Good initiative mechanics?

Simon Smith wrote:
[...]

Post by Simon Smith
All characters have a Speed stat; everyone rolls D6+Speed, generating a
number of action points for the coming turn. Highest Speeds act first.
Actions usually use up three 'speed points' each, occasionally less or more.
A defensive action uses up one speed point. Hence if you rolled 15 for
initiative, and the mooks you were facing rolled 10, you might get the
character acting on initiative 15, 12, 9, 5, 1, having used a couple of action
points for defence (defending once moved the character's next action from
speed 6 to speed 5, and defending twice more moved his last action of the
round from speed 3 to speed 1). The mooks would act on 10, 7, 4, 1. This
works well at intermixing the actions of the two sides and is easy to track.
And it fits the Feng Shui genre very well.

I don't think it worked very well, and I've speciically attempted to
avoid Feng Shui's flaws in the Modern Action RPG Initiative/Action Point
system.

[...]

Post by Simon Smith
What other systems out there handle initiative in a notably elegant way?

I'm not going for elegant, I'm going for "performs work that should
performed", which should always be the design goal for RPG system rules.

One thing I'm very interested in, however, is whether characters should
declare the use of a defensive option before or after they know whether
the enemy's attack roll was successful (or, in both Sagatafl and MA RPG,
*how* successful the attack roll was), especially of defensive actions
(parries, dodges, and so forth) are in limited supply, with characters
being limited to one or two per Round, or each defensive action costing
Action Points.

Baseline Sagatafl has always been that you declare after, but that could
change depending on how MA RPG works out (since, in many ways, MA RPG is
my "testing ground" for various types of rules and rules structures).

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

Simon Smith

2008-03-16 23:26:14 UTC

Post by Peter Knutsen
[...]

I don't think it worked very well, and I've speciically attempted to
avoid Feng Shui's flaws in the Modern Action RPG Initiative/Action Point
system.

Funny, I thought it fit the genre that Feng Shui was trying to fit very
well. Though I doubt there are many other games where a Feng Shui-style
initiative mechanic is even appropriate. Why didn't you like it?

Post by Peter Knutsen
[...]

Post by Simon Smith
What other systems out there handle initiative in a notably elegant way?

I'm not going for elegant, I'm going for "performs work that should
performed", which should always be the design goal for RPG system rules.
One thing I'm very interested in, however, is whether characters should
declare the use of a defensive option before or after they know whether
the enemy's attack roll was successful (or, in both Sagatafl and MA RPG,
*how* successful the attack roll was), especially of defensive actions
(parries, dodges, and so forth) are in limited supply, with characters
being limited to one or two per Round, or each defensive action costing
Action Points.
Baseline Sagatafl has always been that you declare after, but that could
change depending on how MA RPG works out (since, in many ways, MA RPG is
my "testing ground" for various types of rules and rules structures).

Well, my take on that is that there's almost always a three-way compromise
between 1) simplicity of resolution, 2) allowing characters to act only on
the information they would have at the time, and 3) avoiding unnecessary
die-rolling. Allowing PCs to dodge only when and if they need to achieves #3
at the expense of committing sin #2. It makes any level of dodge skill that
much more effective - because you only use it when you need to, and when
there's a chance it'll actually work. Making characters dodge before they
know whether they need to forces them to be a bit more conservative, so the
same amount of dodge skill doesn't go quite as far; i.e. enforcing #2 tends
to provoke sin #3.

For competent, and particularly *super*-competent characters (e.g.
superheroes, Feng Shui characters and possibly Star Wars and James Bond
characters as well) I think it fits the genre to rig the system to make them
more efficient (this also has the benefit of speeding up combat slightly,
because there are fewer unnecessary skill rolls). James Bond is on the
boundary; let him dodge only when he needs to and you get a more
heroic/competent tone (sort of the way Cubby Broccoli pushed the character);
force him to dodge before knowing the results and the tone becomes a bit
grittier, and probably closer to Ian Fleming's original character concept.

For more realistic games, I think you have to make PCs commit to dodging
before they know if they need to, or else just use a to-hit mechanic that
assumes they're doing their best to dodge/stay under cover at all times. In
fact I had even toyed with the idea of a 'cover' skill that abstracts a
character's ability to find and take best advatange of whatever cover is
available. But at present that's a mechanic in search of a system to use it
in.

A bad system can commit all of sins #1-3. A good system, I don't see how you
can avoid one or the other of #2 or #3; they seem to be inextricably linked.

--
Simon Smith

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

gleichman

2008-03-17 14:17:16 UTC

On Mar 16, 6:26 pm, Simon Smith <***@zen.co.uk> wrote:

I have a completely different view of the subject.

I'm no fan of random initiative systems, avoiding them completely as
little more than an extra die roll that achieves basically nothing
other than the introduction of more randomness into a mechanical
system that already has enough of that (assuming a well designed core
mechanic). That simple reason is why such mechanics are so rare in
either war-gaming or rpg design. There are of course other related
reasons.

Nor am I a fan of Action Points and other similar mechanics, or
limited defensive options common to these systems.as they produce very
counter-productive play due to their very nature. For example,
requiring the spending of an Action for each use of the game's primary
defensive options results in the tradition MMORPGs style of combat
when each side focuses all their fire upon a single target- something
not seen in reality or fiction outside those games when use such
mechanics.

And finally, the point of "allowing characters to act only on the
information they would have at the time" is also genre dependent. I'm
frankly extremely hard pressed to recall a single example of this
impacting the fictional sources of most rpgs outside of what can be
handled by most systems perception mechanics.

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. Here, the drawbacks become
advantages. Along that line, the Deadlands system is the best I've
seen, not only managing the number of actions and their order- but
also highlightning the poker deck which adds in bring the western
setting more to the forefront. Even so, I found this unappealing for
long term campaigns.

For my typical style, I just want initiative to get out of the way as
quickly as possible. Age of Heroes has a simple Initiative value
printed on the character sheet. HERO System goes in DEX order. I'm far
more interesting in what a character does with his action then in
determining if he even has one (and I consider failed actions to
represent any occurrence of failure to act. Abstraction is part of any
game; use it when it makes the experience better).

Simon Smith

2008-03-17 22:11:18 UTC

Post by gleichman
I have a completely different view of the subject.

Ahem, I said no such thing. I've not yet quite degenerated to the level of
having debates with myself in public. Please take more care with
attributions in future. If you snip everything else I say, snip my name too.

Post by gleichman
I'm no fan of random initiative systems, avoiding them completely as
little more than an extra die roll that achieves basically nothing
other than the introduction of more randomness into a mechanical
system that already has enough of that (assuming a well designed core
mechanic). That simple reason is why such mechanics are so rare in
either war-gaming or rpg design. There are of course other related
reasons.

