Re: Good initiative mechanics?

In message
<354209a5-f0c7-404a-94d8-17f2b2a517b6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
          DougL <lampert.doug@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> On Apr 1, 5:31 pm, psychohist <psychoh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Simon Smith posts, in part:
> >
> >   Qucik follow-up before I forget; maybe something to
> >   look at is to give unengaged opponents a significant
> >   skill bonus? Then there's an incentive to spread
> >   one's attacks as widely as possible.
> >
> > I think that would help.  In real infantry battles, most ammunition is
> > expended just to force the opponents to keep their heads down so they
> > can't shoot back at you as accurately.
> 
> Problems are:
> 
> (a) unless most characters have multiple attacks it gives a large
> advantage to the side with a noticable numeric advantage regardless of
> the quality of the fighters, I don't want my heroes to be
> substantially superior if they drag allong 200 or more otherwise
> useless cannon fodder to "attack" people on the other side.
> 
> (b) if most characters DO have multiple attacks or large area ranged
> attacks available then in comparable force fights I can spend one
> attack on each foe (or one weak area attack on the entire enemy force)
> to force him to keep his head down, then concentrate all the other
> attacks. Especially if some attacks are weaker than others this
> becomes a compellingly good option with the strong attacks
> concentrated.
> 
> (c) With bullets or similar ranged attacks the character realistically
> doesn't actually KNOW that he's being attacked, everyone is already
> dodging, so there's no excuse for anyone to take a penalty just
> because someone 'actually' shot at him rather than just scattering
> fire over the area.
> 
> (d) This is potentially a record keeping mess in large fights. I need
> not just an initiative value and damage total for everybody but also a
> record of how long it's been since he was attacked and whether his
> head is still down.
> 
> This sort of thing is why my current "best idea" would use a "damaging
> hit" as the trigger for being forced to fight defensively. But this
> runs into
> (e) if it ISN'T fairly trivial to force defensive fighting then
> forcing it on most of the opposing force causes a possible death
> spiral.


If side A has X attacks and side B has >X fighters, some fighters on side
B
won't be attacked. So one could come up with perhaps a random mechanic to
choose whether a given fighter is under threat or not. However, given a
case
of 10000vs1000 fighters, there might still only be 800 engaged on one side
and 600 on the other, because there's other attackers or defenders
blocking
line of sight. As forces get larger and larger, line-of-sight issues start
to matter, and it probably takes a wargame-like system to handle this sort
of thing well, rather than an RPG.


One real-world datum; soldiers are usually trained to ignore ineffective
incoming fire. (British solders are, anyway.) The definition of 'effective
incoming fire' is the fellow in front of you grunting and collapsing, or
dust kicking up all around you from bullets hitting. At this point you
react
pretty smartish. But until that point, you don't waste time responding.
So,
assuming competent combatants, a mass combat system ought to take that
behaviour into account, and ensure that it is the optimum behaviour within
the rules.

This would mean until the opposing units have taken 'a damaging hit' none
of
them count as engaged. Once one of them has, all nearby units need to
respond. Unfortunately 'nearby' is a rather vague term that would take
some
work to define. And these rules only work well for fire combat involving
bullet-like weapons. Optimum behaviour against other weapon types is
different.

What's more, optimum behaviour under many RPG rule systems is decidedly
screwy, and that often causes SoD problems. I think well-trained NPCs
should
always behave optimally /for the game rules in question/, mainly because
no-one could possibly determine the correct real-world optimum behaviour
for
all the strange stuff that goes on during RPGs. Then you have to take
steps
to minimise the SoD problems due to screwy rules, which takes work.


This discussion has helped crystallise my own views on the most im****tant
element of initiative for my kind of games. Enumerating all the
possibilities, there's:

PCs outnumbering inferior opponents (e.g. A) 6 PCs vs B) two mooks)

PCs outnumbering superior opponents (e.g. A) 6 Star Wars PCs vs B) Darth
Vader)

PCs outnumbered by inferior opponents (e.g. A) 6 PCs vs B) a horde of
stormtroopers)

PCs outnumbered by superior opponents (e.g. A) a 1st level starting PC vs
B)
200 8th level members of the Dread Legion) Hopefully the PC will try to
run away
or hide.

PCs A) match numbers with superior opponents B)
PCs A) match numbers with inferior opponents B)
PCs A) match numbers with equal opponents B)

In all possible cases, I want the underdogs to act first; lowest numbers,
then lowest skill if there's a tie on numbers. So for the seven cases
listed, the side to act first is B) B) A) A) A) B) and in the final case I
think I'd either toss a coin or roleplay it out, or take
pschological/dramatic factors into account when deciding which side is
'superior'.

This is partly a dramatist approach; if the underdogs are NPCs, they may
well only get this one chance /to/ act. Giving the weaker side a chance to
act first helps the PCs when they need it, and hinders them slightly when
they don't need help.

Adding NPC mooks to flesh out one side doesn't affect the calculation
much;
outnumbered/underdogs act first anyway, whether they're outnumbered 90:100
or 1:100. If the PCs manage to become overdogs, they hand initiative to
the
other side. That would suit my games very well.


OK, this doesn't address the graceful handling of large number imbalances
between sides, but I do feel I've made some progress ...

-- 
Simon Smith

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