A Thought on Turn-Based Movement

[LostSoul]

I find that turn-based initiative is a dissociated mechanic. That's why I dropped it from my game.

 

[Water Bob]

I find that turn-based initiative is a dissociated mechanic. That's why I dropped it from my game.

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

 

[Ferghis]

I started to send you a PM on this, but I thought it better out here in the open. You took me completely wrong, here. I didn't mean to imply that you were not a strong DM.

Oh, I didn't take it that way at all. It's nice of you to post as much though, and I hope I didn't come across as overly critical (that's what I was trying to say when I said I didn't want to push my contestation too far...). In any case, props to you for respectful internet dialogue.

I just meant that I believe the DM should be strong, whomever he is, whether it be me, you, or someone else. I believe that the DM is the "director" of the game. He calls the shots. He's the ref and the judge. He's the ultimate deity in his game.

Some DM's don't play this way. They become facilitators of the rules as printed. Those are the people that I'd call "weak" DMs because they do not exert their power on the game.

I agree wholly on this.

 

[TalenOrAvinair]

I'll agree that the guy with spear / throwing axe might not get a swing. Your longbow guy on the other hand is waiting. I see no reason to change the given rules, party configuration (spell caster with long range spells, bows, etc) and equipment can make up for it.

 

[Water Bob]

I see no reason to change the given rules, party configuration (spell caster with long range spells, bows, etc) and equipment can make up for it.

And what if you play using the same rules but a different gaming universe? For example, I play the Conan RPG. The same rule applies, but, typically, in the Conan RPG, no spell casters are present. And, throwing knives, spears, and hand axes are much more common.

 

[Greenfield]

Then it sucks to be you?

Sorry, but sometimes the guy gets away.

Fortunately, sometimes the guy making the getaway is you.

With that thought in mind, remember that any rule changes you institute in the wake of this event will affect your characters just as much as they affect the NPCs. Or at least they should, if everybody's being honest.

 

[Lanefan]

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

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.

Things might not get done by the players at the same exact time at the table, but there's nothing at all saying they can't resolve at the same time in the game world. 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.

Seriously, how difficult can this be?

Lanefan

 

[Celebrim]

Seriously, how difficult can this be?

Lanefan

I'm not saying its impossible, because I've done it, but it is conceptually difficult to keep track of everything that is going on without pushing them to completion (and out of memory) one at a time. Instead you end up with a bunch of actions waiting on a mental stack, which, while as you point out is managable is still more complicated than not doing it. 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.

Situations like this mean that instead of simultanous actions, you are often simply getting into breaking up rounds into finer and finer gradients. Which, incidently you've already done by dividing the round up into segments. As I said earlier, this has the disadvantage of slowing the game down.

Also there are situations where simultaneous resolution raises questions of 'interrupts', which end up causing you to have solve on the fly equations like: "An Ogre at 15" distance with a base move of 12" charges a wizard. 6" away in a different direction, but 13" from the Ogre, a Paladin with the declared action of intercepting the Ogre and placing himself between the Ogre and the Wizard charges the Ogre simultaneously. Can the Paladin reach an intercept point in the Ogres path before the Ogre reaches the Wizard? Once there, what is his position relative to the Ogre, in front, behind, or beside it?"

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not saying its impossible, because I've done it, but it is conceptually difficult to keep track of everything that is going on without pushing them to completion (and out of memory) one at a time. Instead you end up with a bunch of actions waiting on a mental stack, which, while as you point out is managable is still more complicated than not doing it. 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.

For things like this we roll to break the tie, but it comes up much less often than you might expect; in part because a caster in melee cannot cast at all in my game. Far more frequent (but still uncommon) are missile fire into resolving caster, or spells trying to resolve simultaneously that could disrupt each other.

Situations like this mean that instead of simultanous actions, you are often simply getting into breaking up rounds into finer and finer gradients. Which, incidently you've already done by dividing the round up into segments. As I said earlier, this has the disadvantage of slowing the game down.

I haven't found it so, given many years of use.

Also there are situations where simultaneous resolution raises questions of 'interrupts', which end up causing you to have solve on the fly equations like: "An Ogre at 15" distance with a base move of 12" charges a wizard. 6" away in a different direction, but 13" from the Ogre, a Paladin with the declared action of intercepting the Ogre and placing himself between the Ogre and the Wizard charges the Ogre simultaneously. Can the Paladin reach an intercept point in the Ogres path before the Ogre reaches the Wizard? Once there, what is his position relative to the Ogre, in front, behind, or beside it?"

This would come down to initiative roll - does the Pally get there first or does the Ogre get by him and smoke the Wizard* - and comes up quite regularly. Keep in mind we re-roll initiative each round so there's no set turn order.

* - if their initiatives were the same I'd let the Pally swing at the Ogre as it went by, and give the Ogre a choice (more likely a random roll, Ogres not being known for their smarts) whether it went for the Wizard or stopped to engage the Paladin.

Lanefan

 

[Celebrim]

For things like this we roll to break the tie, but it comes up much less often than you might expect; in part because a caster in melee cannot cast at all in my game. Far more frequent (but still uncommon) are missile fire into resolving caster, or spells trying to resolve simultaneously that could disrupt each other.

Rare or not, you've just conceded that simultaneous action can't really be obtained. The best you can manage is an approximation. A game like SFB would be a good example of how to get close without actually getting there (since it turns out that most of the tactics of the game depend on the lag in being able to adjust to the opponent's unexpected round by round declarations; the game is almost unrecognizable when the turn based aspect is removed).

This would come down to initiative roll - does the Pally get there first or does the Ogre get by him and smoke the Wizard* - and comes up quite regularly.

My assumption in the example is that both the Ogre and the Paladin were acting on the same segment. Obviously, this is rather easier to resolve if you don't have do it simultaneously, the Paladin moves to an intercept point while the Ogre helpfully remains motionless. But that isn't true simultaneous action. Imagine in particular that this round is part of an ongoing round and that the Ogre was also moving at its maximum 'battle speed' in the prior round so that there really isn't a pause in the motion. The initiative roll then is clearly a gamist artifact in this case, as the action is obviously simultaneous regardless of 'initiative' if we were to be 'realistic' and thus the resolution depends only on the speed and the still unresolved trigonometry problem.

if their initiatives were the same I'd let the Pally swing at the Ogre as it went by, and give the Ogre a choice (more likely a random roll, Ogres not being known for their smarts) whether it went for the Wizard or stopped to engage the Paladin.

Yes, but this isn't necessarily accurate even for an approximation. Depending on what our triangles looked like, if both characters were moving simultaneously, it might not be possible for the Paladin to reach any point in the Ogres movement while the Ogre actually occupied it. 75% of the Ogres move might take it 18", while during that time the Paladin moves 9". Can the Paladin catch the ogre? And while you are solving that one, a train leaves Chicago at 6am west bound for Denver at 80 km per hour, while at 8am a train leaves Denver traveling east at 75km per hour. If the trains are on the same track and Chicago and Denver are 1200km a part, at what time do they collide and where?