I didn't /say/ I was only after random initiative systems either, but in
hindsight quoting two random ones and no non-random ones was likely to skew
people's assumptions. Sorry about that. I shouldn't have snipped my third
example, which was RuneQuest's Strike Rank system. That's entirely
deterministic. Handles multiple actions as well.

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?

Those are the sort of questions I'm interested in. What systems actually try
to address such issues? Plain old descending order of Dex is bland and
generic, and goes right back to the game of Basic Roleplaying. What more
sophisticated takes exist out there?

Post by gleichman
Nor am I a fan of Action Points and other similar mechanics, or
limited defensive options common to these systems.as they produce very
counter-productive play due to their very nature. For example,
requiring the spending of an Action for each use of the game's primary
defensive options results in the tradition MMORPGs style of combat
when each side focuses all their fire upon a single target- something
not seen in reality or fiction outside those games when use such
mechanics.

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. The current house-ruled compromise is that one dodge protects
you against one attack, but gives you 2m free movement with which to move
towards cover. A bit of modelling suggested that it would be rare for a
character to have to move more than half a dozen metres to get to cover.

<snip>

Post by gleichman
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?

For a non-combat example, I'm reminded of a lot of tennis matches I've seen,
where the better player often wins by making fewer mistakes and seemingly
inducing their opponent to make more. You can often see the same star on
opposite sides of the equation in successive matches.

Post by gleichman
Along that line, the Deadlands system is the best I've
seen, not only managing the number of actions and their order- but
also highlightning the poker deck which adds in bring the western
setting more to the forefront.

<snip>

Post by gleichman
For my typical style, I just want initiative to get out of the way as
quickly as possible. Age of Heroes has a simple Initiative value
printed on the character sheet. HERO System goes in DEX order. I'm far
more interesting in what a character does with his action then in
determining if he even has one (and I consider failed actions to
represent any occurrence of failure to act.

<snip>

Good idea. I had been using that in a restricted area of my own system,
under the called shots section, but now you come to mention it, simply
failing to act is a good generic failure mechanism, so I should use it more
widely.

--
Simon Smith

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

gleichman

2008-03-18 15:01:20 UTC

Post by Simon Smith
Please take more care with
attributions in future. If you snip everything else I say, snip my name too.

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.

Post by Simon Smith
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 leadership 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 leadership
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.

Post by Simon Smith
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.

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.

Ben Finney

2008-03-19 00:00:27 UTC

Please take more care with attributions in future. If you snip
everything else I say, snip my name too.

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.

That's exactly right. So, rather than snipping *all* the quoted
material, you should retain just enough (with correct attribution) to
give context to your reply.

Sometimes there's no single part of the message that you're replying
to; in those cases, just providing a one-sentence summary of what the
message said is better than nothing at all.

In those cases (and this doesn't seem to be one) where your reply
truly needs *none* of the original material to have context, then it
probably isn't a reply to that message at all. In which case, starting
a new thread is better than replying.

--
\ “That's all very good in practice, but how does it work in |
`\ *theory*?” —anonymous |
_o__) |
Ben Finney

gleichman

2008-03-19 00:08:03 UTC

On Mar 18, 7:00 pm, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-***@benfinney.id.au>
wrote:

You know, I think I'll just continue doing it the way I was and see
how many more posts I can generate.

Ed Chauvin IV

2008-03-19 13:57:31 UTC

Post by gleichman
You know, I think I'll just continue doing it the way I was and see
how many more posts I can generate.

There's a good troll. Have a cookie.

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

gleichman

2008-03-19 14:31:12 UTC

There's a good troll. Have a cookie.

I do find it interesting that Ben and yourself took up 25% of the
replies to this thread with crap that is basically off topic and was
already handled as I agreed to Simon request already. It seems taking
about rpgs isn't of interest, but correcting posting style and whining
about it is.

In sort, you're both acting like the net babies you are.

Ed Chauvin IV

2008-03-20 01:48:21 UTC

Post by gleichman
In sort, you're both acting like the net babies you are.

You can fuck off if you like.

gleichman

2008-03-20 04:34:42 UTC

On Mar 19, 8:48 pm, Ed Chauvin IV <***@gmail.com> wrote:

<language unsuited for a public forum snipped>

Poor Ed.

You know, if you'd only talk about rpgs instead of looking for ways to
continue fighting we'd likely get along a lot better. Simon it seems
can manage that, I wish more people could.

I wonder what sort of initiative mechanics you like and why for
example. Any chance that you'd provide an answer?

Ed Chauvin IV

2008-03-20 15:02:03 UTC

Post by gleichman
<language unsuited for a public forum snipped>
Poor Ed.
You know, if you'd only talk about rpgs instead of looking for ways to
continue fighting we'd likely get along a lot better.

I seriously doubt I could get ever along with such a supercilious
little man such as you. Run along now, and don't interrupt again when
the adults are speaking.

gleichman

2008-03-20 15:40:21 UTC

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
Run along now, and don't interrupt again when
the adults are speaking.

That would have been Simon and me, but thanks for staying out of it
since you don't have anything related to rpgs to add. Although it's
likely too late now, you've likely killed the thread.

And fyi, I'm in this group forever now. Get use to it, or get
elsewhere.

gleichman

2008-03-20 15:55:35 UTC

Post by gleichman
That would have been Simon and me,

Oh. forgot about Peter. Sorry Peter, hasty typing and all.

Peter Knutsen

2008-03-20 16:45:23 UTC

Post by gleichman
That would have been Simon and me,

Oh. forgot about Peter. Sorry Peter, hasty typing and all.

It's okay; I haven't been very active in this thread so far, but I did
start composing a post a few days ago, in reply to Simon, and I also
plan to send some flaming your way...

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

gleichman

2008-03-20 18:39:32 UTC

Post by Peter Knutsen
It's okay; I haven't been very active in this thread so far, but I did
start composing a post a few days ago, in reply to Simon, and I also
plan to send some flaming your way...

Looking forward to it, I imagine we'll have some discussions about
defensive options.

Ed Chauvin IV

2008-03-20 19:06:39 UTC

Post by gleichman
And fyi, I'm in this group forever now. Get use to it, or get
elsewhere.

Keep dancing monkey, I'm not done being entertained.

DougL

2008-03-26 21:10:12 UTC

Just back from a long trip and catching up.

My current BESM based game one of my (many) fixes to the combat
mechanics was to allow the characters to by default to defend at full
value vs. all attacks. Most attacks are ranged and you don't dodge the
single blaster shot, you dodge all the time (unless surprised or
taking deliberate aim or on a disabled vehicle or...).

Dodging all the time is equivalent to rolling full defense vs. every
single attack, it just seems to work MUCH better.

