The Forge Archives

Ok, I'm interested in some stuff from this thread. What's discussed here is the freeze all characters, unfreeze one, take action, freeze, unfreeze next, and so on.

Mike Holmes suggested the solution of everyone going at the same time
This seems like a neat solution, but it also can easily see it suffering from some limitiations.

One such limitiation seems to be eliminating the chances for the dramatic interrupt described in the thread. I'm also concerned about granularity and dependent actions such as: As I gallop my horse past X and Y engaged in combat I make a slash at X from behind. I can imagine there are situations where the internal ordering of these events (X rolling to attack Y, Y rolling to attack X and the attck made from horseback). The smaller the time frame, the less problem of such conflicts.

Actually, if we want simultaneous events we can get closer to that in a sequential system with small time increments as well, so the benefits of simultaneously resolved actions seem to be smaller than it would seem at first glance.

A possible to way to solve this might be to let players and GM together narrate scenes. This has a lot of advantages, but seems to get a little cluttery with multiple combatants. Say A and B are together attacking C. A and B both "succeed" so who gets to narrate what's happening? Although this could probably be agreed on, it would be more convenient with clear cut rules.

Another way would be to put the whole narration into the hands of the GM, but this might be a problem. For example, if a round is considered to be 5 seconds and a standard fighting roll represents an extended battle of 5 seconds, the GM might allow some characters making quick simple actions to do more than one move during a round. The problem is to maintain a balance (in the games where this is important) to so that it doesn't suddenly become much more advantageous to do single attacks. (Such things can be artificially prevented by modifiers and stuff but that's attacking the symptoms and not the cause.

To restate the problem: Simultaneous actions would be neat. Interrupted actions would be neat (I dive in front of that that arrow which is meant for you). Dependent actions would be neat (You throw me the backpack which I catch as I run towards the horse).

But what is really the best way of achieving that? Increased time granularity works, but at the price of unwanted record keeping. Of course one could direct the whole scene instead of an action.

(here's an idea which people probably has tried before: when combat starts, everyone rolls a die and add their combat stat. This roll states how much power you have in the combat. You then bid on actions until to determine narrative control. When people are out of points everyone makes a new roll and the combat proceeds this way until the whole conflict is resolved)

An alternative to time granularity is having a number of actions during a round. These can be fixed or character dependent (fixed speeds up play). My beads/token idea was a version of this solution. There is still bookkeeping and the dreaded problems of having actions which cost more than one action point.

I don't know if I really had any specific intention with this post. I just thought of looking at it a little and sharing my observations. Time to go home and sleep. Talk to you all some other day!

Hello,

Mike's solution already exists. It's found in Zero and Sorcerer, and I described it to small extent in the reference thread, as well as in numerous posts in the Sorcerer forum.

The key is to separate the first "I" in IIEE from the rest, completely, into plain and simple dialogue. This is a hard thing for most role-players to do, based on previous habits. The middle two "IE" are established by everyone rolling at once. The final "E" is handled sequentially, in order established by the previous roll.

Best,
Ron

Thanks Ron,

Indeed, I am not talking about a theoretical system here, but a type of system that exists in lots of games and works well. Simple application of Fortune in the Middle, and all these so called "problems" and limitations vanish. Yes, without FitM it's not as good (though it can still be made to work if you like), but that just prompts me to ask, why not use FitM? I can see absolutely no downside for FitM. My Simmiest players upon tryin it out announced to me that it was by far a superior simulation device. Given the advantages to mechanical systms that it allows, it's even a boon for the Gamists, who can also then add some color to their fights.

So, no, I am not suggesting trying to tack simultaneous resolution to D&D. I'm talking about incorporating it in completely new designs like theones that prompted this discussion.

Mike

Aha, Fang's dilemma.
Combat rounds are bad.

If I get into a fistfight I don't roll initiative. I just punch and kick and wrestle with my opponent until we both get tired and decide to go have some beer. I don't punch, wait for my opponent to punch, reset, and go again. I don't freeze up every once in a while and determine who will be attacking next. We're both doing things all the time.

I always felt that AD&D was the worst offender. In addition to confusing the events of intention, action, resolution, and effect, it controlled character actions into a regular and stately dance. My friend and I would stand in the trenches and trade blows alternately until one of us ran out of hit points. It reminds me, now, of the South Park game of "Ro – Sham – Bo" (undoubtedly spelled improperly) where two contestants would take turns kicking one another in the groin.

