Topic: Clock-wise Initiative

[janpmueller]

Sam,

I like the idea. I liked the card thingie (we're still using that), and I like this, too. Although the card thing is better...

I like it for the following reason: Initiative is very arbitrary. The discussion above is a good example of how nobody is sure what it means. First to act? First to understand? Simply first to resolve and everything happens at the same time?
And if we don't know what exactly it is, why are we so intent that, really, the player with 2 of their stats very high should definitely be rewarded.

In the end, it's a question of taste. I really dig simplicity and don't like to use many rules anyway. Init modifiers for this and that... pf. As if GMing isn't hard enough already . I'm in favor of dumping a lot of stuff. People with high Qu are rewarded enough by good stat bonuses in combat skills, so they can simply wait their turn (with any of the proposed methods). If there is a situation where it really matters, players can roll on their insight or quickness.

Of course, in a group where these things are handled more efficiently (and quickly) than in my groups, the existing system is way more detailled, and there are less disadvantages outweighing the pros than when I GM - "Sorry, what was your init? Didn't you stumble last round? Is that a modifier? I'll look it up."

I'll still stick with the card version, though. I love how it adds a little minigame - and all my players find the extra fun in that outweighs the lost detailledness.

[providence13]

My ONLY gripe is that this supports Player knowledge, and leaves Combat Perception out to dry...  It's a good idea though. 

Karizma, we don't have many problems with player knowledge. Occasionally one slips by (only a game) , but most of the time if called on it, they'll drop it.


You find ONE (1) IDEA POINT(S) under the battered, burned remains of your enemy!
That made my day! It appears that you too have spent many hours bathed in the green glow of Ascii text adventures...

RandalThor,
Combat Perception.... Looks like this is a popular init bonus.?? I've never read it as such...
I do often suffer from the principal of "Heisenburg rule awareness" which states: As soon as you actually look up a rule, you find out that it doesn't work the way you've always played!
Hhhmmmm.. Looks like you get a % activity for Surprise/Ambush(?) by the amount over your roll. Or you could monitor the baby in the next room, Know where the Blinking slimy mutated rodent-sheep cannibal hybrids will appear next, Notice the effects of a crit on an enemy (yeah, who doesn't read 'em out loud?)....(I'll try not to and see how that works.)
Fail: Act in Deliberate.
Near/Partial: Act in Normal Phase.
Success: Act in any Phase-not surprised.
I don't read init bonus. Aren't there enough of those already?

Although init then intent does give an idea of what might happen, it doesn't (IMO) cover what Sit/Aware-Combat covers.
'Course, this could be different in other versions of RM.

[Right Wing Wacko]

As a small de-rail...
Some feel that PC's rarely win initiative against monsters, and I have found it all too true.
One could further randomize the roll, allowing PC's a greater chance of winning by rolling 3d10 or even 2d12 or 3d6...

Anyway... food for thought...

[Right Wing Wacko]

Samwise,
 I know a game that is very rules lite and is easy to modify, tweak, add to, subtract from, and house rule. It is not a fantasy RPG, but rather a Sci-Fi one, and rather old to boot! All the rules and a number of modules are free to download. Please e-mail me for the specifics.

[RandalThor]

Here's the way I look at it:

Initiative is the speed at which you can act. Reaction or combat reflexes could be substitute terms (though combat reflexes would seem to indicate there needs to be other reflexes...).

Combat Perception (Sit Aware: Combat) is how well you read the combat situation. Just as Providence13 mentioned this could be noticing "where the Blinking slimy mutated rodent-sheep cannibal hybrids will appear next, Notice the effects of a crit on an enemy" and other things not necessarily related to combat, but as you are in combat...... you need to roll.

How they work together really is determined by how long the combat round is. Is it 2 seconds were you barely have time to just respond to being attacked, or is it 6 seconds were you can actually take some time to think about what is going on and how to deal with it.

With the short round I would just go by initiative and use combat perception for very quick/immediate situations (like do you see a kobold sneaking up while you are engaged with the other one, etc).

The long round is better suited to more tactical combat rounds where how well you read the situation can really affect it.

[providence13]

Hey people, this is a related but slightly tangential reference; dug up an oldie but goodie.
http://neuro.bcm.edu/eagleman/

Time perception studies...Volunteers equipped with watches displaying numbers faster than you can see....
Then they bungeed off a bridge backwards and were able to see the numbers while falling.
Interesting defense mechanism...