And this game's combat does often involve the 100+ guys (or starships
or whatever) shoot at you who can only hit if they roll a ~8 or more
points higher than you do on 2d6. I can have a computer roll the 100+
guys or just use the statistical expected number of rolls of 10-12 and
have the PC roll only that number of defenses.

I find that the 100+ guys are mildly dangerous but not nearly so much
so any heroic types on the other side and that this is pretty much
what I want.

200 storm troopers should worry Luke, but 9 shouldn't be able to
trivially take him down by having the first 8 force out all his
defensive actions.

There's still too much concentration of fire. The force-field and HP
rules both encourage it too much to avoid it. If I ever bother with
another major revision to the house rules I'll worry about that.

Back on the subject, BESM uses random roll every round, which works
for what I'm doing but isn't really needed IMAO, fixed initiative
values would work about as well and run a bit faster.

DougL

gleichman

2008-03-27 21:04:14 UTC

Post by DougL
Dodging all the time is equivalent to rolling full defense vs. every
single attack, it just seems to work MUCH better.

It's normally a rather simple change to either always allow a defense,
or to allow a defensive option to protect against all attacks until
the characters next action.

Ran into trouble with in Deadlands however. The core die mechanic
there has huge drop offs in probabilities that meant doing this almost
made characters with a high value in that ability untouchable. Adding
a number of foes needed to deal with this wasn't practical from either
a gaming or genre PoV.

So care needs to be taken with the approach. It may not work in all
systems.

My answer to Deadlands was to drop the system in favor of something
else.

Simon Smith

2008-03-27 21:05:49 UTC

Post by DougL
Just back from a long trip and catching up.

My current BESM based game one of my (many) fixes to the combat
mechanics was to allow the characters to by default to defend at full
value vs. all attacks. Most attacks are ranged and you don't dodge the
single blaster shot, you dodge all the time (unless surprised or
taking deliberate aim or on a disabled vehicle or...).
Dodging all the time is equivalent to rolling full defense vs. every
single attack, it just seems to work MUCH better.
And this game's combat does often involve the 100+ guys (or starships
or whatever) shoot at you who can only hit if they roll a ~8 or more
points higher than you do on 2d6. I can have a computer roll the 100+
guys or just use the statistical expected number of rolls of 10-12 and
have the PC roll only that number of defenses.
I find that the 100+ guys are mildly dangerous but not nearly so much
so any heroic types on the other side and that this is pretty much
what I want.
200 storm troopers should worry Luke, but 9 shouldn't be able to
trivially take him down by having the first 8 force out all his
defensive actions.

In BESM or Feng Shui, I'd tend to agree. But under the Star Wars-based rules
I'm using, I'd much, much rather only need a squad or two of stormtroopers
to threaten a character. For my setting, 200 is ridiculously many. I want to
be able to scare the PCs with eight stormtroopers, not be forced to use 800.
I want them to spend more game time scared than you do, evidently :-)

So it does look like 'running characters out of Dodge dice' needs to remain
a part of my rules. I do find it interesting to see how a single design
decision can make the desired game mechanics diverge so radically.

What seems to work for me is to treat a high Dodge skill not as an
impenetrable 'never get hit' shield, but as a 'buys you enough time to get
to cover' skill, and the more skilled you are, the more you can get away
with before it's time to seek cover. However, I'm reliant on several
interacting effects to achieve this:

1) Every action taken (including dodges) gives you 2m of free movement.

2) A bit of back-of-the-envelope calculation showed that there will almost
always be some cover within half-a-dozen meters of a character's position.
And I have now embodied that as a rule of thumb; nearest cover is 1D6 meters
away, second-nearest is another 1D6 meters away from that, and so forth. In
open areas with very sparse cover, use 2D6 + 2D6 + 2D6 + ... instead. Then
roll a second D6 to grade the toughness of the cover - e.g. 1 or 2 is a
trash can, 5 or 6 is a parked vehicle, a tree, or a nice sturdy wall etc. So
whenever a fight breaks out at a random location, I can quickly populate the
area with stuff to hide behind - or blow up - with just a few die rolls. And
I plan to keep some pre-rolled sets of terrain ready for just this sort of
eventuality. /And/ I can keep adding new bits of suitable terrain as the
fight moves from place to place.

3) Being hit for even the most minor possible injury almost always knocks
you prone.

4) Being prone makes you harder or impossible to hit, and this combines with
cover; so no matter how many mooks shoot at you, once one hits and knocks
you down, that will usually be all the damage you take for the round,
because then you'll be prone behind whatever cover you'd found and the mooks
probably can't shoot at you any more.

5) Weapons fire comes in two flavours; snap and aimed. Snap fire is quick,
dirty and inaccurate, but PCs are usually skilled enough to still get hits
while using snap fire. Aimed fire is very, very accurate, but if you dodge
you lose your aim. The result is that stormtroopers who usually outnumber
their opponents almost always aim and take the chance that a couple of them
will go down to random lucky shots, while PCs usually use snap-fire, but
that means they're free to dodge when they need to.

Now, no way could I shoehorn all of that into just the dodge skill. So my
raw dodge skill does look rather too simplistic.

Post by DougL
"9 stormtroopers shouldn't be able to trivially take him down by having
the first 8 force out all his defensive actions"

Counterintuitively, for my rules it appears they should - provided Luke
really is too thick to try to get under cover after eight ever-closer
warning shots.

But initiative matters because an ill-considered initiative rule could let
one side take a series of aimed shots, then move under cover where they are
safe from retaliation. I'd like some way of intermixing actions between the
two sides, while allowing for members of both sides choosing to take
differing numbers of actions. The old Star Wars rules mostly did this; all
first actions were resolved, then all second actions and so on, but that can
get rather confusing because you're constantly having to switch from one
character to another, while still keeping everybody's second and third actions
straight, along with escalating skill penalties for any extra skill uses
(e.g. dodges) which have cropped up during the round. Also, it doesn't
particularly match the films, where characters several times executed
sequences of actions without being interrupted.

Giving each character a concentrated dose of spotlight time so they can
perform all their actions in a round in a single batch is simpler and
quicker, but does not appear to mix well with the snap/aimed fire system,
which is a shame. I'm also not sure whether I want the PCs to always act in
the same order every combat round. Shuffling the action order round a bit
adds to the gane IMV, even though it adds complexity too.

Hmm. I wonder how a rule like "roll a die code based on the relative numbers
of the sides; each side then gets some number of consecutive actions
according to the die roll" might play out. Mooks taking one action apiece
could be handled in batches of maybe 3-6 mooks at a time, while a heroic PC
wanting to try a complex sequence of actions could string them all together
and resolve them in one go. That's a novel idea, for me at least.

