Re: Good initiative mechanics?

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:15:31 -0700, gleichman wrote:

> On Apr 25, 11:20 am, "Rick Pikul" <rwpi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> (2ed DMG)
> 
> You said 1st edition D&D, never played 2nd. Never would want to.

Incorrect, I said AD&D with no reference to which edition because it was
true for both.

To restore the bit from the 1st edition DMG that you deleted:

"The activity of player characters and player character-directed creatures
must be stated precisely and without delay at the start of each melee
round." (1ed DMG)

>> That entirely depends on how stunning, (or whatever), is determined.
 For
>> instance, basing stun resistance on a statistic that tends to be higher
>> in PCs and major NPCs.
> 
> Which doesn't solve the problem originally detailed now does it.

This general track for solving the problem only requires that glass jaw
effects showing up be worthy of consideration by the players, not that
they
show up all of the time.

>> I have also seen games that give a very high chance of significant
>> penalty resulting from an attack.
> 
> Which greatly expands the im****tance of Initiative.

That depends on implementation and the tactical situation involved. 
Although anything that increases the chance of a quick kill impacts the
im****tance of firing first, it is very easy to keep that from being a
great impact.

For instance, if you are to combine this sort of choice being predeclared,
(even if actions are not themselves predeclared), with ablative HP
sufficient that single-shot kills of the PCs do not happen.  Depending on
how the numbers work out, the benefit of denying the enemy the chance to
take careful shots can be enough that it is better to do that than to
focus and take them out one at a time.

In a cyclic system, you can simply use the full round of vulnerability,
(for +A/-D trades), or the need for a full round free of fire, (for
suppression penalties/lack of suppression bonuses), to cancel out
initiative advantages after the first cycle of attacks.

> It also introduces a serious whiff factor when applied to PCs, which
will
> in most cases result in serious pushback. Players don't like too much
> whiff,

IME players don't complain or push back against things like not being able
to get things like careful aim bonuses most of the time, with safe access
to them being a benefit of having a superior tactical position, (or a
consolation prize for being irrelevant).

Look at it the other way around:  Don't think of it as those being shot at
are going to miss, think of it as those _not_ being shot at are going to
hit almost all the time.

> There is no such thing as a free lunch. You do anything to correct the
> problem, you cause other ones.

While there are tradeoffs, you have yet to back up them being showstoppers
or even simply neutral.

-- 
				Phoenix