Re: Good initiative mechanics?

On Mar 17, 5:11=A0pm, Simon Smith <simon_smith_n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Please take more care with
> attributions in future. If you snip everything else I say, snip my name
to=
o.

That could make it difficult to know who the response was to (and it
was directly to you, not to the others in the thread), but as you
wish.

> 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?


I've seen systems that used the results of Tactics rolls to either
determine initiative or to modify each character's initiative
(typically based upon DEX or a similar value). I don't consider a
minor modifier for the second case to be that bad of an idea for those
types of campaigns where showcasing military style leader****p is a
desire. It does cost one a extra die roll, but at least it's one per
side. However I don't care for Tactics being the only determining
factor (and random at that) for the reasons I've already given.

I think HERO offers this option (as an optional rule in Ultimate
Skill, or perhaps as a house rule I've heard of), where one gives a +1
to DEX for initiative for every two points you make the roll and the
character then assigns those out to individual characters (i.e. +3
would give three other characters +1 each).

I typically don't use that rule however, instead reflecting leader****p
with open communication between the players.

For vehicles, HERO basically treats them as characters where the lower
the lower of the vehicle's or driver's DEX is the determining factor.
Most games take that basic approach as few people wish a different
initiative subsystem just for vehicles.

In general, I think DEX order is one of the oldest and most common
methods for good reason- it works, and works well.


> 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.

I believe that better reflects Star Wars than saying the hero can
dodge the first attack, and then becomes as easily hit as any man in
the street for the next 100.

Rather IMO, the fault lies in the core mechanics of the Star Wars
system where one's ability vastly increases per die, leaving little
room for chacter differences and combat modifiers to guide such an
event towards a reasonable and still Star Wars heroic result.


> > 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?

Again, I consider most of this to handled by the abstraction of the
game. The more skilled combatant will be failing fewer normal combat
rolls, i.e. making fewer mistakes until his opponent makes a fatal
one.

The remaining potion is handled by the tactical decisions of the
player and the GM, which matches up well with good/poor decisions of
real life contests. For this to have the best effect, people should
take into account the tactical ability of their characters and make
pooer decisions when it's in-character to make such a decision.