*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 10, 2022, 09:04:51 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 72 - most online ever: 565 (October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Simplifying initiative issues!  (Read 5697 times)
Eamon Voss
Member

Posts: 108


WWW
« on: May 12, 2003, 08:55:06 AM »

One of the few things I don't like about the TROS combat system is all that complexity involved in dealing with buying off initiative during simultaneous hits.  I am cooking up my own system, and wouldn't mind any suggestions on how to do it.

My basic concept is to follow these steps:

1. Reflex roll off, with roll modified by length differences
(So if I have a long weapon and you have a medium weapon, you suffer a -1 die penalty to your roll.)

2. If you lose the above, you can then buy off the difference by expending dice from your combat pool.  The maximum difference you can buy off is equal to your perception rating.  Your opponent can do the same.

3. If this goes to a tie, then the strikes land at the same time.

Comments?  Criticisms? Arguements that the current system is fine?
Logged

Realism in a melee game is not a matter of critical hit charts, but rather the ability to impart upon the player the dynamism of combat.
Jake Norwood
Member

Posts: 2261


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2003, 10:32:13 AM »

Sounds pretty good to me.

Jake
Logged

"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." -R.E. Howard The Tower of the Elephant
___________________
www.theriddleofsteel.NET
Bob Richter
Member

Posts: 324


« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2003, 01:20:46 PM »

Quote from: Eamon Voss
One of the few things I don't like about the TROS combat system is all that complexity involved in dealing with buying off initiative during simultaneous hits.  I am cooking up my own system, and wouldn't mind any suggestions on how to do it.

My basic concept is to follow these steps:

1. Reflex roll off, with roll modified by length differences
(So if I have a long weapon and you have a medium weapon, you suffer a -1 die penalty to your roll.)

2. If you lose the above, you can then buy off the difference by expending dice from your combat pool.  The maximum difference you can buy off is equal to your perception rating.  Your opponent can do the same.

3. If this goes to a tie, then the strikes land at the same time.

Comments?  Criticisms? Arguements that the current system is fine?


It's certainly a lot simpler (thank heavens!) but I'll have to try it in play to see how it works.
Logged

So ye wanna go earnin' yer keep with yer sword, and ye think that it can't be too hard...
Lance D. Allen
Member

Posts: 1962


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2003, 03:21:55 PM »

Anyone with a game going who decides to give this a try, I personally would welcome any feedback on how it works. I'm generally a game purist, and attempt to play a game as intended and written with as few modifications as possible, but buying initiative is indeed a sore spot.
Logged

~Lance Allen
Wolves Den Publishing
Eternally Incipient Publisher of Mage Blade, ReCoil and Rats in the Walls
Aaron
Member

Posts: 102


« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2003, 10:23:54 PM »

Only problem I can see is that unless one fighter scored alot more successes on the REF test,  nearly all REF rolls to determine initative would result in simultaneous attacks.  Only those who were doing one of the defence and attack combined maneuvers wouldn't spend those CP to make their attack simultaneous.  For them it doesn't matter either way.

Aaron
Logged
Jake Norwood
Member

Posts: 2261


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2003, 11:44:34 PM »

Well, you know that if you don't buy initiative (or just ignore the rule), then all you've got to do is (if both throw red) roll a contest of reflex with the winner striking first. If that ties then a contest of wp. If that ties, then it's simultaneous. This is in the standard rules, too.

Jake
Logged

"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." -R.E. Howard The Tower of the Elephant
___________________
www.theriddleofsteel.NET
Eamon Voss
Member

Posts: 108


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2003, 03:16:27 AM »

Quote from: Aaron
Only problem I can see is that unless one fighter scored alot more successes on the REF test,  nearly all REF rolls to determine initative would result in simultaneous attacks.  Only those who were doing one of the defence and attack combined maneuvers wouldn't spend those CP to make their attack simultaneous.  For them it doesn't matter either way.


Yep, ain't it grand?  Makes combat uncertain, dangerous if you will.  And gives people a good reason to up their perception.
Logged

Realism in a melee game is not a matter of critical hit charts, but rather the ability to impart upon the player the dynamism of combat.
Bomilkar
Member

Posts: 14


« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2003, 10:54:25 AM »

Quote from: Eamon Voss
Quote from: Aaron
Only problem I can see is that unless one fighter scored alot more successes on the REF test,  nearly all REF rolls to determine initative would result in simultaneous attacks.  Only those who were doing one of the defence and attack combined maneuvers wouldn't spend those CP to make their attack simultaneous.  For them it doesn't matter either way.


Yep, ain't it grand?  Makes combat uncertain, dangerous if you will.  And gives people a good reason to up their perception.


Nice solution! I think I will use this one in my game, only with both players secretly setting a die to the number of dice they want to loose from their CP to gain the initiative. That will make for a nice mind-game of risk and bluff. I've seen a rather similar mechanism in a Czech TROS-like board game called "Arena" (not to confuse with "Titan: The Arena"), where a bunch of gladiators (the usual suspects - an assassin, a barbarian, a team of orcs...) fought against each other using different maneuvers which they had to plan out in advance. Oh, and of course there was said die for the attack-and-block mechanism. Really nice game (OOP, sadly).
Logged

Battle? There is always a desire for breathing space motivating it somewhere.
The Bashar Teg
Mike Holmes
Acts of Evil Playtesters
Member

Posts: 10459


« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2003, 12:00:24 PM »

Huh, any chance it was based on the old Gladiator game by AH? That used plotted turns too.

Mike
Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.
arxhon
Member

Posts: 254


« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2003, 06:15:01 PM »

OMFG! I remember that Gladiator game. It was quite a bit of fun, once you hacked your way through the rules. 'Groin shot! Instant death!"
Logged
Bomilkar
Member

Posts: 14


« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2003, 09:19:01 AM »

Quote from: Mike Holmes
Huh, any chance it was based on the old Gladiator game by AH? That used plotted turns too.

Mike


I don't know, but I just found a link to a review of the game:http://globetrotter.crosswinds.net/index.htm?E&game/eArena.htm

When I checked the link to "Altar Games", I found out (that is: I guess, I found out - the English site is under construction, and I don't understand a single word of Czech) that the game is still in print, but that none of the promised expansion sets are currently in development.

It's a nice game with really interesting mechanics and maneuvers but no must-to-have, especially now that there is TROS, which can be used for the same purpose.
Logged

Battle? There is always a desire for breathing space motivating it somewhere.
The Bashar Teg
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!