Pie Wedge Initiative?

RangerWickett · Feb 20, 2014

A friend of mine talked about Scion's initiative system, and I'm thinking of trying out a variant of it for a one-shot homebrew system.

The idea is, you've got some sort of marker -- a mini, for instance -- for each character in a combat. You then pull out a paper plate and draw a cross on it, dividing it into 4 sections (or wedges). You determine starting initiative somehow, and each character ends up in wedge 1, 2, 3, or 4.

Different actions have different speed ratings. Adjusting a few steps might take 1 wedge. An attack with a light weapon might take 2. A medium weapon 3, and a heavy 4. When you act, your action occurs immediately, as do the actions of everyone else in the same wedge. (Damage doesn't resolve and kill anyone until all the wedge's actions are accounted for.)

Once you act, you move your marker ahead along the pie chart the appropriate number of wedges. That is when you'll act next.

Actions would be balanced based on how much time they take, so stabbing with a dagger does less damage than a greatsword, but if your enemy is weak you might kill him before he gets to attack you back. Spells might even be balanced by not going off until you start your next turn; this gives enemies a chance to hit you and disrupt your casting.

Has anyone tried a system like this? How did it work for you?

Ulrick · Feb 20, 2014

Chivalry & Sorcery did a similar initiative system, but with counting cart. It was too much of hassle.

But maybe with only 8 counts/wedges it might work better---at least for small combat.

steenan · Feb 20, 2014

I used a system like this in my homebrew, but at some point decided it's not a good idea.

It worked fine and I would keep it if the game was strongly focused on fencing or something like that. But it was too complicated and too time consuming for a game where combat was only of secondary importance.

I used 12 wedges, with fastest attacks taking 2 steps and slowest taking 5. It was also possible to be "pushed back" on the pie by feints or by very successful defense.

Morrus · Feb 20, 2014

I think it's the sort of system which would work well if you had a decent, visible prop display it somewhere. Maybe some kind of large magnetic stand which everybody could see.

Celebrim · Feb 20, 2014

Scion's system basically divides the round into 'segments'/'impulses' and uses things like weapon speed and the like to determine how often you can act. Quite a few systems use that concept - I'm pretty sure Advanced Hackmaster uses a similar concept. The earliest I encountered it was in Starfleet Battles and to a certain extent I played AD&D that way - spells had casting times, weapons had speeds, you acted on a particular segment of the round, iterative attacks in the same round occured on different segments, etc.

In Scion/Exalted, speaking from experience, the system DOES NOT WORK AT ALL. I hated it. It's a lousy system because its so darn fiddly in a game that is otherwise so abstract. It doesn't add anything fun to the game. The entire Scion/Exalted combat system is just terrible because its trying to be something it most decidedly is not - good process simulation built around a system designed for winging it quickly and getting to the story. Do not use Storyteller systems for any sort of process simulation. It won't work. D20 or FATE Scion or Exalted would work much better than their own system depending on which direction you wanted to take things. Leave Storyteller to Vampire played from a highly thespian angle. If you play Vampire (or any other Storyteller game) from a system mastery/gamist angle, which Exalted/Scion basically encourages, it just breaks down hard.

In general, I find that combat segments in an RPG work if and only if a) you are using miniatures and a tactical grid and so focusing on and enhancing the gameplay around combat and b) the rest of the combat system is fairly simple and therefore you can still play fairly fast despite the bookkeeping burden that they impose. Within the framework of a combat segment system, the pie chart isn't a bad idea at all for keeping track of who acts when but if you are going to do that with your system make sure the rest of the system is not equally fiddly. For AD&D I think it works, and I wish I had had a pie chart concept back then to aid in bookkeeping. I've considered adding segments to D20/3.X but every time I start I scrap it because D20 is already so complicated I just don't think it can handle the extra burden without grinding play to a halt.

Altamont Ravenard · Feb 21, 2014

Although I've never played, Arcanis RPG has an initiative clock (12 wedges). Basically, you determine initiative which places you at one of the 12 ticks. Then, the DM counts up from 1. When the Master Clock gets to your Clock, it's your turn to act. Each action has a speed, which you add to your Clock score to determine when your next action will be.

AR

jeffh · Feb 21, 2014

In Fantasy Infinity, I'm using something like this. In my system, there is a (fairly abstract, compared to 3rd and 4th generation D&D) "battle board" everyone is assumed to be sitting around anyway, though the playtest version is actually a magnetic whiteboard that tends to be propped up next to me - the point is there's a visible display everyone's attention is assumed to be focused on regardless. That's really important, for reasons I'll get back to.