Ultimately I'd rather not use initiative die rolls at all, but I think I
might have a bit of a play with that one anyway, just to see how it behaves.

Post by DougL
There's still too much concentration of fire. The force-field and HP
rules both encourage it too much to avoid it. If I ever bother with
another major revision to the house rules I'll worry about that.

Sounds like a typical example of a rule system working against itself; you
have to combine fire to have a chance of piercing a force wall, therefore
the scaling rules for combined fire adopt a very gentle slope, and hence a
couple of points of difference in the value of a defence code requires a
factor of ten more attackers to counteract. But if the only thing that can
threaten a PC is an equal NPC or 1000 mooks, then your opponents will either
be an NPC or 1000 mooks, and the PCs won't be too scared even when
confronted with tens of thousands of them. If 10 mooks can threaten a PC,
they'll be a lot more respectful of 100 or 1000 mooks (well, maybe a /bit/
more - I know what some PCs can be like), and as a GM you'll have a wider
variety of credible ways in which you can challenge them. But if you make
mooks too close to the power of PCs, mooks cease to exist as a concept, and
the game tone changes radically. High-action and space-opera games seem to
/need/ mooks or they just don't work right.

Post by DougL
Back on the subject, BESM uses random roll every round, which works
for what I'm doing but isn't really needed IMAO, fixed initiative
values would work about as well and run a bit faster.
DougL

--
Simon Smith

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

DougL

2008-03-27 21:33:37 UTC

I think you missunderstand. This ISN'T a mook problem, it's a problem
with COMPARABLE foes. Masses of mooks can reasonably spread fire for
any number of reasons, and for the PCs since each hit kills or
disables there's no reason to concentrate fire vs. mooks.

This problem was visible recently when 6 PCs took on 2 NPCs as both
sides did nothing but "concentrate all fire on a single target till it
goes down". It's not a mook scaling problem, its an inherent problem
with any ablative defense vs. a sane attacker. And it shows up worst
in relatively even fights where taking down one foe is a significant
drop in the OpFor effectiveness.

DougL

gleichman

2008-03-28 00:37:43 UTC

Post by DougL
This problem was visible recently when 6 PCs took on 2 NPCs as both
sides did nothing but "concentrate all fire on a single target till it
goes down". It's not a mook scaling problem, its an inherent problem
with any ablative defense vs. a sane attacker. And it shows up worst
in relatively even fights where taking down one foe is a significant
drop in the OpFor effectiveness.

I'm very much with DougL on this point. I consider the concentration
of fire to be a far worse problem than mooks and scaling of opponents.
Generally knocking mooks down in a system where they are mook is easy
compared to avoiding non-genre and tactically uninterestig
concentration of fire

In general, I think game design should deal with the hard questions
first and then move on to the easy ones.

Sometimes other decisions like the core resolution mechanic gets in
the way of managing this by making both factors difficult. In this
case, D6 Star Wars and Class Deadlands share that difficultly due to
the highly significant effect of a single level advantage in skill
(let alone a couple of levels).

DougL

2008-03-28 15:23:49 UTC

I'm very much with DougL on this point. I consider the concentration
of fire to be a far worse problem than mooks and scaling of opponents.
Generally knocking mooks down in a system where they are mook is easy
compared to avoiding non-genre and tactically uninterestig
concentration of fire
In general, I think game design should deal with the hard questions
first and then move on to the easy ones.
Sometimes other decisions like the core resolution mechanic gets in
the way of managing this by making both factors difficult. In this
case, D6 Star Wars and Class Deadlands share that difficultly due to
the highly significant effect of a single level advantage in skill
(let alone a couple of levels).

There is a tie in with Mook scaling. When all is said and done making
mooks work (able to hurt in mass or by attrition but no real chance of
winning by a single lucky shot one on one) is a big part of the reason
for including ablative defenses (abstract HP, forcefields that can be
knocked down, limited dodge actions, limited "action points",
whatever...).

But once you've included such ablative defenses it's very hard to
discourage such unfun concentration of fire. Especially if fights are
with ranged weapons where it's fairly hard to come up with a rational
for concentration being difficult.

My best current idea is to come up with a better defined "fighting
defensively" which gives a modest penalty to attacks and bonus to
defense and simply state that anyone who takes a non-area "damaging
hit" instantly switches to fighting defensively. But this only works
if fighting defensively is expensive enough that it is normally a
clearly bad idea (otherwise there's a good chance everyone will
already be fighting defensively). And this starts to look death-spiral
like in effect unless you have a very slow pace of decision since a
hit forces your opponent to take damage AND reduces her chances of
hitting you back.

I've also considered some way to assist another on defense (giving
them part of your ablative defense) but there are conceptual problems
with implementation that I don't like.

DougL

gleichman

2008-03-28 16:22:30 UTC

Post by DougL
There is a tie in with Mook scaling. When all is said and done making
mooks work (able to hurt in mass or by attrition but no real chance of
winning by a single lucky shot one on one) is a big part of the reason
for including ablative defenses (abstract HP, forcefields that can be
knocked down, limited dodge actions, limited "action points",
whatever...).

I suppose my reaction to this issue is one of question the starting
premise. What is the purpose of 'mooks' anyway? I imagine the answers
differ depending upon taste, for example I don't really use mooks at
all in my games. I have a critter I call a "minor character', but the
rules that apply to that are applied after they are defeated and
reflect more the need to get them 'off-screen' as it were.

From the above I would assume that you want mooks to be somewhat
dangerous in numbers, but effectively helpless individually. I would
claim that there are non-ablative ways of managing that.

Two come immediately to mind:

1. Allow mooks to combine fire into a single attack which is made with
a bonus depending upon how many have worked together. Limit the number
allowed to do this by some value owned by their unit leader. Thus a
number (set by your design) can combine to have a low chance of
success with an attack.

2. Move your game system more towards maneuver and cover. Arrange
things so that your Heroes are basically untouchable by Mooks when
faced front-on (if in melee) or behind cover (if ranged fire). This
means the mooks will need to maneuver to a point of advantage before
they get any chance to injury a PC, thus cross-fires and flanking
actions.

Both of these methods (or a combination) fits the goals and can do so
without ablative defenses on the part of the PCs. 'Age of Heroes' uses
the second quite successfully.

Simon Smith

2008-03-29 12:27:35 UTC

Post by DougL

I think you missunderstand. This ISN'T a mook problem, it's a problem
with COMPARABLE foes. Masses of mooks can reasonably spread fire for
any number of reasons, and for the PCs since each hit kills or
disables there's no reason to concentrate fire vs. mooks.
This problem was visible recently when 6 PCs took on 2 NPCs as both
sides did nothing but "concentrate all fire on a single target till it
goes down". It's not a mook scaling problem, its an inherent problem
with any ablative defense vs. a sane attacker. And it shows up worst
in relatively even fights where taking down one foe is a significant
drop in the OpFor effectiveness.

