Topic: True second by second initiative

[VladD]

Last few weeks I came up and play tested the following initiative system with one of my groups.
I'm sorry it will be a massive post, but I'd like some feedback from veterans, such as the forum people. My players mostly actually like the way the rounds are free form and flowing.
The only weird stuff is where people get to connect bases and then get to resolve the initiative rolls and subsequent attacks and how 2 base connected combatants get to attack only at the 6th interval (second).

True second by second initiative

It is based on the percentages from RM, but it is simplified in some areas with some new mechanics.

First off: the round is divided in 10 one second intervals. During each interval everyone gets to move simultaneously. The amount of movement per point is ((base rate x pace multiplier) / 10). The amount of hexes movement allowed is:

I got this table that divides the movement in hexes evenly on every interval (sec) so the total is the same as the movement allowed per round. Unfortunately the table doesn't convert well on the forum.

If 2 players or enemies try to take the same spot, either one can allow the other to go in, waiting, or do some other action, or there can be an opposed movement maneuver roll; the loser of which is stayed one interval. Trying to enter a hex that is already occupied requires a opposed strength roll, the winner of which may occupy the square, pushing the loser one square back, but this counts as an attack. The one first in the hex gets a +20 to the check, if he sees the pusher coming.

When 2 combattants come within reach of eachother, the one with the longest reach may strike first, or the one with the highest initiative. If one combattant is standing still for that round and has a set to receive charge weapon AND has set it to receive a charge, he will automatically strike first.

Charging is a special maneuver that requires a movement maneuver roll, but allows movement at double rate, adds +10 to OB, -10 to DB. Movement does penalize the attack roll!!!

Parry is performed as part of an attack and reduces OB by making it DB. This does not cost interval time.

Parrying as a stand alone action costs 5 intervals for a full parry, 3 intervals for half parry, 2 intervals for quarter parry.

Withdrawal requires 3 intervals, the last 2 are movement intervals

Spells need to be prepared and cast according to the rules. Spending the intervals can be consecutive, so a caster can spend 9 intervals on preparation and use the remaining one for casting an instant spell, move 1 interval, or use it to start casting, which would reduce the casting time next round from 8 intervals, to 7.

Spells that go off in the same interval will go off in an order that is determined by the initiative rolls.

Action preparation takes as much time as the action, but allows a +20 on initiative for that action (+5 for 2d10 init) and the action can be held until a target appears, or a set condition is fulfilled.

2 combattants that start base to base at the beginning of the round will execute their attacks at interval 6. Highest initiative strikes first.

Press and attack is a special action that allows to follow an opponent trying to withdraw. This reaction makes the attack delay by one (allowing the attack roll in the 7th interval) but in the event of a withdrawal action may follow the opponent for 2 intervals effectively canceling his withdrawal.

Action
Cost
Note

Movement
1 second

One movement interval
Skill
8 seconds

Multi round skills take longer

Parry 100%
5 seconds

Parry 75%
4 seconds

Parry 50%
3 seconds

Parry 25%
2 seconds

Parry 10%
1 second

Attack
6-10 seconds
-10 OB per second less

Double wielding
10 seconds
Second attack on 10th sec

Charge
10 seconds
 Running rate. +10 OB -10 DB.Apply -10 per movement interval used.

Withdrawal
3 seconds
Also move last 2 second

Mounting
5 seconds

Dismount
5 seconds

Rapid dismounting
2 seconds

Control mount charge
2 seconds

Control mount special maneuver
1-10 seconds

Regain control mount
5 seconds

aim and fire bolt or bullet
1-4 seconds
-10 OB per second less

Aim and loose arrow
3-6 seconds
-10 OB per second less

reload shortbow
5 seconds

reload composite bow
6 seconds

reload longbow
7 seconds

reload light xbow
16 seconds

reload heavy xbow
22 seconds

Reload pistol
15 seconds

Reload musket
20 seconds

Reload musket tap
15 seconds
Apply -20

Reload rifle
25 second

Draw weapon
0-2 seconds

Alertness/ orientation
1 second

Rapid observation(-40)
3 seconds

Half observation (-20)
5 seconds

Full observation
7 seconds

Hiding
2 seconds

Stalking
5 seconds

Spell preparation
9 seconds

Spell casting
8 seconds

Instant spell casting
1 second

[gandalf970]

There was one like this is Ceats and I think Tim Dugger did something similar in Guild Companion Archives.  Rolemaster Companion IV also has a system like this, Chapter 3.1.  Good stuff, I used this many moons ago and my team liked it.  We got lazy and went to a simple system of one move action one normal action.