The problem has been mediated quite a lot by subsequent design trickery and innovation, but it hasn't gone away. Why? With the combat round we still stop combat every X seconds or Y events and determine a new initiative. The round still stops the action, even if the feeling of stasis only happens once everyone has acted, instead of every time anyone acts.

(My understanding of Sorcerer mechanics is that initiative is re-rolled each round as competing skills checks. I also remember Ron mentioning something about Sorcerer mechanics not resolving actions but resolving conflicts, which I would find challenging for other reasons)

"Fang's solution" to his own dilemma works, but I think it throws the baby out with the bathwater. By moving to a deterministic spiral of actions it's simple to predict who will happen next, and while we have traded away the dance of pauses we received a dance of equal structure.

To conclude, I oppose rounds. For the reasons listed above (and many reasons more which would be off topic).

Hey Richard,

"My understanding of Sorcerer mechanics is that initiative is re-rolled each round as competing skills checks."

Unfortunately, none of this is correct. Technically, there is no "initiative" in Sorcerer at all. The order of actions is set by the very same rolls that resolve the actions; all "I'm doing this!" rolls are made simultaneously. Prior to this, everyone has stated all characters' intents - in Sorcerer, there are no "surprises" during the actual resolving of the actions.

Every character who's a target of someone else's action then has the option of aborting his or her stated action. This is carried out in order of the highest values of the rolls (which are all sitting on the table).

Sigh. It's rather hard to explain all this without simply quoting the text of Sorcerer, and I don't think I'm doing a good job. Suffice to say, please check out threads in the Sorcerer forum with names like "order of actions" and similar things; I think there's a thread started by Jesse (jburneko) about combat that would be very useful.

Anyway, my real point is that Sorcerer's system (a combination of Prince Valiant and Zero) is not very much like other RPGs and tends to be hard for people to grasp when they are toting baggage like "initiative" and "interrupts" into the picture. The game's system literally renders these concepts obsolete.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ring KichardAha, Fang's dilemma.
Combat rounds are bad.

If I get into a fistfight I don't roll initiative. I just punch and kick and wrestle with my opponent until we both get tired and decide to go have some beer. I don't punch, wait for my opponent to punch, reset, and go again. I don't freeze up every once in a while and determine who will be attacking next. We're both doing things all the time.

...The problem has been mediated quite a lot by subsequent design trickery and innovation, but it hasn't gone away. Why? With the combat round we still stop combat every X seconds or Y events and determine a new initiative. The round still stops the action, even if the feeling of stasis only happens once everyone has acted, instead of every time anyone acts.

"...Fang's solution" to his own dilemma works, but I think it throws the baby out with the bathwater. By moving to a deterministic spiral of actions it's simple to predict who will happen next, and while we have traded away the dance of pauses we received a dance of equal structure.

To conclude, I oppose rounds. For the reasons listed above (and many reasons more which would be off topic).

You know, I had never thought of "Fang's Solution" before I typed it, nor have I thought very much of it since then.  It was just a wild hare.

My actual solution was a result of playtest.  Originally, we created the Combat Advantage system to more easily represent cinematic combat.  (You know, the Sherriff pressing his attack forcing Robin up the stairs with vicious blow after vicious blow.)  Later we added the Following Action stuff to more adequately emulate Jackie Chan-style martial arts fights.  (Well, I originally wanted to include a riposte maneuver, but anyway.)  We were still using a 'stop at the end of the round' mechanic back then.

What happened next is one of those 'found art' moments.  After only a few playtests it quickly became apparent that everyone was always forgetting 'where combat started.'  Rounds had effectively become endless.  I racked my brain for a couple of months trying to come up with 1) some incentive for the players to 'keep track' that didn't unbalance the game and 2) a good reason for it.  I failed.  As I 'picked up the pieces' of the game system I posed the question to RPG Create, "What is initiative for?"  I had meant each round not just at the start.  Sifting through both kinds of answers, I realized it was mostly to hand characters of advantageous position 'better odds.'  We already had that with Combat Advantage and Following Actions (called 'em Flurries of Action, back then).

It turned out there was no reason to 'stop the action' every round in Scattershot.  There just wasn't.  I only call them rounds in Scattershot so old-school gamers (used to games put out in the 80s) won't realize there isn't anything more than "going 'round the circle."  Turning 'initiative order' into a totally static object (always counter-clockwise) has allowed us to create flexibility in other ways.  Everyone 'strikes' whenever they can; they try to take advantage of whatever their opponents do.  There is no 'first this round' because no one can tell when a round begins or ends; its all about 'when does my turn come?'

However....