You're right, I had misunderstood. I was getting distracted by a related
problem, which you also put quite well in your post on mook scaling.

If mooks need a 'ganging up mechanic' to threaten PCs, then under most rule
systems PCs can get even bigger benefits from using the same mechanic.
Simple example, if the ganging up mechanic includes a limit that says 'you
can't do more than double the lowest skill', highly-skilled PCs can gang up,
generate a higher skill code than mooks ever could, and probably still not
hit that limit.

This has bothered me in the past, but maybe addressing the 'concentrating
fire' problem might do a better job of fixing that issue too.

I also liked an earlier point of yours -

"HP ... encourage excessive concentration of fire to an extent that violates
both realism and genre. I have various other minor problems related to
realism (especially of recovery) but good game trumps realistic in this
case.

"But I'd like some way to fix the concentration of fire effect and encourage
people to spread out their attacks while still providing the ablative
defense and ease of use of HP, ..."

Which neatly encapsulates both the main reason to like HP and the main
reason to dislike them.

I'm thinking we need to turn the hit point system on its head and replace it
with a damage point system. Hurting everybody a little needs to be a more
effective tactic that hurting one guy lots, but without provoking a
party-wide death spiral. PCs and NPCs can survive getting hurt a little and
be driven off. But as soon as the PCs have one of their guys down (a likely
consequence of ganging up), they're chained to the area, because they won't
generally want to abandon a fallen comrade.

I also think incapacitating characters without killing them should be
easier. RuneQuest did this well; there were several ways to take a character
down (head < 0 = unconscious) which didn't kill them. It's quite easy to
produce a simple hit location system into most games; use a D6 and six hit
locations, and characters have, say 1/3 of their hit points in each location
and maybe a running hit point total. Location to minus its normal total is
destroyed, location negative is unusable, but you can't lose more than twice
a location's hit points from your total from a single blow. Hence a mighty
blow > total hit points can still kill if it hits a vital spot (e.g. head,
body), or chop off a limb, but against an equal opponent, where damage for a
single blow is, say in the region of 1/4-1/2 hit points, the usual result is
a location negative, which is a takedown, but with the character still
alive. To do that with a single ablative hit point total, you'd probably
have to use critical hits of some kind.

Maelstrom had a very elegant damage system as well, one that avoided the need
for hit locations. You tracked each wound separately as x points of damage,
and kept a running total.

When the running total exceeded a threshold, you fell unconscious, but you
didn't die unless or until it reached a higher threshold. Bleeding and
fatigue were easy to handle within the rules as well.

e.g. something like:
Dead: 100
Unconscious: 70
Current wounds: 12, 13, 3, 22
Total: 50

--
Simon Smith

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

Simon Smith

2008-03-29 13:01:07 UTC

In message <***@zen.co.uk>
Simon Smith <***@zen.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Simon Smith
I'm thinking we need to turn the hit point system on its head and replace it
with a damage point system. Hurting everybody a little needs to be a more
effective tactic that hurting one guy lots, but without provoking a
party-wide death spiral. PCs and NPCs can survive getting hurt a little and
be driven off. But as soon as the PCs have one of their guys down (a likely
consequence of ganging up), they're chained to the area, because they won't
generally want to abandon a fallen comrade.

<snip>

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.

--
Simon Smith

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

gleichman

2008-03-29 15:04:57 UTC

Post by Simon Smith
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.

It would have to be one heck of a incentive to match the incentive of
actually taking a foe (and his attacks) out. Doing it without a Death
Spiral is even harder.

And then when done, you'd actually have to kept this highly artifical
mechanic in mind (I've shot at target #17... but not... 18? Wait, I
shot at him... Ok, 19 he's next).

Color me highly doubtful that this would work, or be fun in the
working.

Ed Chauvin IV

2008-03-30 00:43:07 UTC

Post by Simon Smith
<snip>

<snip>
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.

Though I don't think "concentration of fire" is the "problem" it's
being made out to be[1], this would probably work better as a penalty
to characters that are being attacked.

[1]: It's not a problem peculiar to rpg systems, it's just a simple
fact that reducing the number of the opposing force, and therefore his
ability to attack your force, is more tactically sound than reducing
the overall strength of that force without reducing it's ability to
return fire. There's a reason that real world modern militaries use
concentration of fire whenever possible.

Tim Little

2008-03-30 00:59:08 UTC

Post by Ed Chauvin IV
[1]: It's not a problem peculiar to rpg systems, it's just a simple
fact that reducing the number of the opposing force, and therefore his
ability to attack your force, is more tactically sound than reducing
the overall strength of that force without reducing it's ability to
return fire.

It may be tactically sound, but in RPGs it's often not as much fun.

In that sense it is a problem more peculiar to RPGs: most other
situations where the tactic arises are either not concerned at all
about whether the conflict is fun or not, or are broader in scale
where it doesn't matter if some nameless unit is being singled out for
concentrated destruction.

- Tim

gleichman

2008-03-30 14:09:21 UTC

Post by Tim Little
It may be tactically sound, but in RPGs it's often not as much fun.

Excellent point.

Just because an given ruleset results in specific play style being
sound is no reason to consider that style justified.

Nor btw, does concentration of fire in real life mean everyone on one
side shots at one guy on the other and no others, although that was a
major element of Soviet style tactics (and one of the reasons why they
got their backsides handed to them in those real world occasions when
they were used).

psychohist

2008-04-01 22:31:29 UTC

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.

DougL

2008-04-01 22:44:44 UTC

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.

DougL

gleichman

2008-04-02 01:10:29 UTC

Yes they are. That method doesn't really work.

psychohist

2008-04-02 06:15:12 UTC

Doug Lampert posts, in part:

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.

Realistically, each character would need to decide whether they were
staying defensive before they got shot at. A simultaneous decision
system would encourage people not to focus fire too much because then
the opponents could risk not staying defensive.

I'm not sure exactly what we're looking for, though. Focused fire is
a reasonable tactic for situations where accumulation of damage
matters. That's not generally the case in infantry battles. At some
points in history, it was for naval battles, and there you did see
focused fire used. If you don't want focused fire to be effective, I
think you should stay away from cumulative damage systems.

Warren J. Dew

gleichman

2008-04-02 11:36:01 UTC

Post by psychohist
I
think you should stay away from cumulative damage systems.

I agree. It's basically the only workable method and is the one I use
most often (in fantasy and the more 'realistic' settings).

