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

Combat Examples for Clarity

Expand Messages
  • Sean Patrick Fannon
    Since I wrote this for someone to aid them in understanding combat, I thought I d post it to my Campaign Group and then share it here. Combat Examples for
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 10, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Since I wrote this for someone to aid them in understanding combat, I thought I'd post it to my Campaign Group and then share it here.


      Hope it's helpful!


      Sean Patrick Fannon
      Creator, Shaintar, Epic High Fantasy for Savage Worlds
      Author, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible
      Marketing & Communications Manager, DriveThruRPG/RPGNow

    • Soylent Green
      On the same theme I posted on a roleplayihg forum a couple of sample fights. I don t vouch for their accuracy but I think I spelt out the steps in a lot of
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 10, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On the same theme I posted on a roleplayihg forum a couple of sample fights. I don't vouch for their accuracy but I think I spelt out the steps in a lot of detail.

        http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17287&page=6

        As for Sean's example, I am a little puzzled about how you worked out the Stun test.

        I may have got this wrong, but the way I read it, if it's PC hitting NPC, there is no roll to necessary to test for Slam/Stun, you simply compare the damage of the PC and the static Strength of the NPC.
        If it is NPC hitting a PC, the you compare the damage of the NPC and roll the PC's Strength.

        Anyway, that's the way I understood it. Happy to be corrected.


        To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
        From: seanpatfan@...
        Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:54:19 +0000
        Subject: [icons-rpg] Combat Examples for Clarity

         

        Since I wrote this for someone to aid them in understanding combat, I thought I'd post it to my Campaign Group and then share it here.


        Hope it's helpful!


        Sean Patrick Fannon
        Creator, Shaintar, Epic High Fantasy for Savage Worlds
        Author, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible
        Marketing & Communications Manager, DriveThruRPG/ RPGNow


      • Mike Olson
        As per Steve Kenson, you make a second roll. It s just not worded all that clearly. Treat the PC s (second) roll as the difficulty, then compare the NPC s
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 10, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          As per Steve Kenson, you make a second roll. It's just not worded all that clearly.

          Treat the PC's (second) roll as the difficulty, then compare the NPC's Strength to it to determine stun, slam, etc.

          --Mike


          On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Soylent Green <gsoylent@...> wrote:


          On the same theme I posted on a roleplayihg forum a couple of sample fights. I don't vouch for their accuracy but I think I spelt out the steps in a lot of detail.

          http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17287&page=6

          As for Sean's example, I am a little puzzled about how you worked out the Stun test.

          I may have got this wrong, but the way I read it, if it's PC hitting NPC, there is no roll to necessary to test for Slam/Stun, you simply compare the damage of the PC and the static Strength of the NPC.
          If it is NPC hitting a PC, the you compare the damage of the NPC and roll the PC's Strength.

          Anyway, that's the way I understood it. Happy to be corrected.


          To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
          From: seanpatfan@...
          Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:54:19 +0000
          Subject: [icons-rpg] Combat Examples for Clarity

           

          Since I wrote this for someone to aid them in understanding combat, I thought I'd post it to my Campaign Group and then share it here.


          Hope it's helpful!


          Sean Patrick Fannon
          Creator, Shaintar, Epic High Fantasy for Savage Worlds
          Author, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible
          Marketing & Communications Manager, DriveThruRPG/RPGNow





        • Soylent Green
          I see. Thanks for the clarification. To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com From: devlin1@gmail.com Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:02:12 -0700 Subject: Re: [icons-rpg]
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 10, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            I see. Thanks for the clarification.


            To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
            From: devlin1@...
            Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:02:12 -0700
            Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Combat Examples for Clarity

             
            As per Steve Kenson, you make a second roll. It's just not worded all that clearly.

            Treat the PC's (second) roll as the difficulty, then compare the NPC's Strength to it to determine stun, slam, etc.

            --Mike



            On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Soylent Green <gsoylent@hotmail. com> wrote:


            On the same theme I posted on a roleplayihg forum a couple of sample fights. I don't vouch for their accuracy but I think I spelt out the steps in a lot of detail.

            http://www.therpgsi te.com/showthrea d.php?t=17287&page=6

            As for Sean's example, I am a little puzzled about how you worked out the Stun test.