I was under the impression "Fang's Dilemma" was what the other players are doing when it's your turn.  Their characters are 'frozen,' aren't they?  Well, not in Scattershot; you aren't swinging at 'frozen statues.'  If you act upon another character so that they could reasonably respond, you have Engaged them (you've blindsided them otherwise).  A character who is so Engaged is allowed to forfeit either or both of their upcoming actions and perform a defense.  So, if everyone else is 'frozen,' when you act on one of them (or any of them), they 'unfreeze' so the interaction can be dynamic.  (Having everyone not Engaged stay frozen doesn't inhibit the emulation of battle at all.)  And that's where my riposte comes in, after I parry, I get to Follow with a riposte; anyone can turn a defense into an offense.

Still in deference to "Fang's Dilemma," we made melee as simple as we could short of losing the detail we liked.  This 'speeds things up' so that the remaining frozen characters aren't so for long.  Rounds that are endless aren't rounds at all are they?  Not much of a solution, but the playtesters think it rocks.

Fang Langford

Hi everybody,

Here's a thread about the Sorcerer combat system to make it all clear:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=688&highlight=initiative

And here's an absolutely excellent run down of new ways to crack IIEE open and see what you can get:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=774&highlight=initiative

(Sorry if I'm spreading this thread too thin... This subject is all over the board right now, but I wanted to post these links somewhere.)

Take care,
Christopher

Hmm.. I get the feeling you're missing the point of my comments.

* The Sorcerer/Zero solution removes dramatic interrupts.

* Scattershot relies on an arbitrary 2 actions

* FitM runs into trouble with recreating some interesting drama in situations with more than two participants.

Please re-read my postings if these objections aren't clear. I don't see these points addressed in any of the comments. (If you read my original posting you see I already mention these solutions and these problems).

Quote from: Pale FireHmm.. I get the feeling you're missing the point of my comments.

[*]The Sorcerer/Zero solution removes dramatic interrupts.

[*]Scattershot relies on an arbitrary 2 actions and endless, uninterrupted 'rounds'

[*]FitM runs into trouble with recreating some interesting drama in situations with more than two participants.[/list:u]Please re-read my postings if these objections aren't clear. I don't see these points addressed in any of the comments. (If you read my original posting you see I already mention these solutions and these problems).

I'm lost.  I read this and I see no "objections," can you spell it out for those of us in the cheap seats?  ("Are there any Mayans in the house?  Yeah?  Okay, I'll speak slower." - Monty Zuma in Time Squad)

I read the first post on this thread.  The only "objection" I saw was:

Quote from: Pale FireTo restate the problem: Simultaneous actions would be neat. Interrupted actions would be neat (I dive in front of that that arrow which is meant for you). Dependent actions would be neat (You throw me the backpack which I catch as I run towards the horse).

But what is really the best way of achieving that? Increased time granularity works, but at the price of unwanted record keeping. Of course one could direct the whole scene instead of an action.

The problem is there isn't a "best way."  Every way can probably be maximized to a successful system depending on the designer's goals.

Using your own examples:

"Sorcerer/Zero...removes dramatic interrupts" - That makes all actions (effectively) simultaneous and affords interrupts which "would be neat."

"Scattershot relies on an arbitrary 2 actions

and endless, uninterrupted 'rounds'" - That means everything is going continuously (simultaneity becomes irrelevant) and time 'scooches forward' two actions per character at a time.  Forfeiting allows for interruptions, Held and Following Actions create "dependant actions," both of which "would be neat."

"FitM runs into trouble with recreating some interesting drama in situations with more than two participants" - I don't see how.  I believe you have invested a large amount of complexity in something that can be very simple like FitM.  (The only difference has to be, FatE is Objective-Declaration-Resolution, whereas FitM is Objective-Resolution-Declaration; Resolution being the dice part only.)  Can you describe what you consider the inherent complexity that renders many-individuals FitM troublesome?[/list:u]So as you can see, I'm lost.  From 'over here' it looks like we have addressed each of the solutions you posed in terms "achieving that" (even though there is no "best way").

Are we talking about the same thing here?  You ended with saying you were just "sharing [your] observations."  We shared ours, each with their own "best way."  Can you restate your "objections?"

Fang Langford (who really does want to help)

Hello,

The Sorcerer/Zero system does not remove dramatic interrupts. They are negotiated as plausible during the declaration phase, and dice outcomes determine whether they work. What's missing is the "gotcha" spring-it-on-you surprise of the action during resolution. Since all systems I have ever played with either (a) are so clunky and freeze-frame that the surprise is leaden and deadened, or (b) are so loosey-goosey that the surprise-power is usually the GM's hammer of railroading, I consider the Sorcerer/Zero system vastly superior.

