Topic: No Declaration Phase?

[arunwe2012]

Hi all,

I am thinking about starting a new campaign in RMF after several years, and while I was re-reading the rules I found out that I don't like declaration phase and I am decided to remove it from play. My current idea is let the players roll for initiative and then let them decide in each phase if they want to act (keeping the limit of % for actions) or if they rather act in a later phase.
Has anyone use this? Is there anything I need to pay special attention to if I use this way to handle actions in a round? Obviously that would eliminate "Cancelling actions" and probably needs some adjust regarding melee attacks (press and melee, react and melee, etc) but I fail to see any other problems.

[Cory Magel]

The biggest issue you could have is this changes how initiative will work.  For example, if someone has a 'better' initiative and decides to attack someone who has not made a declaration, then the defender of that attack has the advantage of choosing how to react to that action.  If that's who they will use their shield on, if they are going to parry or not, etc.  This isn't specific to melee, but to any action where winning the initiative is important and how a foe might be able to react to it.  Now, it goes both ways, so it is not really unbalancing in the long run, but it throws some uncertainty in 'winning' the initiative.

Actually, let me elaborate on that.  We once fought a foe that should have been able to handily defeat us, but because we didn't know the rules quite well enough we employed a tactic that should not have been possible due to the rule of having to declare.  The two fighter types in the group would wait to see who this foe attacked, then full parry, while the other fighter would then make an attack on that foe.  Basically it lets us see who he was going to go after, completely defend and mostly nullify the attack, then let the other fighter go at him.  This is not an unrealistic scenario, but it does change the balance of the fight.

If you are looking to shorten the round, but keep things a little more 'free' you might try the "BattleTech" round.  No phases, all participants take movement from worst initiative to best unless the participant with the better one chooses to go first (so the better initiative can react to a worse one), then all participants take their actions, best initiative to worst (unless the better initiative wants to delay on a worse one).  For snap actions you just give a -20 penalty and a bonus to initiative and for deliberate actions you have a +10 bonus and a penalty to initiative.

[markc]

The only comment I have is that if you are going to "declare" in each phase it might slow combat down a bit as now you have to declare 3 times instead of 1.
MDC

[Hurin]

I've tried it, and I prefer to not have declaration phases as well. If you go to a simple turn sequence, you don't need them, though as Cory noted you do have to give characters the ability to react to enemy actions. I allow players that are being attacked but have not yet attacked to declare parry, and I also allow players that are not engaged but are aware of their attacker to change facing before being attacked.

I posted my own system and thoughts in this thread, in which lots of other posters gave helpful suggestions as well:

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=12469.0

[MariusH]

The declaration phase is my favourite aspect of the RM round! This allows for surprising each other, and having to act without knowing what the others will do. Should I cast a spell or move to a safer spot? If I can wait and see what my opponent does, the decision is easy. If I have to declare it in advance, it's a different issue. Do I make a "full melee" to get a bonus, or should I "press and melee" in case my opponent decides to move away? Maybe I need the flexibility of a "react and melee", although that gives me a penalty?

This also makes communication between team members important. If the fighter is planning to stand and hold the troll "in melee", effectively blockinghis path to me, I can stand my ground and fire my bow. If he instead decides to rush towards the orc, currently fighting our thief, then maybe I should consider getting out of the way from that troll.

And, quite importantly: Should I attack the orc or the troll? Keeping in mind that I may only block against the enemy I attack, that's a rather important decision. Perhaps I have to declare "react and melee", to be able to attack whoever decides to attack ME?

In short, declarations makes the round more semi-simultaneous. Dropping it will give you a more "pure" round-based system, where everything happens sequentially, and everyone can consider other's previous actions before acting themselves. This will often make acting early more of a handicap, since you now have "shown your hand", spent your actions, and those acting later can take advantage of knowing that.

[jdale]

We do all movement first, then all actions. Knowing who you are adjacent to before the actions start removes a lot of issues about sequence and declarations. In order to prevent the full parry/no parry issue Cory mentions, we apply Parry and Shield DB against all attackers to the front (not flanks or rear). This is more generous to the defender than the rules as written, but I think the rules are too hard on defenders who are outnumbered, and since I like to throw fewer more powerful foes at the party, it makes them more of a challenge.

There are no declarations except that if you are attacked before your action, you declare anything that affects your defense at that time (i.e. amount of activity dedicated to your attack, parry amount, instant defensive spells, dodge, etc).

We haven't actually been doing movement in initiative order. Everyone moves at once. Late in the battle there is little movement, so this saves a lot of time going around the room. If there is a conflict, it's resolved by maneuver rolls to see who gets where first. Actions go in initiative order.

[intothatdarkness]

I tend to prefer using some sort of declaration phase, especially with firearms.

[yammahoper]

I find declaration phase essential.  Not only are actions declared, I (the GM) get to summarize on going action and what seems to be happening according to PC's perception.

We roll init, add +10 to snap actions,0tonormaland -10 todeliberate, then count down from 40, with all action above 40 occurring on 40.

[tbigness]

I prefer the declaration due to one may move after an action not just before, which will change the situation for the whole round.

[Hurin]

I prefer the declaration due to one may move after an action not just before, which will change the situation for the whole round.

In my system, you can move before or after an action. There is no necessary connection between doing away with declaration and not being able to move after an action.

[jdale]

I prefer the declaration due to one may move after an action not just before, which will change the situation for the whole round.

In my system you always have the opportunity to move after an action...   just not before other people can act as well. Winning initiative does not mean safety, nor should it.

[Cory Magel]

Even in the 'BattleTech' style round we rule that people can use up any remaining action on movement (subject to the same initiative order).

[HawksNut]

I have played both ways but I prefer to make the players declare their actions for each phase in advance. It allows me (GM) to write all the actions at once rather than take notes as the round is progressing (parries etc.). Also, if you roll a poor initiative and you are the last to go and did not take damage in the Normal Phase, you could say I am going to take my Combat as a deliberate action and get +10.

This was happening in my game so I decided to follow the rules and make everyone declare their actions in advance. Some characters do now deliberately decide to take their melee as a Deliberate action (+10) then happen to roll well and could have gone first as a normal action. Just my thoughts.

[arunwe2012]

Thanks to all for the replies. After speaking to my group and reading all these replies, we have decided to follow the standard rules and declare actions in advance.

[choc]

In our groups we decided to skip declaration phase too.
Surely there are cons, like mentalist spells, advanced situational awareness combat etc. (we reworked the awareness skills too)
But it's much easier for the GM to handle all his npcs and monsters and it's faster after all.
After initiative, your turn, your action including movement and parry. You kinda declare and act.
We didn't find any good replacement for snap or deliberate. Instant spells are cast when you have your action. We parry/block in one direction, normally first attack.
The main problem is parry. It's meant to be, that your parry lasts until your next action. Sometimes that's a problem to integrate in the 'turn' mode.
In the first round you can only parry if you had your turn already, that means slow people can caught flatfooted but with a proper perception initiative starts earlier. We don't have an acceptable rule for interception or delayed action, mostly we use common sense and roleplaying for that.
For the GM it"s easier to deploy the monsters, most of them get a roll who to attack modified by probabilities.

After all I'm happy with it, the fights are less tactical profoundness but we have more fights, especially random or triggered encounters.

I will see how we can imbue the given proposals for snap and deliberate.
Thank you!