Combat systems and action/initiative

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:21 pm

Not really, RC, as knowing what they were doing only gave you the chance to make their actions negated, normally by negating your own action.

You could run around behind them with a poor init every time; and turning big mechs could only go so far each turn so it was possible to guess where their blindspot would be.

Still, it did make initiative into a be-all, without it, no other skills mattered except from far range.

-Crissa

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:58 am

RandomCasualty2 wrote:
Crissa wrote: Yes. Range was based on the beginning of turn, all weapons had facings, and how far (a straight measurement, not how many steps you actually took) was the difficulty in hitting you that turn.

So when someone shot at you, they couldn't be sure that the difficulty wouldn't change when orders were executed, unless they had a higher initiative than you. And this let you do things like run around behind them every turn, since they would have to have their weapons aimed at the end of each turn to fire the next turn.
Yeah, that's one of the reasons why I hate declare first systems. It basically was just all about taking actions to render your enemies actions useless and pretty much made winning initiative a really huge deal.

The problem quoted here doesn't seem to be an issue with declare first systems per se but the combination of facing and a declaration system not synergizing well. If facing weren't an issue then I wouldn't see this as particularly bad.

K · Post by K » Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:22 am

CCarter wrote:
*JAGS' action system probably merits a mention as well. Initiative is fairly standard, but it has a reasonably complex interrupt system. Actions are Short, Medium, or Long: performing a Medium or Long action lets an opponent immediately interrupt with a shorter action unless you beat their initiative by a high margin - e.g. charging is a Long action, so an opponent can hit you with a normal Medium attack as you close. Total number of actions you get in a turn (both on your initiative and interrupt actions) is based on spending points equal to your DEX ("Reaction") with Long actions costing more points. (JAGS is a freerpg if anyone's overly curious: its mostly GURPS-esque).

JAGS looks kind of interesting. There is a free PDF on their website.

The problem is not that it looks like a fairly complex system that is all crunch, it has lines like "If you are Circling you get +3 to your Initiative for purposes of being 5 Initiative faster than the person you are circling only." Definitely a 1st-gen game.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:41 am

MGuy wrote:If facing weren't an issue then I wouldn't see this as particularly bad.

Like I said, it was possible to guess the limits of most arc of motion with the mechs when the rules were put down, so it was possible, once in a blind spot, to stay in a blind spot. The initiative didn't really matter. And it was possible for a low-initiative pilot to sit in a heavy mech and just ignore the faster inits, just blowing up whatever crossed your facing and taking the beating.

This is also supposedly why you have mechs in lances, stars, and formations.

-Crissa

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:47 am

It's like they wanted to take Feng Shui's shot cost system and have actions resolve at the end of the shot expenditure instead of the beginning to be able to resolve interrupts. Then they cluttered it all up with initiative comparisons for no damn reason.

-Username17

CCarter · Post by **CCarter** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:47 am

Re: JAGS. Yep, I think that's a fair assessment. '5 over' is the margin where a longer action can't be interrupted - this could probably use some sort of explicit defining term. It is crunchier than I like, personally, but it is interesting. The major beef I'd have with the system is the relatively tight bell curve, plus the way higher skill levels lower difficulty penalties, seem to make it hard to actually fail rolls.

Also: Dammit, in my first post forgot to mention the basic 'countdown characters in order by Dexterity' system. (e.g. Dragon Warriors).

MGuy wrote:I'm trying to decide whether I want to care about initiative or not or just let it be a one time thing that you roll up then forget. If I decide to make it matter I'd have it where:

1 All combatants roll Initiative (DM can just group enemies up)

2 Find out who has the highest initiative result. All combatants may go when their initiative equals this number.

3 On player's turn they may take actions. Each action type subtracts from their count. Move Actions take 6 standard, actions take 10, Full round actions take 14. Swift, Immediate, Opportunity Actions take 2 a piece.

4 After an action is performed and resolved everyone adds 1 to their current initiative count until they reach the target number (basically next highest initiative goes next). This does mean that if you roll your initiative number far higher than everyone else you can take multiple actions.

Delaying an action or readying one pretty much just suspends your initiative gain. Free Actions don't really mess your initiative count. A round is counted after a number of full, move, or standard actions are taken equal to the number of combatants.

On the plus side: I can write a bunch of abilities messing around with initiative. It also makes Initiative matter beyond the first roll.

On the negative side: Its more book keeping and asks people to do a bit of math.

Interesting...so this is a patch for 3.5 you're considering, since you mention move actions ? Rather than a set 6 for a move action, what about a cost based on distance moved? (-1 per 10ft, say)?
Other than that, I wonder if a group initiative roll with this system is going to cause some difficulty, since it could mean a difference between monsters getting 1 action or 2.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:49 pm

I've given up on just a patch. I resorted to making full blown changes to the system as a whole.

Initiative is still singularly made. Players make individual rolls as they did before I'd suggest that GMs (IE myself who I am making this for) bundle enemies together on initiative.

I don't want to go distance moved because not all move actions involve moving and its less fiddly that way. I have enough numbers floating around and I don't feel any pressing need to divide it up.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:59 pm

K wrote: The problem is not that it looks like a fairly complex system that is all crunch, it has lines like "If you are Circling you get +3 to your Initiative for purposes of being 5 Initiative faster than the person you are circling only." Definitely a 1st-gen game.

What the....

What the fuck does that even mean? How can your initiative be faster than only one person?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 7:21 pm

Well, if you don't try to be faster than Joe, you don't get the bonus?

-Crissa

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:45 pm

Crissa wrote:Well, if you don't try to be faster than Joe, you don't get the bonus?

But you're trying to be faster than everyone. So there's literally no reason not to include Joe in the list of people you're trying to beat out, if only to get the bonus against Todd too, since initiative has to be linear.

You can't have a relation like Todd > Joe, Joe > Frank, Frank > Todd.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:28 pm

However, if you don't take an action against Joe, you don't get the bonus.

You're saying that initiative is take-turns order, whereas this is specific-action-order.

There is most definitely room for game systems which model Todd over Joe, Joe over Frank, and Frank over Todd. And in fact, that's Todd->Joe->Frank->Todd does.

In simultaneous execution, there is also most definitely room for different actions to be compared in this nonlinear way.

Now, why you'd want to do that, I dunno. But it's not impossible.

-Crissa

CCarter · Post by **CCarter** » Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:02 pm

LOL. Sort of a Mexican Stand Off system.

Re. RCs point: I believe the +3 to initiative from Circling actually doesn't change initiative order at all, so there isn't a paradox.

In the context of the JAGS system: if you beat a foe's initiative by 5 they can't screw up your action with interrupts: that's what this is meant to be for...I think. Basically you could reword this to 'the target may not interrupt your action if you beat their initiative by 2 or more, instead of needing a margin of 5 or more'.