Around the outside of this board is a track of numbers, similar to the scoring tracks found on many Eurogames. The combatant whose token is in the first position takes an action, and then moves that token clockwise around the track a number of spaces ("ticks") based on the action (referred to as the action's "recovery"). This typically leaves some other combatant's token in the first position, which makes it their turn to act.

In playtests so far, this has moved like greased lightning, though that may be partly because of good streamlining in other aspects of the game. I can do probably five combats in the time it takes to do one of comparable complexity in 4th Edition. (IMPORTANT CAVEAT: To date, this has only been tested at low levels. Whether this scales to high-end characters is, at this point, a matter of theory. However, there's no obvious reason why it wouldn't other than players having more options to choose from.)

Having said that, I tried a similar roundless system (also of my own design) back in the 90s and it sucked big. Mathematically, it was the same system; the only real difference (other than my doing a better job, I believe, of thinking through the underlying numbers this time around) is the shared visible display. In the earlier version, it was numbers on a notepad on the GM's side of the screen, partly because I massively overvalued keeping the opponents' speeds a secret. It actually plays far better with that information in the open, it turns out planning around them adds to the fun, at least for the players who've tried it so far. Doing it without the shared display aspect was horrible.

I'm not sure what the advantage of having a cycle with only four positions in the system described above is. That sounds like it would be more confusing than helpful, while also limiting how much you can differentiate actions. For a board game or something that was built around that mechanic from the ground up, I'm sure that could work well, but I don't like the sound of it for an RPG. Having said that, I haven't seen how it works in practise and might very well change my view once I had.

Asmor · Feb 24, 2014

I'm actually working on a system like this myself. I'm using 12 segments (and will probably not be going with a circle just because it's tough to make 12 segments of meaningful size), labeled 0-11.

The segments have markings, which are used to key off certain abilities. For example, every 3rd segment has a triangle, every 4th a square, etc. There are symbols for 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 parts per cycle.

This allows me to, for example, have 'mooks' which always act on segments 0 and 6, without having to track their initiatives separately.

The main idea is that whenever you take an action, you also trigger certain effects based on what segments you pass over. So if you're on fire and burning on triangles, then you'll take some fire damage every time you pass over a triangle.

Everything triggers at segment 0, and that also acts as the 'round' marker, for certain effects which would be once-per-round things in other RPGs.

One of the things I think it really neat about the system I'm working on are action points. PCs will usually get action points on 0 and 6. They can also gain an action point at any time by delaying themselves 2 segments. Action points can be used to reduce the time an action takes (1 point for 1 segment), to reduce damage from attacks (which is the main reason you'd want to use the delay option--lacking action points when you really need them) and hypothetically could be used for certain character abilities as well, although I haven't designed any yet.

Wangalade · Feb 25, 2014

I use something similar in my homebrew game. i use what i call counts or segments. each action takes a number of segments depending on how fast the action is. a normal action is 4 segments, a quick action is 3 segments, a slow is 5, etc. there is no combat "round", unless you consider the entire combat to be a round. each action must be decared and once the number of segments is passed it is completed. we keep track of it with a dice. the combat starts at segment 0 and everyone declares their actions and place a die faceup to represent the number of segments it will take for them to complete their action. once the action is completed, they declare their next action and change the die to represent a total number oif segments of both actions. the action is not completed till the end is because actions can be interrupted either by opponents or by the character deciding to do something else. I used to have each segment represent a quarter of a segment, but changed it to half a segment recently. the speed of actions are based more on relationships than on actual time to do something ion real life.

Before using segments, i was using rounds for my game. There hasn't been any change in the length of theatre or the mind combats, but when we use a battle grid it does seem to take longer than before. that result may have to do with the fact that i dont use the battle grid for small combats with just one or two opponents. I prefer this method of tracking time for my games. as was mentioned earlier specific time tracking is not accurate/useful for abstract combat. for storyteller systems or even systems like dnd with combat so nebulous, a more abstract round works better. but for systems that track specific actions, then a specific time needs to be applied to those actions. using specific non-abstract actions with abstract rounds, like some powers in 4e dnd just doesn't work. if you are going to be abstract, stay abstract. if you want more specific tactics, use more specific time tracking techniques.

that's my rant

jeffh · Aug 3, 2014

Asmor said:
I'm actually working on a system like this myself. I'm using 12 segments (and will probably not be going with a circle just because it's tough to make 12 segments of meaningful size), labeled 0-11.

Sorry if the semi-necro bothers anyone, but there's a fairly obvious way to do this exact thing quite easily; use an image of a clock face as a template.