            I may have got this wrong, but the way I read it, if it's PC hitting NPC, there is no roll to necessary to test for Slam/Stun, you simply compare the damage of the PC and the static Strength of the NPC.
            If it is NPC hitting a PC, the you compare the damage of the NPC and roll the PC's Strength.

            Anyway, that's the way I understood it. Happy to be corrected.


            To: icons-rpg@yahoogrou ps.com
            From: seanpatfan@gmail. com
            Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:54:19 +0000
            Subject: [icons-rpg] Combat Examples for Clarity

             

            Since I wrote this for someone to aid them in understanding combat, I thought I'd post it to my Campaign Group and then share it here.


            Hope it's helpful!


            Sean Patrick Fannon
            Creator, Shaintar, Epic High Fantasy for Savage Worlds
            Author, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible
            Marketing & Communications Manager, DriveThruRPG/ RPGNow






          • eric troup
            Well, apart from my complete disagreement with you about the necessity of initiative, it s a great example. It even made me realize I ve been forgetting to
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 11, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Well, apart from my complete disagreement with you about the necessity of initiative, it's a great example.  It even made me realize I've been forgetting to have players roll when testing to see if they were able to slam or stun a villain (or was it whether the villain was able to slam or stun them? Either way, I know I was forgetting to roll for one of them...)  So thanks for that.


              On 10 Aug 2010, at 12:54, Sean Patrick Fannon wrote:

               

              Since I wrote this for someone to aid them in understanding combat, I thought I'd post it to my Campaign Group and then share it here.


              Hope it's helpful!


              Sean Patrick Fannon
              Creator, Shaintar, Epic High Fantasy for Savage Worlds
              Author, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible
              Marketing & Communications Manager, DriveThruRPG/ RPGNow



            • eric troup
              Okay, maybe I *was* doing it right. LOL That s what I was referring to in my previous post, at any rate. At least I can live knowing if I was inerror,
              Message 6 of 13 , Aug 11, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Okay, maybe I *was* doing it right.  LOL  That's what I was referring to in my previous post, at any rate.

                At least I can live knowing if I was inerror, someone else was in error with me. LOL


                On 10 Aug 2010, at 14:55, Soylent Green wrote:

                 

                On the same theme I posted on a roleplayihg forum a couple of sample fights. I don't vouch for their accuracy but I think I spelt out the steps in a lot of detail.

                http://www.therpgsi te.com/showthrea d.php?t=17287&page=6

                As for Sean's example, I am a little puzzled about how you worked out the Stun test.

                I may have got this wrong, but the way I read it, if it's PC hitting NPC, there is no roll to necessary to test for Slam/Stun, you simply compare the damage of the PC and the static Strength of the NPC.
                If it is NPC hitting a PC, the you compare the damage of the NPC and roll the PC's Strength.

                Anyway, that's the way I understood it. Happy to be corrected.


                To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
                From: seanpatfan@gmail. com
                Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:54:19 +0000
                Subject: [icons-rpg] Combat Examples for Clarity

                 

                Since I wrote this for someone to aid them in understanding combat, I thought I'd post it to my Campaign Group and then share it here.


                Hope it's helpful!


                Sean Patrick Fannon
                Creator, Shaintar, Epic High Fantasy for Savage Worlds
                Author, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible
                Marketing & Communications Manager, DriveThruRPG/ RPGNow




              • eric troup
                Okay, so I *was* doing it wrong. Ah well, live and learn. Another point to the book-needs-more-examples crowd.
                Message 7 of 13 , Aug 11, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Okay, so I *was* doing it wrong.  Ah well, live and learn.

                  Another point to the "book-needs-more-examples" crowd.


                  On 10 Aug 2010, at 15:39, Soylent Green wrote:

                   

                  I see. Thanks for the clarification.


                  To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
                  From: devlin1@gmail. com
                  Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:02:12 -0700
                  Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Combat Examples for Clarity

                   
                  As per Steve Kenson, you make a second roll. It's just not worded all that clearly.

