Re: Good initiative mechanics?

In message
<7702ede7-4aca-4b92-9811-8e7a69aea259@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
          gleichman <fox1_217@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> On Mar 16, 6:26 pm, Simon Smith <simon_smith_n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> I have a completely different view of the subject.

Ahem, I said no such thing. I've not yet quite degenerated to the level of
having debates with myself in public. Please take more care with
attributions in future. If you snip everything else I say, snip my name
too.



> I'm no fan of random initiative systems, avoiding them completely as
> little more than an extra die roll that achieves basically nothing
> other than the introduction of more randomness into a mechanical
> system that already has enough of that (assuming a well designed core
> mechanic). That simple reason is why such mechanics are so rare in
> either war-gaming or rpg design. There are of course other related
> reasons.

I didn't /say/ I was only after random initiative systems either, but in
hindsight quoting two random ones and no non-random ones was likely to
skew
people's assumptions. Sorry about that. I shouldn't have snipped my third
example, which was RuneQuest's Strike Rank system. That's entirely
deterministic. Handles multiple actions as well.

To be completely clear, I am specifically interested in good non-random
initiative mechanics too. Is simply resolving actions in descending order
of
Dexterity necessarily the best way? Why not use descending order of one's
tactics skill - or some other relevant combat ability? If you're in a
vehicle, should the vehicle's performance play a part?

Those are the sort of questions I'm interested in. What systems actually
try
to address such issues? Plain old descending order of Dex is bland and
generic, and goes right back to the game of Basic Roleplaying. What more
sophisticated takes exist out there?


> Nor am I a fan of Action Points and other similar mechanics, or
> limited defensive options common to these systems.as they produce very
> counter-productive play due to their very nature. For example,
> requiring the spending of an Action for each use of the game's primary
> defensive options results in the tradition MMORPGs style of combat
> when each side focuses all their fire upon a single target- something
> not seen in reality or fiction outside those games when use such
> mechanics.

Star Wars had a system where a single dodge roll protected you against all
incoming fire in that segment. We didn't like that because it meant the
massed fire of 100 stormtroopers probably couldn't hit a single character
with 6D dodge. The current house-ruled compromise is that one dodge
protects
you against one attack, but gives you 2m free movement with which to move
towards cover. A bit of modelling suggested that it would be rare for a
character to have to move more than half a dozen metres to get to cover.


<snip>

> In general, I consider the above mechanics to more suited to those
> rpgs where the characters are assumed to be incompetent combatants-
> unable to control even their own actions. <snip>

What about a skilled combatant leading his opponent into making errors?

For a non-combat example, I'm reminded of a lot of tennis matches I've
seen,
where the better player often wins by making fewer mistakes and seemingly
inducing their opponent to make more. You can often see the same star on
opposite sides of the equation in successive matches.




> Along that line, the Deadlands system is the best I've
> seen, not only managing the number of actions and their order- but
> also highlightning the poker deck which adds in bring the western
> setting more to the forefront.

<snip>


> For my typical style, I just want initiative to get out of the way as
> quickly as possible. Age of Heroes has a simple Initiative value
> printed on the character sheet. HERO System goes in DEX order. I'm far
> more interesting in what a character does with his action then in
> determining if he even has one (and I consider failed actions to
> represent any occurrence of failure to act.

<snip>

Good idea. I had been using that in a restricted area of my own system,
under the called shots section, but now you come to mention it, simply
failing to act is a good generic failure mechanism, so I should use it
more
widely.


-- 
Simon Smith

When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my
web
site at http://www.simon-smith.org