Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: NEW: An idea concerning initiative in combat

Expand Messages
  • fraorlando333
    Our take on initiative is card based - and is directly stolen from SavageWorlds. You have a poker deck. At the beginning of a conflict each one draws a card.
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Our take on initiative is card based - and is directly stolen from SavageWorlds.
      You have a poker deck.
      At the beginning of a conflict each one draws a card.
      Groups of minions get one card per group to speed things up.
      A relevant skill -awareness or empathy depending on the type of conflict - give one extra card per step above mediocre. Stunts may give extra cards too.
      If there is a relevant Aspect you can either take another card and keep the higher one or take another set of cards (for a fatepoint).
      A Joker gives +2 to any action in the first round and means you are acting first.
      You take the highest card from your set of cards and act on that one (each one has his card on the table so its clear when everyone gets to act). Card values are ranked in values and color in the standard poker fashion so there are no ties.

      Thats it. Its certainly a matter of taste, but we like it. You dont have to keep a initiative list and there is no rolling when ties happen.

      --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "hkdharmon" <hkdharmon@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi everyone. I am new, and I had an idea.
      >
      > One Roll Inspired Initiative for Fate
      > I like the uncertainty created by the way combat sequencing (AKA initiative) is handled in the One Roll Engine, so I have come up with a way to port it over to Fate.
      >
      > 1. Awareness plus any modifiers (e.g. stunts and powers) is your initiative value.
      > 2. Combatants declare actions in order from lowest Initiative to highest. Caveats such as "Characters with inhuman speed go before characters without it" do not apply in this step. This means that "more aware" characters get the benefit of seeing what everyone one else is doing before they declare. Your declaration does not have to be more specific than "I shoot Bob" or "I intimidate Fred." Details like fate points and tagged aspects can be dealt with in step 3 and 4.
      > 3. Everyone rolls their actions and determine the total steps of their skill roll.
      > 4. Events resolve in order with the highest total first and the lowest last. Benefits such as "Characters with inhuman speed go before characters without it" DO apply in this step.
      > 5. Effects happen immediately. being taken out or consequences occur right away and can be tagged later in the same round by someone else.
      > It would be wise to record the total of a skill roll here as characters will need to save the total of their action while they roll defense rolls. Either with note paper or a second set of dice or something. You all are smart. Figure it out.
      > If you have to change your declaration before your step 4 due to events beyond your control, such as your target being taken out, you get a +2 difficulty on your roll.
      > Discuss.
      >
      > PS thinks like blocks last until the sequence in which they started comes around. So a 3-round Veil that occurred on "5" of round 1 would not fall until "5" of round 4. That way you do not get totally screwed by a bad roll.
      >
    • Bryan
      I finally got to play an ORE game last weekend at Kubla Con. It certainly had a gritty feel to combat. But I missed aspects. Here s what I would do. Your width
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I finally got to play an ORE game last weekend at Kubla Con. It certainly had a gritty feel to combat. But I missed aspects.

        Here's what I would do. Your width (speed) is the number on the dice. Height (effect) is the total including your skill bonus. This allows for a bit of variation between how high you roll and who goes first, which is the neat part about ORE. Of course, your height would still have to exceed the difficulty.

        The game I played had a lot of combat and the hit location chart actually added a lot of important detail to the gore. =) I'd just roll a d10 along with attacks and use the chart from ORE. That makes it very easy to give body parts a stress track. It's a bit of extra work, but if you want to achieve a specific effect, I think it's worth it. The combat was messy. It was different and unpredictable. Pretty good fun.

        Good luck.

        Bryan

        --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "hkdharmon" <hkdharmon@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi everyone. I am new, and I had an idea.
        >
        > One Roll Inspired Initiative for Fate
        > I like the uncertainty created by the way combat sequencing (AKA initiative) is handled in the One Roll Engine, so I have come up with a way to port it over to Fate.
        >
      • Jonathan Gwilliams
        I personally feel that initiative is a dinosaur. Who acts first in a combat round? Does it matter so much when, regardless of who acts *first*, everyone gets
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          I personally feel that initiative is a dinosaur. Who acts first in a combat round?
          Does it matter so much when, regardless of who acts *first*, everyone gets
          the same basic number of actions? Y'see, the root problem with the majority
          of Initiative systems is that they claim to be simulating reaction speed, the
          relative weight of the weapons involved and all that jazz, but really all they
          do is enforce an order of play. Though that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it
          isn't really what Initiative claims to be. Realistically, a faster combatant would
          not just go first in the turn, he'd *get more turns!*

          Not that I'm suggesting he *should* get more turns per se, only that Initiative
          on-the-whole isn't a particularly useful, interesting or accurate mechanic.
          I'm seriously considering dropping it from my games entirely and replacing
          it with a simple go-round-the-table mechanic, NPCs act last. The only conflicts
          in which order of play really becomes important to me is PvP, and I do my
          best to discourage that.