[gandalf970]

Rasyr did some time sheets that I have in Excel if you would like them.  Send me a PM and I could email them to you.

[Cory Magel]

Is there something specific you're having problems with or what feedback on?

We've used CEATs, or rather a modified version of it, and unless you have players that want things kept simpler I prefer second-by-second systems.  Personally I find if your group is not overly easily distracted, they do not really take that much longer.  If you're group is... they can really bog you down.

Relatively easy suggestion to implement: I prefer some randomness thrown in.  It appears with your system an initiative only comes into play if you have opposing actions in the exact same second... which downplays a characters speed at which they take their actions (i.e. Quickness bonus mainly).  You might consider having players roll dice and add or subtract a certain amount based on their quickness stat bonus somehow and have that add or subtract to the time it takes to perform their action.  You probably wouldn't want it to sway more than a few seconds though as even a couple seconds in either direction will have a decent impact on action length differences as a result.

More difficult suggestion to implement: I would try to work weapon speed factors and available combat space into the system.  I've played around with this in some detail, but have never completely finished the project.  Essentially I worked up a chart that figured out the damage per second of each weapon and set it up so that fast weapons did less damage per second, but resulted in more potential crits.  Longer weapons allowed more reach in open areas, but were restricted in smaller areas.  When I do complete it (no idea when I'll do that as I have very little free time as it is) it'll need some play-testing to make sure one weapon type over the other (i.e. faster vs slower) aren't completely out of whack on balance).

[VladD]

Thanks for the comments, people.

I just wanted to see if people thought it outrageous, or stupid, or fun. Seems more people like second by second combat initiative systems.

I want to address a few questions and comments:

- I read and played most second by second  systems already, in the misty past. My new group was new to it. There are a few fundamental differences in my system: basically everyone acts at the same time. So tiny parts of an action are performed second by second by everyone. This leads to more gradual rounds, where people gear up to do their action. Only gripe is that spell casters get to stand around a LOT when preparing and casting spells.

- I don't think I need the sheets. I got the basic actions down and people seem to be fine with the way things go. Things go pretty fast once they are familiar with the rules. I'm the one holding people up when running a big encounter deciding actions for all the NPC's.

- I don't have specific questions, except for letting people see the system and maybe getting some constructive comments that might iron out some potential bugs.

- I don't want anyone to have a specific advantage, or disadvantage based on one stat. I think high DB and good movement speed is enough advantage for a high Quickness character.

- Cory's systems of initiative number based on the average damage of the weapon is an original and probably mostly true AND honest way of doing this. It sounds great and I would review it gladly. However it is not for use in my second by second system, because I came from a variable weapon speed system and my players thought it was better to try a one attack per round system...

[yammahoper]

This is not helpful, but I do not like second by second combat  systems.  I fail to see how they are any less abstract in hitting or missing than round systems.

Of course, ialso do not prefer battle grids/maps/hexes in play.  Battle maps and second by second combat reduces the game to a tactical battle game or simulation.  I'll pull Squad leader off the shelf for that, or some other board game I have.

[Cory Magel]

I came from a variable weapon speed system and my players thought it was better to try a one attack per round system...

Is this not the same group you are playing the second by second rounds with?  If they are the same group I would question why you're even bothering with second by second.  Just my perspective, but I don't see much point to second by second combat if it's not put in place to account for the possible variable speed of actions.