                  Treat the PC's (second) roll as the difficulty, then compare the NPC's Strength to it to determine stun, slam, etc.

                  --Mike



                  On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Soylent Green <gsoylent@hotmail. com> wrote:


                  On the same theme I posted on a roleplayihg forum a couple of sample fights. I don't vouch for their accuracy but I think I spelt out the steps in a lot of detail.

                  http://www.therpgsi te.com/showthrea d.php?t=17287&page=6

                  As for Sean's example, I am a little puzzled about how you worked out the Stun test.

                  I may have got this wrong, but the way I read it, if it's PC hitting NPC, there is no roll to necessary to test for Slam/Stun, you simply compare the damage of the PC and the static Strength of the NPC.
                  If it is NPC hitting a PC, the you compare the damage of the NPC and roll the PC's Strength.

                  Anyway, that's the way I understood it. Happy to be corrected.


                  To: icons-rpg@yahoogrou ps.com
                  From: seanpatfan@gmail. com
                  Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:54:19 +0000
                  Subject: [icons-rpg] Combat Examples for Clarity

                   

                  Since I wrote this for someone to aid them in understanding combat, I thought I'd post it to my Campaign Group and then share it here.


                  Hope it's helpful!


                  Sean Patrick Fannon
                  Creator, Shaintar, Epic High Fantasy for Savage Worlds
                  Author, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible
                  Marketing & Communications Manager, DriveThruRPG/ RPGNow








                • Sean Patrick Fannon
                  ... I appreciate the compliment, but I am curious about your complete disagreement. How do you handle who goes first, etc. on a page? Apart from arbitrary
                  Message 8 of 13 , Aug 12, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com, eric troup <yakkoman@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Well, apart from my complete disagreement with you about the necessity of initiative, it's a great example.


                    I appreciate the compliment, but I am curious about your "complete disagreement."

                    How do you handle who goes first, etc. on a "page?" Apart from arbitrary decisions on my part, none of us could get a handle on it.

                    Sean Patrick Fannon
                    Creator, Shaintar, Epic High Fantasy for Savage Worlds
                    Author, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible
                    Marketing & Communications Manager, DriveThruRPG/RPGNow
                  • eric troup
                    Well, that s just it. From what I ve read and heard from you either in the RPGNow newsletters or in podcast appearances such as The Game s The THing, you
                    Message 9 of 13 , Aug 12, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Well, that's just it.  From what I've read and heard from you either in the RPGNow newsletters or in podcast appearances such as "The Game's The THing," you and I have very different GMing/playing styles.  Not knocking yours at all; it's just not mine.  You seem much more tactically oriented than me.  I prefer in-head play to tracking things on a battle mat with minis, for instance.  And this difference raises its head in the area of initiative as well.  When I've run Icons, I just used story context or yes, arbitrariness on my part to determine who went when in a round.  In a case where it might matter who went when, I just compared Agility ranks and went from there, but we found that it usually didn't matter much who went when, or story context would indicate who went first in the first round and I just stuck with that in subsequent rounds.

                      If I may veer from topic for just a moment, I have a more concrete reason than most probably do for not liking to use minis in play: Since I'm totally blind, using minis would involve figuring out some way to make the maps tactile as *well* as tactical, so it's more of a challenge than just finding time or space to doodle out something on a battle mat.  Having said that, the other reasons people probably give for not liking minis also apply to non-detail-oriented, non-tactical-thinking me ... but the blindness just adds an additional layer.  Only reason I bring it up is, I always thought if I had a chance to chat with you, it'd be a very interesting topic to discuss, given our different approaches.  So I couldn't resist.  It may be a discussion better done through private email or a different venue, since Icons isn't really a minis-centric game.

                      Whew ... Much longer post than I intended.  Okay, done now.


                      On 12 Aug 2010, at 08:09, Sean Patrick Fannon wrote:

                       

                      --- In icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com, eric troup <yakkoman@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Well, apart from my complete disagreement with you about the necessity of initiative, it's a great example.