          -Ash
        • Brad Murray
          Any traditional (on your turn you choose an action) turn-based system needs to decide who goes when, and there are usually advantages to some positions in the
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 2, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Any traditional (on your turn you choose an action) turn-based system needs to decide who goes when, and there are usually advantages to some positions in the turn order and disadvantages to others. Initiative solves *that* problem and is only justified as a tool for realism.

            If two of us have conflict-ending actions lined up, it is critically important to decide who goes first and, for the sake of satisfying adjudication as well as having a plausible story to tell, you need a mechanism and a justification for whatever choice is made regarding order.

            I have a way to get around this (don't use trad turn-based methods) but it's not universally suited to FATE.

            On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Jonathan Gwilliams <EldritchDesign@...> wrote:
             

            I personally feel that initiative is a dinosaur. Who acts first in a combat round?
            Does it matter so much when, regardless of who acts *first*, everyone gets
            the same basic number of actions? Y'see, the root problem with the majority
            of Initiative systems is that they claim to be simulating reaction speed, the
            relative weight of the weapons involved and all that jazz, but really all they
            do is enforce an order of play. Though that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it
            isn't really what Initiative claims to be. Realistically, a faster combatant would
            not just go first in the turn, he'd *get more turns!*

            Not that I'm suggesting he *should* get more turns per se, only that Initiative
            on-the-whole isn't a particularly useful, interesting or accurate mechanic.
            I'm seriously considering dropping it from my games entirely and replacing
            it with a simple go-round-the-table mechanic, NPCs act last. The only conflicts
            in which order of play really becomes important to me is PvP, and I do my
            best to discourage that.

            -Ash




            --
            Brad Murray (halfjack)
            VSCA Publishing
          • Jonathan Gwilliams
            Sorry Brad, I just don t see it that way. IF two people have potentially conflict-ending actions AND they both care enough about their version of events to
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 3, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Sorry Brad, I just don't see it that way. IF two people have potentially
              conflict-ending actions AND they both care enough about their version
              of events to want to prevent the other from succeeding, then I'd say it's
              a matter between those two characters. No point having all the other
              initiative rolls made to no good purpose. Further, I really don't think
              initiative *is* realistic, for reasons I already pointed out, so stating it
              as being necessary for realism doesn't wash with me.

              What I prefer is 'Rolling Initiative', not rolling as in rolling dice, but rolling
              as in it carries over from one round to the next, or better still, there are
              no 'rounds' per se, just a countdown. Not sure as I've not played it,
              but I think White Wolf's Scion works like this. Players decide what they
              want to do, and that choice determines how many 'turns' they have to
              wait before they get to do it. People who perform faster actions therefore
              do get more of them than people who perform slower ones. Actions on
              the same turn are considered simultaneous.

              But this is, as in many RPG and game-related matters, a matter of
              personal preference. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, especially
              not if they might be (and I'm not saying you are) traditionalists brought up
              on the idea that Initiative is an irremovable part of combat.

              I just think that the process could be handled better than it is in the
              majority of games.
            • Jan Willms
              It might be possible to port something like Shadowrun s system for Initiative, where turn order is established by a character s Reaction rating plus the amount
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 3, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                It might be possible to port something like Shadowrun's system for
                Initiative, where turn order is established by a character's Reaction
                rating plus the amount of 'hits' rolled on a Reaction-based
                initiative test. Augmented characters (and normals who spend Edge) may
                get up to four Passes, ie, act more then once per turn. It's not
                flawless, but it might work.
              • uteck
                The White Wolf system still has people rolling to see who goes first, then the tick system is used when people do an action. The problem with it is that when
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 3, 2012
                • 0 Attachment

                  The White Wolf system still has people rolling to see who goes first, then the tick system is used when people do an action.
                  The problem with it is that when something grants low speed the system breaks as that person takes over.  Exalted had to add rules limiting how fast you can cut the speed of an action/item since it became a race to speed 1.
                  Also, as combat goes on people tend to clump up and go on the same tick since most actions have the same speed rating, then you are stuck trying to resolve this mass of people who all go at the same time.