[Cory Magel]

Of course, ialso do not prefer battle grids/maps/hexes in play.  Battle maps and second by second combat reduces the game to a tactical battle game or simulation.

Yeah. Ain't it fun?   Joking aside, this is something the majority of our group loves.  Although I do admit I'd like to see a little more character driven story action.  One of our GM's in particular we joke that the campaign is a series of combats loosely tied together with a plot.  Again, we don't hate that, it's just amusing to poke fun at him about it.

[markc]

 I especially like the variable speed of weapons, such as IMHO a person with a dagger should attack faster than a person with a polearm at close range.
MDC 

[jdale]

I especially like the variable speed of weapons, such as IMHO a person with a dagger should attack faster than a person with a polearm at close range.
MDC

Have to be careful with that, though, or else the dagger ends up with more damage-dealing potential than the pole-arm.

I actually don't think it makes sense, given the abstraction of 6-10 seconds worth of melee yielding one attack roll. You can certainly swing a dagger more times in 10 seconds than a polearm, but the system isn't modeling swings, it's modeling one meaningful result of many swings, blocks, exchanges.

[providence13]

I especially like the variable speed of weapons, such as IMHO a person with a dagger should attack faster than a person with a polearm at close range.
MDC

Have to be careful with that, though, or else the dagger ends up with more damage-dealing potential than the pole-arm.

I actually don't think it makes sense, given the abstraction of 6-10 seconds worth of melee yielding one attack roll. You can certainly swing a dagger more times in 10 seconds than a polearm, but the system isn't modeling swings, it's modeling one meaningful result of many swings, blocks, exchanges.

This is not helpful, but I do not like second by second combat  systems.  I fail to see how they are any less abstract in hitting or missing than round systems.

I'm glad everyone has found something that works in their game. I don't see how sec by sec init could work for the RM combat system we use.
Even though I did read it, I might not fully understand the system.

How does DB apply for the entire round in your system?
Why does transferring OB to DB and attacking take less time?
How can an attack that yields multiple crits in different areas happen?
Wielding 2 weapons in your system, the second weapon always attacks last (on the 10th sec). What is the point of winning init?

Our abstract method of combat does gloss over some of the finer details of realism. We make assumptions. My players (including me) can be easily distracted. %Act is a general way for us to track combat. DB applies for the entire round vs that opponent and takes the same %Act as attacking (60%Act to 100%Act).
Instants are instant and can interrupt init. Most helpful for defensive spells.
%Act isn't always when the action happens, for us. It's just how much of your round's activity it requires. This isn't really dependent on other players.

Again, I might not fully understand your way but my questions are honest (haven't had my coffee/tea/soda yet).
I'd be happy to sit at anyone's table. But it sounds a bit more complex than how I understand it.

Oh, I do like grids and minis. It helps remind us what can be done in a round based on the numbers; move, %Act, etc. Sometimes we get sidetracked and need the reminder. 

[markc]

I especially like the variable speed of weapons, such as IMHO a person with a dagger should attack faster than a person with a polearm at close range.
MDC

Have to be careful with that, though, or else the dagger ends up with more damage-dealing potential than the pole-arm.

I actually don't think it makes sense, given the abstraction of 6-10 seconds worth of melee yielding one attack roll. You can certainly swing a dagger more times in 10 seconds than a polearm, but the system isn't modeling swings, it's modeling one meaningful result of many swings, blocks, exchanges.

 Yes I agree, I think with my system (taking out random factors) the dagger gets 3 changes to attack vs 2 for the polearm.
MDC

[jdale]

I especially like the variable speed of weapons, such as IMHO a person with a dagger should attack faster than a person with a polearm at close range.
MDC

Have to be careful with that, though, or else the dagger ends up with more damage-dealing potential than the pole-arm.

I actually don't think it makes sense, given the abstraction of 6-10 seconds worth of melee yielding one attack roll. You can certainly swing a dagger more times in 10 seconds than a polearm, but the system isn't modeling swings, it's modeling one meaningful result of many swings, blocks, exchanges.

