TTRPGs with simultaneous instead of turn-based combat

[azabaro]

Street Fighter: The Storytelling Game tries to emulate simultaneity. Every character has a Speed that they declare at the beginning of the round, based on the maneuver they’ve selected, their attributes, and some other conditions. Actions are resolved starting with the character who has the lowest (worst) Speed; at any point during this resolution a character with a higher Speed can Interrupt them and begin resolving their action. Interrupts can stack indefinitely, as long as you can keep beating the Speed of whoever is currently acting.

Obviously this isn’t real simultaneity, and the game actually reserves one of its very few uses of dice in combat to break Speed ties (ironically making double KOs as seen in the source material basically impossible). But I think it’s interesting how close we can get to simultaneous resolution by just violating the typical assumption that characters act in a set sequence and turns are atomic.

 

[Mannahnin]

Pendragon is NOT simultanous overall...
Initiative, "when it matters," is Movement rate in descending order. Ties broken by higher Dex deciding on whether to go first or last, when actually figuring out from the declarations. (4e, p 152-153)
Combat declaration is a definite case of it mattering.

More importantly, the declarations, for clarity, make it matter.

Eh. "When it matters." Which is not usually, in my experience. Which is why Pendragon puts initiative under "special situations" at the end of the movement section (at least in 5th ed).

There CAN be situations where first action does indeed matter, but the OP was about simultaneous vs turn-based combat, and Pendragon is quite clearly not turn-based in the sense of "Arthur goes, then Bedivere, then Cernog, then Desmond the Deathless".

If you read the combat procedure it tells you that in the Declaration Phase the GM simply decides who declares first. That's not a question of initiative. And the Resolution Phase doesn't mention order of action (one combatant preceding another) at all. Opponents roll and the results are compared and resolved against one another simultaneously.

 

[Blue]

Champions (now Hero System) came out in 1981, and used a phase system for all combat happening at the same time. Each character had a SPD (Speed) that was the number of actions per turn and controlled what phases you went on. Within a phase it was ordered by DEX. So while everything was a lot more granular to imitate simultaneous. But systems like that while they break out of the "everyone gets X action per turn" are effectively just different initiative systems.

I've seen RPG systems where actions were declared (in an order so no everyone is shouting at once), and then resolved simultaneously. Or resolved simultaneously by action type - all "breath" effects going off (dragons breath, power word spells, etc.) and can't interrupt each other, then all clerical spells, then all ranged combat, and so on. The old PrinceCon system is a good example of this.

I've seen the boardgame Diplomacy (released in the US in 1959) that has all players writing down actions, revealing them once all are set, and all of the actions getting resolved truly simultaneously. That's the closest to true simultaneous in a game.

 

[dragoner]

My experience with Traveller is that it takes some more record keeping, because one has to track who hit what at the end of the round to apply damage; and that people seem to naturally attune to taking turns.

 

[Blue]

My experience with Traveller is that it takes some more record keeping, because one has to track who hit what at the end of the round to apply damage; and that people seem to naturally attune to taking turns.

Agreed. Taking turns is a natural and effective way to interface.

 

[Staffan]

Agreed. Taking turns is a natural and effective way to interface.

I can't think of any RPG that has simultaneous declarations and mechanical resolution. I've seen some where the actual effects are applied simultaneously (i.e. I roll, then you roll, then we both apply damage at the same time).

 

[pemerton]

I can't think of any RPG that has simultaneous declarations and mechanical resolution.

In Burning Wheel's "Fight" melee resolution framework, each player (the GM plays NPCs) writes out a blind declaration - 3 volleys worth of actions (the number of actions per volley depends on the character's Reflexes rating).

Then these are resolved, one volley at a time. If I scripted Block against your Strike, that's good for me. If I scripted Strike against your Strike, we might kill one another!

Torchbearer uses a similar framework for all conflict resolution.

Part of the skill of play is anticipating your opponent's scripting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Honestly, true simultaneous combat is a pain in the behind even in wargames. It can be done but it requires write-and-reveal which is a nuisance.

 

[pemerton]

Honestly, true simultaneous combat is a pain in the behind even in wargames. It can be done but it requires write-and-reveal which is a nuisance.

Burning Wheel and Torchbearer both use write and reveal.

It don't think it's a pain in the behind, because the pay-off is worth it. Like in my last session of Torchbearer, where in (what turned out to be) the final exchange I scripted a third volley Feint for my cunning NPC. And outwitted the players! I'm not a very good wargamer overall, and for me that was probably a personal best in cunning wargaming but also in the context of the game produced a powerful and unanticipated outcome. (Write up here.)

 

[Mannahnin]

I've seen it in some board games, mostly relatively complex ones, like Adventurer, by Yaquinto (a sci-fi tavern brawl game from 1980), or the notoriously complex Magic Realm. There's a simpler form in GW's DungeonQuest, which uses tokens for Attack, Strong Attack, or Evade, in a basically rock/paper/scissors system.

Pendragon does mention using secret written declarations if you're using special combat options.

King Arthur Pendragon 5th edition, page 112:

In this initial phase, all combatants state what they intend to do this round, including the weapon they wield. Targets and opponents are named. The Gamemaster decides whether the players or their Gamemaster-character (or creature) opponents make their statements of intent first.

Characters may choose to fight or do something else this round, as listed below under “Actions Permitted in Melee.” If combat tactics are to be used (see “Optional Combat Tactics”), the choice of each knight’s tactic, if any, must be stated out loud, or written down secretly if necessary.