I've said it before many times - people really don't grasp this unless they try it. And usually, when they try it, ingrained habits of play step in and they end up not trying it after all when they're at the table. They insert bogus initiative rolls and such. Then they come sputtering to me, I explain it, they try it again, and later they say it's amazing. I've been through this a lot in the last year, and I'm not going to debate it with someone who's theorizing.

For my money, Zero deserves credit as one of finest innovative Fortune-based games out there, for exactly this element: the separation of the first "I" from IIEE, which had never been done before.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron
I've said it before many times - people really don't grasp this unless they try it. And usually, when they try it, ingrained habits of play step in and they end up not trying it after all when they're at the table. They insert bogus initiative rolls and such. Then they come sputtering to me, I explain it, they try it again, and later they say it's amazing. I've been through this a lot in the last year, and I'm not going to debate it with someone who's theorizing.

As I'd only be theorizing, I'll leave it at that. I will say, however, that I've read a bit more about Sorcerer mechanics and appreciate them more now.

Quote from: fang
I was under the impression "Fang's Dilemma" was what the other players are doing when it's your turn. Their characters are 'frozen,' aren't they? Well, not in Scattershot; you aren't swinging at 'frozen statues.' If you act upon another character so that they could reasonably respond, you have Engaged them (you've blindsided them otherwise). A character who is so Engaged is allowed to forfeit either or both of their upcoming actions and perform a defense. So, if everyone else is 'frozen,' when you act on one of them (or any of them), they 'unfreeze' so the interaction can be dynamic. (Having everyone not Engaged stay frozen doesn't inhibit the emulation of battle at all.) And that's where my riposte comes in, after I parry, I get to Follow with a riposte; anyone can turn a defense into an offense.

I interpreted it in terms of the freeze frame approach to combat, where people act, stop, act, and stop. If this wasn't your intention when you wrote what was dubbed your dilemma, I suppose I've commented on a similar dilemma I thought you noted.

I suppose this is what I get for thinking I understood something from the name it was given.

Fang, Although the 2 actions solves some of the problems it introduces elements of artificiality. For example, you can do two simultaneous actions, but not three. The cap on two actions feel arbitrary to me. Also consider a scuffle with three or four participants. I don't see how things would work smoothly in that case. But then again I am not sure I understand your combat system fully.

The "problem" with Zero/Sorcerer is as Ron says himself: 'What's missing is the "gotcha" spring-it-on-you surprise of the action during resolution'. I do appreciate the Zero/Sorcerer approach isolating the I1-phase and I definately consider using it myself (I'm working on something which might work with my game... I was gonna write it down here but I'll probably not have the time today).

What I think would be cool is if one could fit this kind of interrupt into the system as well, because to me it's the most important type of interrupt as it lends a lot of drama to the situation.

The problem with the FitM mechanism was using it on its own to solve the interrupt problem. In FitM, consider A attacking B, B attacking A, C attacking A. Case in question: A succeeds his roll and so does C. However C:s objective runs contrary to A:s with the intent to actually nullify A:s success against B. For example A states he wants to attack B, B states he's attacking A, C states he tries to defend B against A. Who succeeds? Here we run into problems which have to be dealt with within the system. Here's the question of who gets to narrate what in the case of simultaneous events. There are other possible scenarios with similar clashes. It's possible to avoid them, but it's not totally straightforward.

I'm also thinking of a lot of interdependent situations where B and C together make a dependent action versus A. They succeed, but who gets to narrate. The system must be crystal about that. I know most of the systems out there DO take care of it, I'm just pointing out that it must be taken into account. And it might be difficult to create a true sense of drama this way.

Fang, to answer you question:
"Are we talking about the same thing here? You ended with saying you were just "sharing [your] observations." We shared ours, each with their own "best way." Can you restate your "objections?" "

What I meant with my objections are that I felt they were labeled as "solutions" to the issues, but didn't solve anything (from my point of view anyway).

Basically we have Zero/Sorcerer which doesn't have what I call dramatic interrupts, with which I mean interrupts which are exectuted in the E1 or E2 phase of the IIEE.

Scattershot I still admit I still don't know if I understand (I don't know if that's saying something about how stupid I am or how intuitive Scattershot is to understand), but the cap on 2 actions seem like it could run into problems. I don't know how well Scattershot handles dramatic interrupts and simultaneous/dependent actions. (The latter two are something I feel the Sorcerer system probably kicks ass at handling.