 Yes I agree, I think with my system (taking out random factors) the dagger gets 3 changes to attack vs 2 for the polearm.
MDC

Maximum damage potential against AT1 is 18ES x3 = 54 hits and three E criticals. The polearm is 40EK x2 = 80 hits and two E criticals. Against most foes, I'd certainly give up 26 hits to get an extra E crit. The dagger can still do E crits against anything lighter than AT 19. Of course this is potential and not a certainty, but still...

Do you also allow one parry per attack? If so that's another advantage to the dagger.

[markc]

  Yes the DB portion of the attack is tied to the attack interval. So if the person was foolish or lucky they might get a 100% OB attack vs the person (also 2nd attack without refreshing their OB/BD pool so -20 to DB) but they (players) do not know the init. of the opponent and I the GM do not fudge the rules for the opponents. It also as you can see (-20 per attack for not refreshing your DB) can get ugly with multiple attackers.
MDC

[VladD]

@Cory Magel
They are the same group, and we switched initiative systems 4 times or so after our switch to RM(FRP), because we didn't like the original system of phases. The last system was a rewrite of a homebrew gamesystem of a friend, which featured variable weaponspeeds, but the 2 hander fighter and the flail fighter both complained and whined because the dual tigerhook wielding rogue suddenly did more damage and criticals than they did, the rogue got to attack 3 times, to their one time and given that such heavy weapons, if you prepared enough in that system, could sometimes strike 2 times, the rogue could sometimes strike 6 times in that same round... a marked difference....
So they, the people, decided to change again and now I came up with True second by second initiative.

@Providence13
How does DB apply for the entire round in your system?
- Standard DB counts from when you are aware of the attack. Parry is active from when you make a decision on the OB/ DB split; either at Second 6 in a round, or in the case of just parrying and not attacking, from the percentage of parry from the total divided by 2, expressed as a percentage of the time elapsed in the round (or for every 20% parry wait 1 second for it to come online.) It lasts until expended, or until the next OB/ DB split moment.

Why does transferring OB to DB and attacking take less time?
- it doesn't take less time; but its already figured in the total time for a full OB attack: 100% act.

How can an attack that yields multiple crits in different areas happen?
- normally I would be cautious to allow multi crit weapons... When I do; I figure to let the same roll for the main crit to stand for all the crits. Mostly they then strike the same area...

Wielding 2 weapons in your system, the second weapon always attacks last (on the 10th sec). What is the point of winning init?
- initiative is only determined between 2 or more engaged opponents, or when 2 or more conflicting actions take place. The second attack by one opponent just comes later, after all the others are determined. When 2 opponents want to swing their off hand weapons, then roll initiative once again. The winner in these initiative battles gets to swing first and apply his damage first, thusly possibly denying the opponent the chance to swing back.

I want to explain that my TRUE second by second initiative system is based on the premise that every combatant may move or act EVERY second, so someone with a movement of 50' per round, may move one hex/ square every second. Every second, 10% of some originally longer action plays out. So someone shooting a bow is stating in sec 1 that he is taking aim, then in second 3 he gets to roll dice and add OB. Keep in mind though that even if he gets to fire in second 3, if he wants to use his full OB, he still needs to complete the action in the following 3 seconds to avoid the -30 OB, as per RAW. in the mean time the opponents continue to close in, probably sprinting, so they move 3x50' divide by 10 per second, or 3 squares/ hexes. If we continue the example: he ends shooting in second 6 so he gets to start reloading in sec 7. Reloading a long bow takes 7 more seconds so he may start taking aim in second 4 of the next round and roll for shooting the bow in second 6. The opponents scrambling to get to the archer would have closed for 13 seconds, or 39 hexes or 195' during this time. Say that one of opponents was closer than 195' away from the archer and stated during this round that he would be charging (also slowing down to just run movement), then he and the archer should roll initiative at the moment of the 2 miniature bases connecting, determining who would strike first, if they connected in second 6 of that round. if the bases connected before second 6, then he would certainly roll before the archer, possibly ruining his shot without having to check initiative. If they connected later, the archer would shoot in second 6, before the opponent could get to him.