                      I appreciate the compliment, but I am curious about your "complete disagreement."

                      How do you handle who goes first, etc. on a "page?" Apart from arbitrary decisions on my part, none of us could get a handle on it.

                      Sean Patrick Fannon
                      Creator, Shaintar, Epic High Fantasy for Savage Worlds
                      Author, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible
                      Marketing & Communications Manager, DriveThruRPG/RPGNow


                    • robert fv
                      This discussion takes me back once again to Marvel SAGA. That game had an initiative order but, like Icons, the action all occurred simultaneously. So while
                      Message 10 of 13 , Aug 13, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        This discussion takes me back once again to Marvel SAGA. That game had an initiative order but, like Icons, the action all occurred simultaneously. So while there was a discrete order in which actions were declared around the table, the results all transpired at the same time.

                        Simultaneous action is a very different mindset from initiative-based systems. In a true initiative-based system, like D&D, it's very possible that the characters acting at the end of the round may never get an action. But in a simultaneous-action system like these two, everyone gets to act, it all happens at the same time, then at the end of the round (or page), the dust settles and some people fall down.

                        Once my group got used to simultaneous actions, we loved it because it seemed more natural. But it IS a different way of thinking if you're not used to it. In the end, it doesn't really matter. Do what works for you and your group. If you need initiative, base it on Coordination. Have everyone modify it with a standard trait roll (d6-d6) and go with it.

                        Robert



                        From: eric troup <yakkoman@...>
                        To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 11:33:07 PM
                        Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Initiative or No (was Combat Examples for Clarity)

                         

                        Well, that's just it.  From what I've read and heard from you either in the RPGNow newsletters or in podcast appearances such as "The Game's The THing," you and I have very different GMing/playing styles.  Not knocking yours at all; it's just not mine.  You seem much more tactically oriented than me.  I prefer in-head play to tracking things on a battle mat with minis, for instance.  And this difference raises its head in the area of initiative as well.  When I've run Icons, I just used story context or yes, arbitrariness on my part to determine who went when in a round.  In a case where it might matter who went when, I just compared Agility ranks and went from there, but we found that it usually didn't matter much who went when, or story context would indicate who went first in the first round and I just stuck with that in subsequent rounds.


                        If I may veer from topic for just a moment, I have a more concrete reason than most probably do for not liking to use minis in play: Since I'm totally blind, using minis would involve figuring out some way to make the maps tactile as *well* as tactical, so it's more of a challenge than just finding time or space to doodle out something on a battle mat.  Having said that, the other reasons people probably give for not liking minis also apply to non-detail-oriented, non-tactical-thinking me ... but the blindness just adds an additional layer.  Only reason I bring it up is, I always thought if I had a chance to chat with you, it'd be a very interesting topic to discuss, given our different approaches.  So I couldn't resist.  It may be a discussion better done through private email or a different venue, since Icons isn't really a minis-centric game.

                        Whew ... Much longer post than I intended.  Okay, done now.


                        On 12 Aug 2010, at 08:09, Sean Patrick Fannon wrote:

                         

                        --- In icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com, eric troup <yakkoman@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Well, apart from my complete disagreement with you about the necessity of initiative, it's a great example.

                        I appreciate the compliment, but I am curious about your "complete disagreement."

                        How do you handle who goes first, etc. on a "page?" Apart from arbitrary decisions on my part, none of us could get a handle on it.

                        Sean Patrick Fannon
                        Creator, Shaintar, Epic High Fantasy for Savage Worlds
                        Author, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible
                        Marketing & Communications Manager, DriveThruRPG/RPGNow



                      • Soylent Green
                        That s interesting. I kind of assumed the game used the term simultaneous in a fairly loose way and that effectively what it meant is that heroes normally
                        Message 11 of 13 , Aug 13, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          That's interesting. I kind of assumed the game used the term "simultaneous" in a fairly loose way and that effectively what it meant is that heroes normally got to first.  I didn't follow through with the stricter (and techincally correct) interpretation of the term "simultaneous" that would imply actions are only resolved after everyone has had their turn. So if Hero A knocks out Villain B on his turn, Villain B still get's his attack in and only actually goes down at the end of the round. 
                           