Combat could speed up your mental clockspeed giving a perception of slowing time; ergo, more opportunity to plan that attack, or just pay attention to what that halfling is really doing!

This could help my Whackamole game.

[jolt]

Initiative is very arbitrary.

Wow.  I couldn't disagree more.

The discussion above is a good example of how nobody is sure what it means. First to act? First to understand? Simply first to resolve and everything happens at the same time?

We all know the definition; we're discussing implementation.  Sorry to sound rude but from the posts made so far it seems to me that this is quite obvious.

...why are we so intent that, really, the player with 2 of their stats very high should definitely be rewarded?

Because the impact of initiative on gameplay is enormous.  I'm assuming that this question was in jest; or are you actually asking why a character should be rewarded for high stats?

If there is a situation where it really matters, players can roll on their insight or quickness.

So, basically, an initiative system.    If there's a situation where it matters?  You and I must be playing two different games.

Of course, in a group where these things are handled more efficiently (and quickly) than in my groups, the existing system is way more detailled, and there are less disadvantages outweighing the pros than when I GM - "Sorry, what was your init? Didn't you stumble last round? Is that a modifier? I'll look it up."

Is that really an issue with your group?  Initiative numers are nowhere near the most complicated aspect of a game.  I'd lose interest in a GM pretty fast if he couldn't keep track of initiative numbers - which almost certainly means there are other things he has trouble keeping track of as well.

I don't see a benefit, even one of simplicity, between making initative based on numbers that you already have written down versus numbers that are completely random and arbitrary.  Why should someone get to go first on a high roll that has no logical in-game meaning?  Arbitrary random initiative is still initiative; it just makes less sense.  If I want to play a quick-thinking fast on his feet Thief I have to roll well every round?  Blech.

If you really want simplicity and no initiative then have everyone peform their actions but apply the results simultaneously (this makes no real sense to me either but it is simple, removes bookkeeping, and no one has to worry about who's going when).

Sorry Sam, I usually enjoy your ideas but not this one.  Why exactly would anyone want to remove the fast acting character concept from any game?  Not only do I not like the rule but I don't see any meaning to it.  I know you're an intelligent guy, I just don't get what your goal is here and if you're already playing HARP or RM I have trouble believing that Initiative is a big stumbling block for you   

jolt

[SamwiseSeven]

I think I have an alright intelligence, hehe, thanks for the compliment.

I agree that my card initiative idea was better (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=6633.0) this one kind of stinks. 

Thanks for pointing that out.  I'm bound for a stinker every now and again.  hehe. 


Now, as far as Initiative not being tied to stats, I understand why people like to have a quicker character than everyone else based on stats.  I'm not saying that that opinion is wrong, I'm only saying that some of us really don't care about that.  It's a game, and everyone having an even chance at going first seems like a good idea as well to me.  I can see both camps of thought.  I would say that initiative based on stats is the norm, and my ideas are not normal. 

I've noticed in games where I used my card initiative system every round, that people were excited about what card they were going to get each time.  Since it was entirely left up to luck, it was faster as there was no math, you could look on the table to see who was next by the card in front of them, and everyone had the same chance of going first.  I know this might not make "sense" if your character is supposed to be quicker, but characters would be made knowing that the initiative system is in place (aka ripping all the initiative guts out of the system and replacing them with cards).

When I run a campaign, I publish my house rules and pass them out.  They normally say something like, "I'm using HARP, but here are my house rules so that you know what is going on."

If people are forewarned about everything you are doing different, there is no complaint later when you actually use the rules you gave them a print-out of.

Sure, there are people that seem to be statistical anomalies and mostly pull a low card, but they are the same people that normally roll low as well, hehe.  I have a friend that will only play diceless role-playing games such as Nobilis because of this.    

So this clock-wise initiative idea sucks, and I will try to do better next time.

If you like initiative as in the standard rulebook that's fine, I won't fart in your general direction, but I like mine random and not tied to stats.

[Thos]

Well said, Samwise. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and it is the sharing of opinions and ideas that make this forum so useful. Good idea, bad idea... doesn't matter to me. As long as everyone keeps the creativity flowing, that's bound to contribute to a positive outcome in the end.