The only other one is basically an agreement to "not play that way".
Something that seems to be the case with my Superheroic games atlhough
it's assisted by the fact that often specific characters are better
against specific targets, attacks that stun or knockback targets
meaning that a single hit can put that out of range for a return
attack, and extensive use of terrain.

Effective cumulative damage pays certain advantages and comes with
certain disadvantages. I decided in the end that the latter counter
the former, for what use is a 4 turn combat survival buffer if the
only result is that four different characters shoot you this round?

Magister

2008-04-23 00:44:23 UTC

Post by psychohist
I'm not sure exactly what we're looking for, though.

I guess the objective is to avoid concentration of fire because
the game system implies that it's a bad strategy, not by
banning it arbitrarily.

Post by psychohist
Focused fire is
a reasonable tactic for situations where accumulation of damage
matters. That's not generally the case in infantry battles. At some
points in history, it was for naval battles, and there you did see
focused fire used. If you don't want focused fire to be effective, I
think you should stay away from cumulative damage systems.

Concentration of fire can be arranged to be weaker as a strategy
without giving up systems based on cumulative damage.

Consider two forces of ten opponents each facing ten player
characters in separate encounters. The first force of ten
has evenly distributed hit points; seven attacks from the
player characters are needed to defeat each of the ten enemies.
The second force of ten has five strong opponents requiring
11 attacks each to defeat, but also five weaker opponents
requiring 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 attacks respectively to defeat.
In each round, every character on each side attacks simultaneously;
so the player characters cannot concentrate fire on one target
and then switch in the same round if it is defeated. Also, the
player characters cannot judge how strong a given opponent is;
the opponents act the same until defeated.

To simplify, assume that the player characters have sufficient
resources (hit points, healing, etc) to avoid any deaths (so they
always get ten attacks each round), but still want to minimize
the number of attacks taken from either force; and assume
that the player characters use one of two strategies:
spreading their fire as evenly as possible, or
concentrating all of their fire on a single target.

Against the first force, concentrating fire is superior; one
opponent is defeated every round, and the enemies get 10+9+
8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1 = 55 attacks against the player characters.
Spreading fire takes 7 rounds to defeat all of the opponents at
once, and the player characters suffer 70 attacks.

Against the second force, concentrating fire is inferior; the
weaker opponents are defeated in one round, and the stronger
ones in 2 rounds. The best case is if the stronger opponents
are chosen last; then the player characters suffer the same
55 attacks as before, but an extra 5+4+3+2+1 during rounds
when a stronger opponents is attacked but not defeated, for a
total of 70 attacks. Spreading fire defeats one (or more, if
the extra attacks after the first round by luck attack weaker
targets) opponent in each of the first five rounds, and the
stronger opponents will each take no more than 6 more attacks
after those five rounds, so three more rounds with pairs of
attacks on each: a total of 10+9+8+7+6+5+5+5=55 attacks taken.

The example is somewhat (that is, very) contrived, but if
characters (PC or NPC) routinely meet opposing forces more
like the second than the first, it seems reasonable that
they would prefer the strategy of spreading fire. And that's
without favoring the strategy of spreading fire with specific
rules: e.g., superior defense for targets of multiple attacks, or
some mechanism for pooling hit points among homogeneous targets.

I think it interesting that your two examples seem to match
the two types of forces in the example: infantry (it seems
to me) are far more likely to have a substantial variation
in how many attacks are needed to defeat them, while
ships would probably be more consistent.

--
Magister

gleichman

2008-04-24 12:03:24 UTC

Post by Magister
In each round, every character on each side attacks simultaneously;
so the player characters cannot concentrate fire on one target
and then switch in the same round if it is defeated.

<snip>

Post by Magister
To simplify, assume that the player characters have sufficient
resources (hit points, healing, etc) to avoid any deaths (so they
always get ten attacks each round),

<snip>

Post by Magister
The example is somewhat (that is, very) contrived,

Indeed. The requirement of simultaneous attacks alone makes it so,
very few games use that mechanic and for good reason. And as a very
core element of the example, it required targets that basically
benefited little from the HP system.

At best, this is the exception that proves the rule.

Rick Pikul

2008-04-24 15:39:50 UTC

Post by Magister
The example is somewhat (that is, very) contrived,

Indeed. The requirement of simultaneous attacks alone makes it so,
very few games use that mechanic and for good reason.

However, quite a few games have used predeclared actions or penalize
switching targets.

Post by gleichman
And as a very
core element of the example, it required targets that basically
benefited little from the HP system.

As a simplification, I'd say that was worth it for an example. "Light on
HP" is a good stand-in for various types of systemic glass jaws.

Post by gleichman
At best, this is the exception that proves the rule.

It does point out one direction to go in to encourage spreading fire:
Include the possibilities of quick kills and wasted fire.

--
Phoenix

gleichman

2008-04-24 16:17:00 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
However, quite a few games have used predeclared actions or penalize
switching targets.

"quite a few"? Burning Wheel does, but that's just about the end of it
from my memory.

Besides, I'm quite willing to trashcan any game that uses predeclared
actions out of the gate no matter what other advantages they offer.
The cure is worse than the disease, both in the effect on play and the
added book keeping as the size of the battle grows (and I like battles
that range up to a few hundred characters on the table).

Post by Rick Pikul
Include the possibilities of quick kills and wasted fire.

You go for it. I'll pass thank you.

Rick Pikul

2008-04-25 06:46:00 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
However, quite a few games have used predeclared actions or penalize
switching targets.

"quite a few"? Burning Wheel does, but that's just about the end of it
from my memory.

AD&D had predeclared actions, I find it strange that you don't remember
that.

Penalizing target switching is most commonly in the form of removing a
bonus for sustained fire, although I have seen a couple of cases where you
have to do something like 'spend an action to acquire a new target', (both
times involving mecha combat). Of course, there is also the possibility of
having to move to switch targets, but in most cases where that applies you
don't have a concentration of fire issue in the first place.

Post by Rick Pikul
Include the possibilities of quick kills and wasted fire.

You go for it. I'll pass thank you.

It doesn't matter if you would use the class of solutions suggested, that
such a class was suggested is all that was required to disprove your
dismissal of the example.

Now, even without predeclared actions, there are ways of getting this kind
of effect. Such as DougL's idea of not falling over until your
action.

Another idea along these lines that comes to my mind is the possibility of
getting results, (like stunning the target), which will hamper the targets
next action by some absolute amount. If you don't know that you have
stunned the target, and there is a reasonable chance of getting such a
result, there is a benefit in spreading the party's fire.

--
Phoenix

gleichman

2008-04-25 10:53:26 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
AD&D had predeclared actions, I find it strange that you don't remember
that.

Likely because no one I've ever encountered actually played AD&D as
written.