                          Systems that explicitly go for simulnateous combat (like Tunnels & Trolls and some FUDGE variants)  tend to work differently, along the lines of Hero A and Villain B both roll their attacks, the one the rolls better scores the hit.
                           

                          To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
                          From: robtfv@...
                          Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:19:30 -0700
                          Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Initiative or No (was Combat Examples for Clarity)

                           
                          This discussion takes me back once again to Marvel SAGA. That game had an initiative order but, like Icons, the action all occurred simultaneously. So while there was a discrete order in which actions were declared around the table, the results all transpired at the same time.

                          Simultaneous action is a very different mindset from initiative-based systems. In a true initiative-based system, like D&D, it's very possible that the characters acting at the end of the round may never get an action. But in a simultaneous-action system like these two, everyone gets to act, it all happens at the same time, then at the end of the round (or page), the dust settles and some people fall down.

                          Once my group got used to simultaneous actions, we loved it because it seemed more natural. But it IS a different way of thinking if you're not used to it. In the end, it doesn't really matter. Do what works for you and your group. If you need initiative, base it on Coordination. Have everyone modify it with a standard trait roll (d6-d6) and go with it.

                          Robert



                          From: eric troup <yakkoman@...>
                          To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 11:33:07 PM
                          Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Initiative or No (was Combat Examples for Clarity)

                           

                          Well, that's just it.  From what I've read and heard from you either in the RPGNow newsletters or in podcast appearances such as "The Game's The THing," you and I have very different GMing/playing styles.  Not knocking yours at all; it's just not mine.  You seem much more tactically oriented than me.  I prefer in-head play to tracking things on a battle mat with minis, for instance.  And this difference raises its head in the area of initiative as well.  When I've run Icons, I just used story context or yes, arbitrariness on my part to determine who went when in a round.  In a case where it might matter who went when, I just compared Agility ranks and went from there, but we found that it usually didn't matter much who went when, or story context would indicate who went first in the first round and I just stuck with that in subsequent rounds.


                          If I may veer from topic for just a moment, I have a more concrete reason than most probably do for not liking to use minis in play: Since I'm totally blind, using minis would involve figuring out some way to make the maps tactile as *well* as tactical, so it's more of a challenge than just finding time or space to doodle out something on a battle mat.  Having said that, the other reasons people probably give for not liking minis also apply to non-detail-oriented, non-tactical-thinking me ... but the blindness just adds an additional layer.  Only reason I bring it up is, I always thought if I had a chance to chat with you, it'd be a very interesting topic to discuss, given our different approaches.  So I couldn't resist.  It may be a discussion better done through private email or a different venue, since Icons isn't really a minis-centric game.

                          Whew ... Much longer post than I intended.  Okay, done now.


                          On 12 Aug 2010, at 08:09, Sean Patrick Fannon wrote:

                           
                          --- In icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com, eric troup <yakkoman@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Well, apart from my complete disagreement with you about the necessity of initiative, it's a great example.

                          I appreciate the compliment, but I am curious about your "complete disagreement."

                          How do you handle who goes first, etc. on a "page?" Apart from arbitrary decisions on my part, none of us could get a handle on it.

                          Sean Patrick Fannon
                          Creator, Shaintar, Epic High Fantasy for Savage Worlds
                          Author, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible
                          Marketing & Communications Manager, DriveThruRPG/RPGNow





                        • Sean Patrick Fannon
                          ... in the RPGNow newsletters or in podcast appearances such as The Game s The THing, you and I have very different GMing/playing styles. Fair enough. I
                          Message 12 of 13 , Aug 13, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com, eric troup <yakkoman@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Well, that's just it. From what I've read and heard from you either in the RPGNow newsletters or in podcast appearances such as "The Game's The THing," you and I have very different GMing/playing styles. 

                            Fair enough. I guess I am really still quite "Old School" when it comes to the process of play.

                            Also, I love toys!

                            Also-also - all of my players seem to really enjoy my style, and there is an appreciation of a format that, for them, is easy to make sense out of.