                  On Jun 3, 2012 3:35 AM, "Jonathan Gwilliams" <EldritchDesign@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  > Sorry Brad, I just don't see it that way. IF two people have potentially
                  > conflict-ending actions AND they both care enough about their version
                  > of events to want to prevent the other from succeeding, then I'd say it's
                  > a matter between those two characters. No point having all the other
                  > initiative rolls made to no good purpose. Further, I really don't think
                  > initiative *is* realistic, for reasons I already pointed out, so stating it
                  > as being necessary for realism doesn't wash with me.
                  >
                  > What I prefer is 'Rolling Initiative', not rolling as in rolling dice, but rolling
                  > as in it carries over from one round to the next, or better still, there are
                  > no 'rounds' per se, just a countdown. Not sure as I've not played it,
                  > but I think White Wolf's Scion works like this. Players decide what they
                  > want to do, and that choice determines how many 'turns' they have to
                  > wait before they get to do it. People who perform faster actions therefore
                  > do get more of them than people who perform slower ones. Actions on
                  > the same turn are considered simultaneous.
                  >
                  > But this is, as in many RPG and game-related matters, a matter of
                  > personal preference. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, especially
                  > not if they might be (and I'm not saying you are) traditionalists brought up
                  > on the idea that Initiative is an irremovable part of combat.
                  >
                  > I just think that the process could be handled better than it is in the
                  > majority of games.
                  >
                  >

                • xandermathews
                  ... disclaimer: ORE and FATE are my favorite tabletop engines; I ve much more time as GM with ORE than with FATE. ORE s central concept is that height and
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 4, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Here's what I would do. Your width (speed) is the number on
                    > the dice. Height (effect) is the total including your skill bonus.

                    disclaimer: ORE and FATE are my favorite tabletop engines; I've much more time as GM with ORE than with FATE.

                    ORE's central concept is that height and width do not correlate -- sometimes style and grace and hit location (height) are more crucial than speed and sheer damage (width), and each has a different probability curve and reaction to penalties.

                    your mechanic as described has height forever equal to width+static bonuses.

                    If I wanted to extract two different probability curves from a D6-D6 roll... off the top of my head, I'd say the positive die is the height, and the lower absolute die face is the width.

                    this gives me the rectilinear distribution for height and the bottom-heavy width, but I doubt this captures the ORE flavor.



                    > The game I played had a lot of combat and the hit location
                    > chart actually added a lot of important detail to the gore. =)
                    > I'd just roll a d10 along with attacks and use the chart from
                    > ORE. That makes it very easy to give body parts a stress
                    > track.

                    agreed, though if I did use this I'd leave the stress track as is and just use the hit d10 as a factor in consequence creation.



                    re: thread on initiative
                    I got sick of sorting out ORE initiative when applied to every fight; my gang ended up reserving it for dramatic and timing-crucial junctions and otherwise went in GM fiat order.
                  • Danni Coy
                    ... I like it and it occurs to me that this could be played with further by allowing players to hold back cards in order to change their order of initiative to
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jun 9, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment


                      On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM, fraorlando333 <here4rp@...> wrote:
                       

                      Our take on initiative is card based - and is directly stolen from SavageWorlds.
                      You have a poker deck.
                      At the beginning of a conflict each one draws a card.
                      Groups of minions get one card per group to speed things up.
                      A relevant skill -awareness or empathy depending on the type of conflict - give one extra card per step above mediocre. Stunts may give extra cards too.
                      If there is a relevant Aspect you can either take another card and keep the higher one or take another set of cards (for a fatepoint).
                      A Joker gives +2 to any action in the first round and means you are acting first.
                      You take the highest card from your set of cards and act on that one (each one has his card on the table so its clear when everyone gets to act). Card values are ranked in values and color in the standard poker fashion so there are no ties.

                      Thats it. Its certainly a matter of taste, but we like it. You dont have to keep a initiative list and there is no rolling when ties happen.


                      I like it and it occurs to me that this could be played with further by allowing players to hold back cards in order to change their order of initiative to prevent somebody else from performing an action, or even to gain additional actions (possibly you would require a stunt for this). 
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.