Reading the Player's Manual now, I can see why I've never seen anyone
predeclare. It never states that actions are pre-declared, only
implies it in the combat example. That implication may only be a
writing style choice rather and a detail of the sequence.

Even the DM Guide is unclear on this point, as the turn sequence does
not specify a pre-declare phase which always appeared in the wargames
of the time that used that method.

So, nope. Don't didn't play it that way. Wouldn't play it that way
even if I had read the books today.

Post by Rick Pikul
It doesn't matter if you would use the class of solutions suggested, that
such a class was suggested is all that was required to disprove your
dismissal of the example.

Give me a freakin' break.

Someone wins a lottery is no reason for any rational person to burn
hundreds of dollars a week on lottery tickets. Or even one buck a
week. You do know what "exception that proves the rule" means don't
you?

Post by Rick Pikul
Another idea along these lines that comes to my mind is the possibility of
getting results, (like stunning the target), which will hamper the targets
next action by some absolute amount. If you don't know that you have
stunned the target, and there is a reasonable chance of getting such a
result, there is a benefit in spreading the party's fire.

Stun rates would have to be too high in order to offset the advantage
of focused fire. As a result players would likely rebel when it was
apply against them.

Rick Pikul

2008-04-25 16:20:49 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
AD&D had predeclared actions, I find it strange that you don't remember
that.

Likely because no one I've ever encountered actually played AD&D as
written.

Everyone I've encountered in RL played this way, and that includes what
was one of the longest running AD&D tournaments in the world.

Post by gleichman
Reading the Player's Manual now, I can see why I've never seen anyone
predeclare. It never states that actions are pre-declared, only
implies it in the combat example. That implication may only be a
writing style choice rather and a detail of the sequence.

A 'style choice' that was consistently used in every TSR description of
play dating right back to articles in The Strategic Review. A 'style
choice' that is required for things like casting interruption to work as
written.

A 'style choice' that resulted in non-example text like: "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)
or:

"Within a combat round, there is a set series of steps which must be
followed. These steps are:

1. The DM decides what actions the monsters or NPCs will take, including
casting spells (if any).
2. The players indicate what their characters will do, including casting
spells (if any).
3. Initiative is determined.
4. Attacks are made in order of initiative."

(2ed DMG)

Post by Rick Pikul
It doesn't matter if you would use the class of solutions suggested, that
such a class was suggested is all that was required to disprove your
dismissal of the example.

Give me a freakin' break.
Someone wins a lottery is no reason for any rational person to burn
hundreds of dollars a week on lottery tickets. Or even one buck a
week. You do know what "exception that proves the rule" means don't
you?

Yes, and you used it wrong.

It does not apply to illustrative examples. You do know what an
illustrative example is, don't you?

Illustrative examples often use unlikely or unusual situations in order to
highlight the idea being described.

Stun rates would have to be too high in order to offset the advantage
of focused fire. As a result players would likely rebel when it was
apply against them.

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.

I have also seen games that give a very high chance of significant penalty
resulting from an attack. This comes about by allowing those not being
shot at to gain bonuses on their attacks, (either directly, or by making
it safe to choose an attack bonus/defense penalty tradeoff), or giving an
attack penalty for being under fire, (both of these are functionally
equivalent).

--
Phoenix

gleichman

2008-04-25 18:15:31 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
(2ed DMG)

You said 1st edition D&D, never played 2nd. Never would want to.

Post by Rick Pikul
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.

Post by Rick Pikul
I have also seen games that give a very high chance of significant penalty
resulting from an attack.

Which greatly expands the importance of Initiative. 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,
especially in cuml HP systems where already require multiple hits to
do anything.

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

Either embrace the natural results of expanding HP systems, or abandon
them.

Rick Pikul

2008-04-26 03:14:46 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
(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)

Post by Rick Pikul
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.

Post by Rick Pikul
I have also seen games that give a very high chance of significant
penalty resulting from an attack.

Which greatly expands the importance of Initiative.

That depends on implementation and the tactical situation involved.
Although anything that increases the chance of a quick kill impacts the
importance 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.

Post by gleichman
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.

Post by gleichman
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

DougL

2008-04-24 21:45:02 UTC

<snip>

Post by Magister
To simplify, assume that the player characters have sufficient
resources (hit points, healing, etc) to avoid any deaths (so they
always get ten attacks each round),

<snip>

Post by Magister
The example is somewhat (that is, very) contrived,

Indeed. The requirement of simultaneous attacks alone makes it so,
very few games use that mechanic and for good reason. And as a very
core element of the example, it required targets that basically
benefited little from the HP system.
At best, this is the exception that proves the rule.

I could sort of duplicate the effect described in a "standard"
initiative based system with a simple rule that you don't evaluate
damage and actually fall down till your own next action. (This has at
least one other minor advantage, it makes FAKING that you've been
taken out MUCH easier since either way you fall down on your own
action with no need for a special interrupt ability.)

But making the example work still requires that many targets can be
taken out in one round WITHOUT concentration of fire, and as I already
commented much earlier in the thread there's no problem with
convincing characters to not concentrate against enemies they can take
out in one shot, the real problem is against PC level foes.

DougL

Simon Smith

2008-04-02 21:44:54 UTC

Post by DougL

(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 important
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

gleichman

2008-03-29 15:00:50 UTC

Post by Simon Smith
If mooks need a 'ganging up mechanic' to threaten PCs, then under most rule
systems PCs can get even bigger benefits from using the same mechanic.

The design concept of mooks is that they don't follow the same rules
in total as PCs and important NPCs. Thus (if one is making mooks
mechanically different already), this ability doesn't have to care
over to PCs.

DougL

2008-03-31 16:32:02 UTC

Post by Simon Smith
If mooks need a 'ganging up mechanic' to threaten PCs, then under most rule
systems PCs can get even bigger benefits from using the same mechanic.

Actually mine DO follow the same rules. But the PCs are effectively
superheroes while the mooks are ordinary people. (Drastically
different point totals and the mooks have a lower maximum level on
their advantages and can't have some advantages.)

The ordinary people shouldn't be able to beat the crap out of
superheroes one on one. But in this case I don't want an entire army
to be harmless.

DougL

DougL

2008-03-31 17:51:13 UTC

Post by DougL

Post by Simon Smith
If mooks need a 'ganging up mechanic' to threaten PCs, then under most rule
systems PCs can get even bigger benefits from using the same mechanic.

Actually mine DO follow the same rules. But the PCs are effectively
superheroes while the mooks are ordinary people. (Drastically
different point totals and the mooks have a lower maximum level on
their advantages and can't have some advantages.)
The ordinary people shouldn't be able to beat the crap out of
superheroes one on one. But in this case I don't want an entire army
to be harmless.