                            > If I may veer from topic for just a moment, I have a more concrete reason than most probably do for not liking to use minis in play: Since I'm totally blind, using minis would involve figuring out some way to make the maps tactile as *well* as tactical, so it's more of a challenge than just finding time or space to doodle out something on a battle mat. 

                            Wow. That is one hell of an explanation for preferring your style of play. I really can't come up with any kind of counter; go you!

                            >Having said that, the other reasons people probably give for not liking minis also apply to non-detail-oriented, non-tactical-thinking me ... but the blindness just adds an additional layer. Only reason I bring it up is, I always thought if I had a chance to chat with you, it'd be a very interesting topic to discuss, given our different approaches. So I couldn't resist. It may be a discussion better done through private email or a different venue, since Icons isn't really a minis-centric game.

                            I am quite certain that would be a heckuva chat. Though I don't understand why most people don't like minis (those that can see, anyway), I recognize that the style of the GM and the chemistry of the players is all that really matters.

                            In other words, if they're having fun, they're doing it right.

                            Sean Patrick Fannon
                            Creator, Shaintar, Epic High Fantasy for Savage Worlds
                            Author, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible
                            Marketing & Communications Manager, DriveThruRPG/RPGNow

                          • Sean Patrick Fannon
                            ... simultaneous in a fairly loose way and that effectively what it meant is that heroes normally got to first. I didn t follow through with the stricter
                            Message 13 of 13 , Aug 13, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com, Soylent Green <gsoylent@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > That's interesting. I kind of assumed the game used the term "simultaneous" in a fairly loose way and that effectively what it meant is that heroes normally got to first. I didn't follow through with the stricter (and techincally correct) interpretation of the term "simultaneous" that would imply actions are only resolved after everyone has had their turn. So if Hero A knocks out Villain B on his turn, Villain B still get's his attack in and only actually goes down at the end of the round.
                              >

                              I saw it that way, too, and it just didn't work for us. The big this was "I go before he does, and I got him first. Why does he get to hit me, too?" The gunfight analogy, if you will (setting aside for the moment that both often get the shot off, and recognizing the guy who gets hit first is very likely to miss...).

                              >
                              > Systems that explicitly go for simulnateous combat (like Tunnels & Trolls and some FUDGE variants) tend to work differently, along the lines of Hero A and Villain B both roll their attacks, the one the rolls better scores the hit. 

                              This would work better, yeah, but it falls apart in the mass melee of a super-fight, at least for me.


                              > To: icons-rpg@yahoogroups.com
                              > From: robtfv@...
                              > Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 06:19:30 -0700
                              > Subject: Re: [icons-rpg] Initiative or No (was Combat Examples for Clarity)
                               
                              ... Simultaneous action is a very different mindset from initiative-based systems. In a true initiative-based system, like D&D, it's very possible that the characters acting at the end of the round may never get an action. But in a simultaneous-action system like these two, everyone gets to act, it all happens at the same time, then at the end of the round (or page), the dust settles and some people fall down.
                               
                              And I just can't get my head around it, and neither can any of my players as far as I can tell. Well, Carinn says she can get her head around it, but she just doesn't like it (Carinn = my S.O.).

                              > Once my group got used to simultaneous actions, we loved it because it seemed more natural. But it IS a different way of thinking if you're not used to it. In the end, it doesn't really matter. Do what works for you and your group. If you need initiative, base it on Coordination. Have everyone modify it with a standard trait roll (d6-d6) and go with it.

                              Well, as you know, I came up with an Initiative System in my house rules (in the file section and elsewhere).

                              "We loved it..." OK, help me understand how it actually works. What is the process? Who rolls when, and how does it all get resolved ere you indicate the results?

                              Seems like there'd be a real bog-down at the end of each page as the GM tries to work out all of the accumulated action results....

                              Sean Patrick Fannon
                              Creator, Shaintar, Epic High Fantasy for Savage Worlds
                              Author, The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible
                              Marketing & Communications Manager, DriveThruRPG/RPGNow

                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.