A Thought on Turn-Based Movement

[Water Bob]

I have to argue with this - simultaneous action most certainly CAN be achieved, and what's more it is not at all a bad thing when it happens.

It is impossible because actual simultaneous movement and action is impossible in a face to face RPG. The best you can do is simulate it with a system like Classic Traveller where the results of the round aren't determined until the end of the round--when there is a damage phase.

For example, when the mage fires a lightning bolt at a orc and kills him, the orc still gets to go--still gets to have his action. Because damage is not applied until the damage phase.

This is still not real simultaneous movement, but I think it's the best we can do in a game.

....And, I guess you could come up with a Rock/Paper/Scissors type initiative system where no one knows what the others are doing--all a player (and the GM) has is the information of what happened last round. People write down their actions this round to declare them, then everybody reveals (can't change) what they are going to do at the same time.

It's still not real simultaneous action, but it simulates it well enough. The problem is when a character's actions effect another. The GM has to decide what happens first, or you go with the Classic Traveller thing where all damage is applied at the end of the round--yet that's not real simultaneous becuase, sometimes, people are stopped before they can act.

For example, on initiative 3 (we use a d6 init.) Perseus shoots an arrow at an orc, that same orc swings at Fjallarr, Fjallarr swings at the orc; meanwhile a lightning bolt from Kirkos carves through the orcish back line and (unknown to him) also creams Eliayess who is (was) sneaking unobserved to backstrike the orc leader later in the round but just happened to be in the bolt's path on a '3'. These things are handled one at a time at the table but all resolve at once; so the orc and Fjallarr both get their swings in (which also means they could kill each other simultaneously), the arrow does whatever it does, Eliayess keels over, and nobody hears any of it due to the thunderous BOOM from the orc back lines.

But, this isn't true simultaneous action, because if it were, it would be possible, but not definite, that Persus' arrow hits and kills the orc before the orc can swing at Fjallarr. Going by what you've said here, the orc will always get his swing whether Persus' arrow kills him or not.

Seriously, how difficult can this be?

Not difficult, I guess, if you're used to that sort of play. I would think it time-consuming. I recognize it's 1E AD&D roots. But, regardless, it's only a simulation of simultaneous play, not real simultaneous action--just like all the other initiative and combat round systems.

 

[LostSoul]

OK, I'll bite. Since simultaneous action in an RPG can never really be obtained, what is it that you do in your games?

As far as I understand dissociated mechanics, it's where you make a decision as a player that your character cannot. Since characters don't stand around waiting for other characters to take their turns during a round, players should not be making decisions based on the information that you have after someone else has taken their turn. That is: if a character is going to turn and run, you shouldn't be making your PC's decisions based on the fact that your opponent is now 120'+ away; you should make your decision based on the fact that they've turned to run.

So what I do is to have players (including the DM, for NPCs) declare what their characters are doing for the round at the same time - in the beginning. Once all actions are set we roll to resolve them. Very simple.

Who goes first is a function of success: if you need to shoot/stab a guy who's running around a corner, and you miss, he probably ducked around the corner before you could shoot him/lunge at him. In situations like that I add a +2/+5 modifier to AC based on any advantages the target has.

I could include initiative checks - to resolve those instances when who has the jump on whom really matters - but I don't; I find that it's an extra roll that doesn't really add much, and I like the chaos that comes from simultaneous resolution of actions.

edit: This is what I'd do for the two situations that Celebrim outlined:

1. Hold Person vs. Fighter: The fighter would hit and then he'd be paralysed. I'd give the fighter a bonus to his Saving Throw ("The target's (the fighter) action grants it and advantage" for +2; maybe "If that advantage is overwhelming" for +5) which represents the chance that he can disrupt the spell before it goes off; but since he failed the save, he stabbed the magic-user just before the spell took hold.

2. Ogre, Paladin, and Wizard: A little trickier. If the Paladin can clearly intercept the ogre, then I'd say that the ogre will have to go around the paladin (and thus can't charge). If the paladin clearly can't block the ogre, then too bad for the Paladin - that action is not valid. In the (large) middle, the paladin might get there in time, and I'd represent that as a bonus to the wizard's AC against the ogre's attack.* In this case, a +2; if the ogre was slower and/or the paladin a little closer, then I'd grant a +5. (That would be "Your (the ogre's) action is difficult to accomplish" for +2 and "If that difficulty is overwhelming" for +5.)

Even trickier: if the paladin decides to trip or tackle the ogre, succeeds, and the ogre succeeds on his attack even given the increase to the wizard's AC. What happened there? Sounds like the ogre was tripped/tackled but got up and smacked the wizard.

The conceit is that you can't stop another character's valid action with one of your own, generally speaking; there's room for interpretation, but if you can do it, then you can do it. And I think we'd agree that the ogre has a chance to hit the wizard even if the paladin tries to get in the way.

* This is where an extra initiative check might come in handy, but oh well. I want to have just one roll.

 

[Water Bob]

So what I do is to have players (including the DM, for NPCs) declare what their characters are doing for the round at the same time - in the beginning. Once all actions are set we roll to resolve them. Very simple.