One last clarification: the charging movement is a special rule. Given the circumstances and actions and whatnot, the charge may lead to base connection with an opponent even in second 1 of a sample round. Why I would allow the immediate resolution of the charge, or the defense against the charge, is because it happens that way, imho. People that are charged will not go through with some studied weapon kata from one of the later classes of their fighter university...they will try to defend themselves at the last minute, forgoing any prepared attacks, except, of course, set to receive charge, with all its associated perks..

By the by: stun rounds take 10 seconds to wear off...

The reason why I would want a second by second system is that now people get to see archers prepare a strike, and they get to cast instantaneous spells to counter that, and is just a small example of what works better in such a system.

[RandalThor]

My players mostly actually like the way the rounds are free form and flowing.

I am with your players, here, and think that second-by-second combat could only be for a wargame. For an RPG it is much better to have a multi-second long round; from 3-seconds (minimum), to around 10-12 seconds (maximum) - I prefer a 6-second combat round. Having the flexibility of a longer combat round just makes it more playable to me. A little abstraction can go a long way. (But a lot of abstraction makes everything look all blurry.  )

[RandalThor]

The reason why I would want a second by second system is that now people get to see archers prepare a strike, and they get to cast instantaneous spells to counter that, and is just a small example of what works better in such a system.

Wouldn't it just be easier to divide the action percentage by 10 and then back-track the initiative? What I mean is, the archer goes on initiative 17, shooting a bow is generally a 100% action (100/10 = 10), so he starts his action on 7, but the attack happens on 17. Anyone attacking him (or otherwise disturbing him) from 7 to 16 means they have a chance of messing up his shot.

Of course, you could just say that the initiative total is when they begin their action and just pile on the numbers from there. That way you can have someone do something quick (taking the appropriate negatives) to try to get it off before their enemy does something.

Also, I long ago went away from the Snap, normal deliberate segments from being distinct rounds unto themselves. Instead, I went with a +/-10 to initiative, +10 for snap, -10 for deliberate.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I don't think there is a really workable solution.

What is the purpose of a "round" in an RPG? To give one definite, provable order and sequence to actions decided upon on the spur of the moment by a committee, who may or may not share common goals. Once you include 'the monster' in your thinking, you're fairly well assured a committee member whose goals are directly opposed to those of the players, and yet the monster's actions have to be fit into the sequence too.

Okay... then what are "actions"?

Actions are almost infinitely variable. From a point of view of sequencing, they run the gamut from pulling the trigger of a weapon at 1/10 of a second or so out to picking a lock over the course of 15-20 minutes, and beyond. If you count individual shots from automatic weapons as separate actions, the fast end of that scale gets shorter still. Don't even ask about actions in cyberspace, they make full auto weapons seem positively glacial.

So if you put it back into terms of the GM and his players trying to have fun together, and out of the setting meta-logic and game mechanics meta-logic, realism and believability are minor concerns compared to the basic problem of how to make it granular enough that the fighter's player doesn't feel like he's getting skipped, yet streamlined enough that the thief's player doesn't give up and take a nap waiting to finish picking the lock.

 

[providence13]

This threw me off..
Parry 100% = 5 seconds
Parry 75% = 4 seconds
Parry 50% = 3 seconds
Parry 25% = 2 seconds
Parry 10% = 1 second

But I guess this explains it.
"either at Second 6 in a round, or in the case of just parrying and not attacking".
So you allow someone to parry without making an attack roll. That's fine, it just threw me off a sec.

Double wielding 10 seconds. Second attack on 10th sec

"When 2 opponents want to swing their off hand weapons, then roll initiative once again."
Gotcha. 2 inits may be required.

[markc]

 I like s by s combat but it can be a problem with larger tables and player amounts. I am playing in a game with 7 players that would be very tough to do with a s by s system and everyone at their fig moving and such. But IMHO it is the future of almost any computer simulated RPG or a RPG that is going to have combat simulated by computer. (which I believe id most of them)
MDC