Second thought. If I were having trouble with Mooks scaling rather
than finding that part about right I could use: "Combined fire you
double numbers to get a +1 to ACV up to a maximum of 13 ACV or +6 to
ACV."

This rule is inherently PC unusable since I've only got one PC with an
ACV less than 14. It also limits combined groups to being noticably
worse than the best PCs. Which I would want since range, movement, and
cover modifiers are frequently significant and I don't want a mook
army to be able to pick off PCs at longer range than the PCs can
engage effectively.

Thus 32 guys with ACV 8 could combine in a single ACV 13 attack
(actually this would be 30 guys since I'd use the current BESM fast
progression for consistency). But the PCs couldn't benefit because
they're already too good and 32 ACV 10 guys would be unable to shoot
better than a PC since they'd have to combine as at least four groups.

DougL

Magister

2008-03-29 21:28:33 UTC

Post by Simon Smith
What games out there have good mechanics for initiative? How do they work?

...

Post by Simon Smith
Both of these systems determine not only who goes first, but also provide a
way of tracking the rest of each character's actions throughout the round. I
think that is a useful - and possibly a necessary - feature for any system
that permits more than one action per character per round.

If every character has more than one action in a round, then
maybe the rounds are too long.

Post by Simon Smith
What other systems out there handle initiative in a notably elegant way?

I use a simple system; matter of taste whether it's elegant. One side
goes
first; then the sides alternate. All of the characters on one side
act in an
order the players on that side choose, whether a character gets zero,
one
or more actions. No side gets two turns without every other side
getting
a turn in between, so any action that must be slow enough for the
other
sides to react to should start and end in different turns.

It's not quite as good with more than two sides, since the order of
the
sides is fixed. It's my campaign convention that PCs aren't plotting
against each other, so the players don't need a set rule among
themselves; but if they can't agree on order quickly then
appropriately
they lose their chance to act.

Who goes first? It could be determined randomly; I prefer that the
side
that initiates the combat does not go first; this provides an
incentive
not to attack immediately and to talk at least briefly with potential
enemies. If both sides are trying to intimidate, provoke or trick
the other into starting the fight, then roll some negotiation skill
(Bluff, Fast Talk, etc) and the loser can fight or surrender. (E.g.,
the
adventurers meet an ogre: they demand half its treasure if it wants to
live and the ogre promises to eat any who don't run away. Whoever
wins
the appropriate skill roll forces the other side to comply or start
the
fight.) An ambush still lets the defenders go first, but they usually
lose their first turn due to surprise.

If "who goes first" is so significant as to decide the entire outcome
(like a Western gunfight), then it should be resolved by appropriate
skill rolls, using whatever attributes are appropriate. It seems to
me that such situations are usually artificial.

There is a potential problem if characters on one side can combine
actions in one turn in a way that the other side would like to be
able to interrupt. The concentration of fire problem is an example.
But initiative doesn't seem to be the best way to solve that; if
there are many more characters on one side, then some number
of them will get actions in a row without any intervening actions
by their opponents.

Random initiative just adds variability that already should be
provided by the chance to hit. It might help if there are a lot
of actions which don't already have a roll to succeed.

--
Magister

psychohist

2008-04-03 19:48:21 UTC

My own favorite initiative mechanics are of course those in my own
home brew Eastern Isles system. This system is designed primarily for
melee. In each round, each character has a certain number of active
blows, and may also have some reactive blows, with small variations in
the numbers based on attributes and experience level. At any given
point, the character with the most active blows has the option to act;
of characters tied for the most active blows, the character with the
most reactive blows may act; in case of a tie there as well, the
character with the most endurance remaining acts. Typically an action
is an attack that uses an active blow; when attacked, a character may
use a reactive blow - or an active blow if no reactive blows are
available - to parry. Typically, an unparried attack is likely to hit
and a parried attack has a much smaller chance of hitting, though the
specific chances depend on skill level.

Between evenly matched characters, this typically results in the
characters taking turns attacking, as attacking reduces the active
blows that are primarily used to determine initiative. However, if a
defending character runs out of reactive blows and continues to parry,
he'll stay below the attacker in available blows. This permits an
attacker with a sufficient superiority in blows to keep the opponent
on the defensive. The defender can temporarily regain initiative by
refraining from parrying a blow.

Most of the people who have played this system like it because it
provides a lot of choices - whether or not to parry, when to attack,
when to pass the initiative - which affect the flow of the fight.
Initiative is dynamic, but as a result of decisions the players have
control over, rather than as a result of a random die roll.

There is a certain amount of focusing of attacks, but since people
have to move to melee a different target, this does not trivialize the
strategy.

For firearms combat, my favorite system was the Snapshot system for
Traveller. I don't remember all the details, but if I recall
correctly, initiative was a function of dexterity and a random
factor. Having initiative didn't force one to go first, however;
rather, it permitted one the choice of when to go.

A character with a very large dexterity advantage could often
manipulate "double moves" - going last in one round and first in the
next - to take apart a set of inferior opponents. Basically the
character could move from behind cover in one round and attack, then
move back behind cover the next round, all without any risk of being
attacked. The dynamic was very much what I think one would want in a
fight between heroes and mooks. Because of the random factor, though,
a character with less of an advantage would risk being left out in the
open and taking fire, so there were some interesting choices about how
to best use one's initiative.

gleichman

2008-04-04 00:14:07 UTC

Post by psychohist
My own favorite initiative mechanics are of course those in my own
home brew Eastern Isles system.

I find it interesting that in this description, much of it seems
driven by the resulting game play instead of a recreation of a defined
reality.

Is that the case with the original system design, or are you just
describing it from that PoV?

psychohist

2008-04-04 16:57:57 UTC

Brian Gleichman responds to my description of my Eastern Isles game
system:

I find it interesting that in this description,
much of it seems driven by the resulting game
play instead of a recreation of a defined
reality.

Is that the case with the original system design,
or are you just describing it from that PoV?

I think it's mostly that I'm describing it from that point of view -
though perhaps not completely.

Originally the intent was to capture varying weapon speeds; I think
that was the primary impetus to use a system with multiple blows per
round. However, I also wanted a system that would allow combat to
move quickly, so there were some playability concerns as well.

I mentioned that players seem to like how the combat flows under that
system, but I wasn't specifically trying to make a system that people
would enjoy. From the standpoint of the initiative system design,
what I was trying to do was to capture a combat flow that would feel
realistic, and I do think that feel is part of what people like.

Warren J. Dew

gleichman

2008-04-04 23:29:38 UTC

Post by psychohist
I mentioned that players seem to like how the combat flows under that
system, but I wasn't specifically trying to make a system that people
would enjoy.

Ok, that's the Warren I remember. Almost thought you were replaced by
a pod person for a minute :)

tussock

2008-05-02 16:10:33 UTC