[RandalThor]

Combat could speed up your mental clockspeed giving a perception of slowing time; ergo, more opportunity to plan that attack, or just pay attention to what that halfling is really doing!

I have experienced this four times: Twice for hand-to-hand combat, and twice in car accidents. It is weird to say the least. Those incidents are why I have decided for RPGs that individual combat rounds should be short (a couple of seconds), but maybe there can be an overall combat turn that has numerous rounds within it - sorta like Hero's turn sequence. Something to work on I guess.

[jolt]

Sam: have you ever considered simultaneous actions?  I'ts not uncommon in a fight to have two people (or whatever) make an attack at the same time.  It would eliminate the need to keep track of initiative altogether but at the same time it would force people to focus on defense since you know you're going to be sucking an attack.

jolt

[jasonbrisbane]

We have to remember that in HARP the rounds are 2 seconds long - not enough time to react to other people actions and change our own.

This is why we allow a Combat Perception in mid combat, or a full round perception (2 seconds) to notice something.

We (in our games) ALWAYS have the argument about why cant I see this, he's right next to me, and then point out that its only 2 seconds and you've got four guys and if you want to stop doing anything for the round then sure you can see it and act on that info next round....

And sensabilities win out...

In combat everything "Appears" to happen at once.

Its the resolution that we are concerned with in a RPG to enable everyone to act and acheive something... How you do this is really up to you - after all its YOUR game, this is just a Game system to suggest a method of resolution to you....

Run with it, change it, twist it, bend it, snap it in two, shatter-the-rules,-mix-with-water-and-wine-and-blend-until-smooth, its all yours to do with as you want...

Remember guys (and gals - sorry!), its just a game and were here to have fun!

[SamwiseSeven]

I think simultaneous actions would be a little too chaotic, but perhaps this would be an idea:

Everyone writes down their action for the round. 

Then the GM says to turn over your cards (where your actions are written).

Everything listed on the cards happens instantaneously.

The GM will have to help adjust some actions to make combat work smoothly.

Flipping all of the cards over at the same time sounds fun as well.

I don't think I'd use it in my games, as it seems to chaotic, but someone might like it.

[providence13]

If you want chaotic, try a Twister Spinner.

Just replace "Right Hand Blue" with init points, % activity.........or actions

It's my turn, FLICK. Begin casting.
Next, FLICK. Make an attack.
Last, FLICK,WHIIRRLLL. Perform a maneuver...

Wonder if I still have my Boggle "pop" die roller....

[Right Wing Wacko]

You know, I have some blank d6's I have yet to figure out a use for. What do I write on them?
Maybe, Samwise, you could come up with an initiative use for them? I am not that mechanically creative, but I think you are...

[Maelstrom]

You know, I have some blank d6's I have yet to figure out a use for. What do I write on them?

For the truly chaotic NPC - come up with 6 different actions.  Speak, attack, move, do nothing, etc.

Each period of time (round in combat) roll the die and see what happens.   

[SamwiseSeven]

Making up 6 different symbols for 6 different actions might be cool.  You could also make each dice different, so that if you had 6 different dice, you could pull one of them out of a bag randomly and then roll it, for a completely random 36 actions (if you had 6 dice).

"And the NPC... (clatter clatter)... "Runs away."

Not really initiative based, but it would help with making the NPCs act out their parts. 

Actually, something like that would work really well for Solo-Adventures or solitaire games.

[SamwiseSeven]

I think I remember someone showing me a GM Emulator book once, that anyone that would be interested in solitaire play might be interested in.  I don't know the name of it off hand, but for me I like playing with real people.  I like the social aspect of RPGs.

[jasonbrisbane]

I think simultaneous actions would be a little too chaotic, but perhaps this would be an idea:

Everyone writes down their action for the round. 

Then the GM says to turn over your cards (where your actions are written).

Everything listed on the cards happens instantaneously.

The GM will have to help adjust some actions to make combat work smoothly.

Flipping all of the cards over at the same time sounds fun as well.

I don't think I'd use it in my games, as it seems to chaotic, but someone might like it.

I like this idea, but it would be impractical for everyone to write down what they were doing every round....
Combat takes long enough already...

[Arioch]

I like this idea, but it would be impractical for everyone to write down what they were doing every round....
Combat takes long enough already...

Why not using HARP combat cards for handling simultaneous action declaration?