How do you get the declarations without one player knowing what another will do? You can't listen to everybody speak at one time, and if one person declares before another, that second person can't help but use that info to color his declaration.

I supposed you could have everyone write down, on a piece of paper, what they want their character to do that round, but I can't see this as being practical in a roleplaying game. It would slow the game down much too far for my tastes.

 

[Water Bob]

Though I've never read it, I've heard that the initiative system in the new Marvel Heroic Roleplaying game is an interesting variant. The GM picks one character to go first. That character's controller gets to pick the next character in line, and then that character's controller picks the next and so on until everyone's acted. So, if you keep picking your allies to go next, then you're setting yourself up for all the bad guys going in a row after you've all acted and so on.

I think this is quite interesting. My only question is, "How does the GM pick the first character fairly?"

Who the GM picks has a big impact on this system. Does the GM have to pick a PC first? Or, can he pick an NPC (and, therefore, keep picking, because he picks for all the NPCs)?

Maybe a variant of this system with a random roll to determine the first to act might work?

Or....have every character in the fight roll initiative the first time around, and whomever wins that toss can be first to act or pick the first to act.

I like that....except if I went this way, I want to get away from everybody rolling for initiative.

Then again, if we don't roll, characters designed to act early (like characters with high DEX and the Improved Initiative Feat in D&D 3.5) will not benefit from having the high stats and abilities.

 

[LostSoul]

How do you get the declarations without one player knowing what another will do? You can't listen to everybody speak at one time, and if one person declares before another, that second person can't help but use that info to color his declaration.

You don't - everyone knows what everyone else is going to do (as long as that information would be available; invisible characters can declare secretly, and the DM remains impartial as he must at all times). You can change your action for the round at any time during the declaration phase. At first I was worried this would lead to two people switching back and forth in an endless loop, but in practice that hasn't happened.

edit: Normally I start off by declaring actions for the NPCs as the decisions I make as a DM are different that those the players are making. I'm supposed to remain impartial and maintain the consistency of the game world, while players face no such restrictions.

 

[Water Bob]

Normally I start off by declaring actions for the NPCs as the decisions I make as a DM are different that those the players are making. I'm supposed to remain impartial and maintain the consistency of the game world, while players face no such restrictions.

Gotcha. I'm not downing the way you play, but you do realize that what you're doing is not playing simultaneous actions, right?

And, the players, once they hear what the bad guys are going to do, will use that info to color their own plans. For example, if you, the GM, declare that the dragon is going to swoop down and breath fire across the field in front of the PCs, setting the field aflame, how many of your players, who aren't supposed to know what the dragon will do, will actually venture out into that field?

My guess is zero.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Also you can get into situations where you absolutely have to resolve ties, such as:

Fighter A announces an attack on Spellcaster B, who is in the same segment completing casting Hold Person, targeting the fighter.
Fighter A resolves a hit on Spellcaster B, doing 12 damage and disrupting the spell.
Spellcaster B completes his spell and paralyzes Fighter A, who fails his save.
But wait, Spellcaster B's spell could never have gone off, because it was disrupted by Fighter A's attack.
But wait, Fighter A couldn't have disrupted the spell because he was paralyzed preventing the attack in the first place.

I use an initiative system with simultaneous initiative where that's not a problem. There is considered to be an infinitesimal pause between an action and its results. If two magic-users cast a spell that completes on the same segment they both go off, neither one can interrupt the other. You can't interrupt someone whose action completes on the same segment as yours. The system does allow for spell interruption though. We use d10 initiative, and spells start on initiative and complete on initiative + casting time. A successful hit on the caster on any segment from the start of the cast to the segment before it goes off will interrupt the spell.

 

[sr123]

Diplomacy, one of the first true commercial roleplaying games (in that RP on a big level is required to play), would inspire one easy way to de-turnify movement (module for DDN?):

Have the basic outline/direction of each player's move (or move action component of their attack, or readied action) be written on scrap paper before each round. Everybody then shows what they wrote, so all major dynamics are playing out in people's minds in real-time as they decide what kind of attacks or actions their player takes. The movement is still somewhat flexible, at least at the end, but must not be changed in essence.

This can doubly help make combat feel more dynamic, instead of like a nerdy(er) version of chess.

 

[LostSoul]

Gotcha. I'm not downing the way you play, but you do realize that what you're doing is not playing simultaneous actions, right?

I guess, yeah. I mean, everyone's acting during the round at the same time, but some characters do end up going first.

And, the players, once they hear what the bad guys are going to do, will use that info to color their own plans. For example, if you, the GM, declare that the dragon is going to swoop down and breath fire across the field in front of the PCs, setting the field aflame, how many of your players, who aren't supposed to know what the dragon will do, will actually venture out into that field?

My guess is zero.

I would hope it would be zero! I think there's miscommunication going on between us, though - the players are supposed to know what the dragon is doing because their characters know what the dragon is doing. Hmm, I guess that makes feinting difficult, eh? Oh well. I guess if you want to feint it'll have to be in a different fashion - you'll have to try to position your foes in the first round.

 

[Water Bob]

I think there's miscommunication going on between us, though - the players are supposed to know what the dragon is doing because their characters know what the dragon is doing.

They don't know what the dragon is doing before he does it, do they?