looks at permanant advantage. PA+ is good things you got out the combat, PA- is bad things. Each player narrates their own PA+ their opponents PA-. This isn't strictly necessary, the GM could do all narration in a more standard system.
Basicly, the longer combat goes on, the more PA+ you get, but you get more PA- also. The 'yield' limit is to prevent one from building up large amounts of advantage vs a weak opponent. Also, other players can call a boring fight.

This is more of a system framework, but the idea was the that combat goes on as long as you people find it interesting. It also allows for bittersweet victories (You could win, but have more PA- than PA+).

Just an idea.

Which is only important if you assume a turn based system. This is a circular argument )You need initiative to determine who goes first because it's turn based. And if you take turns you need to know who goes first. )

That's a system specific critique (as are many of yours). What about a simultaneous system makes things fall apart due to scale? That doesn't happen in any other system? Again, Hero Wars would handle this fine.

Many people here are quite fond of the Player describes option. How is this problematic? Two participants roll. One wins, he gets to describe what happened. How is that problematic? Believe me, having played that way a lot, it's much more effective than round based.

We refer to this "post-roll" description as Fortune in the Middle herabouts. What games have you played using this method, and what were your problems with it?

The only people who really get into detail for detail sake, are actually more interested in the combat for the combat's sake. Not even really the combat's sake, but the competition involved in it, or the verisimilitude of it, maybe. That's fine. But I don't sense it's what Zaal's looking for. Nor you, if I may be so bold.

Of course. Who would disagree? So, I guess I'll watch my next Blackbelt Theatre flick looking for the initiative rolls, and combat rounds?

Mike Holmes wrote: As I've said, this seems so radical to RPG players that they just don't get it the first time I describe it (often they just assume that I'm skipping steps). I'm just reiterating to be sure that people can see what I'm getting at.

What about the game you're creating makes it focused on combat to the extent that you need the sort of detail that you are looking for?

One function of initiative seems to have been overlooked in all this; it's probably the essential function of the mechanic in most games which use it: it permits the possibility that one character's attack will disable the other such that the other cannot respond. This might be because the first attack was fatal, or because it was disarming or paralyzing or otherwise disabling.

If you have simultaneous rolls which indicate both were successful, but one attacker intended his attack to remove the ability of the other to attack, then both cannot be truly successful. Either the one failed to prevent the other's attack, or the other failed to attack successfully. Initiative resolves this smoothly.

I'm not saying it can't be resolved some other way. In Multiverser, conflicting magic is frequently adjudicated by the higher successful roll. If your system is that whoever rolls higher attacks successfully and whoever rolls lower fails in his attack (and all ties mean both sides failed) you eliminate this problem (although in my estimation you create new ones). I wouldn't discount initiative as a viable solution.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: (and all ties mean both sides failed)

Andrew Martin wrote:

M. J. Young wrote: (and all ties mean both sides failed)

Note that some settings (Samurai Japan) may require that ties mean that both sides succeeded! And so produce a "mutual kill", where both sides succeed and die. :)

I've considered a resolution system for opposed actions such as combat that's the opposite approach to making opposed rolls for combat and considering initiative retroatively as part of the outcome. Consider it an all-initiative system. That's right, lots of initiative rolls and no success rolls.

The idea is that what combattants are mostly doing during the exchange of blows in a fight is looking for opportunities to make effective attacks.

The system kicks in as soon as a character announces an intent that affects another character. A chance of the character finding an opportunity to perform that action (per "pulse" of action) is arrived at. The chance is usually a low probability. The system could be as crunchy as you want, with the chance being adjusted for situational factors including the character's skill (higher skill is able to perceive opportunities that a lesser skill would miss), the opponent's defense, the fundamental difficulty of the intended action (for example, you'd be less likely to find an opening to slice someone's head off than to find an opening to force them backward), and the suitability of the weapon or attack style for the action being attempted.

Each pulse of action, everyone rolls their already established chances. At any time, any character can change their intentions, which changes their chances. Since all the chances are generally low, it might take several rolls in succession before anyone gets an opportunity. This should be fast, because the chances for the rolls (target numbers or whatever) usually aren't changing. If well balanced, this could create a lot of suspense. And there's really no whiff factor, since the rolls that "fail" (which are the great majority of all rolls) simply mean that an opportunity to perform the intended action hasn't occurred yet.

A success on the roll means that the intended effect happens. No further success determination is needed; it's assumed that once an opportunity occurs, the character exploits that opportunity (to injure, kill, disarm, throw, sting, bind, or whatever intention was chosen) without error.

There you go, a resolution system that preserves the idea of initiative without separate initiative rolls (because in a sense, every roll is an initiative roll). It also has a very clear IIEE focus; everything is pure intention until a successful roll is made. It needs a lot of work in other areas, but I don't see any deal-killer problems with it. And it's novel as far as I'm aware of, though it seems unlikely that someone hasn't done it before somehere.

- Walt

Everyone interested in this sort of thing should definitely check out Hero Wars.

Interestingly, it sorta does have an initiative system. But it only determines who gets to decide the current wager. Either side can "damage" the other on every exchange of every round. So, I can combat you, and you can damage me. Then you can combat Bob, and damage him. Then Bob can combat me, and I can damage him. Then next round the order changes to reflect each side's possition. It's very nifty that way.

One of the really cool things is how you can handle large numbers of participants by just aglomerating them into sides. So, those 30 goblins reqire only one roll instead of 30. And you can still keep track of indivisual losses. Which is especially important if somebody changes sides mid-battle.

And eveything you can think of can be handled mechanically. That's another great thing. If you want some detail to be handled mechanically, you can. If youwant to ignore it, that works too. The more I play, the more I adore the system.

The point is that it goves all the advantages of this new style of resolution, without loosing much, if anything of the old style.

cruciel wrote:
I'd actually wager I'm one of those people...it doesn't dominate my game play but I find the actual process of combat enjoyable (else why are you bothering with it).

I suprised myself by actually observing turns in action movie combat. For example, the fight in the Mines of Moria in the Fellowship movie (theatrical version). Sure, it's not perfect turns, but the elf goes first, then the ranger, then Sam (of all people), and the dwarf goes last...the action cuts from one character to another in the same general order until the combat is over. I know this is not particularly important to the discussion - but it amused the hell out of me.

This 'Fortune in the Middle' (why name it that?) thing you speak of...seems quite old fashioned. Rolling on hit location tables enforce this kind of behavior on the GM (description post roll - it is not implicitly specified by the system, but the end result is the same).

Andrew Martin wrote:

M. J. Young wrote: (and all ties mean both sides failed)

Note that some settings (Samurai Japan) may require that ties mean that both sides succeeded! And so produce a "mutual kill", where both sides succeed and die. :)

Walt a.k.a. wfrietag wrote: I've considered a resolution system for opposed actions such as combat that's the opposite approach to making opposed rolls for combat and considering initiative retroatively as part of the outcome. Consider it an all-initiative system. That's right, lots of initiative rolls and no success rolls.

Mike Holmes wrote: In how many books that you've read does the author bounce back and forth between characters on every single action? Somene has probably done it, but the usual method (and one that seems to work well) is to describe one series of action from one main character, and then the same from another, etc. I think the methods you see best used in literature are the ones that one should employ in RPGs. And, as such, the sorts of systems I've described seem to produce exactly that sort of effect, IME.