Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 928121" data-attributes="member: 10201">You know, now that you mention it...I seem to have not even noticed the Init column in Spycraft (i've read it, but never played it).&nbsp; And, yeah, Spycraft *so* rocks.&nbsp; I don't even like the genre, generally, and it's got me jonesing for a game.&nbsp; The FLGS didn't have a copy of the Modern Arms Guide in, but i think i understand the basic idea: it's basically the same as the Attack Priority system for AD&amp;D.&nbsp; Only difference is that, in keeping with 1e, you rolled init each round, then ticked off a certain amount and got another attack if your total was still positive.&nbsp; With the fluid init system you're describing, there's no random element (after the first round), but it's still about combining init and # of attacks.&nbsp; I like it even better.&nbsp; But i'm not sure it feels &quot;right&quot; for D&amp;D.&nbsp; It seems too realistic, frankly.&nbsp; This is a game that doesn't have discrete damage, discrete hit locations, or discrete attacks, so giving them discrete timing seems sorta strange.&nbsp; If you simply have a (mostly-) static number of attacks staggered through the round, it's still following the D&amp;D mold of each &quot;attack&quot; being an amalgamation of whatever has happened for that unit of time.&nbsp; The staggering is as much for metagame reasons (everybody takes turns, rather than one and then the next) as it is for realism reasons.&nbsp; Interspersing actions also allows a lot of things that the freezeframe of standard D&amp;D doesn't--like goading someone by running up to them, smacking them, and running away.&nbsp; Though it sounds like the fluid init system does that to.&nbsp; Someone in another thread proposed the variable attack staging of Everquest D20, too, and that solves several similar problems.&nbsp; So now i have to go think a bit, and try things out.&nbsp; Unless anyone has any further comments/suggestions?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="woodelf, post: 928121, member: 10201"] You know, now that you mention it... I seem to have not even noticed the Init column in Spycraft (i've read it, but never played it). And, yeah, Spycraft *so* rocks. I don't even like the genre, generally, and it's got me jonesing for a game. The FLGS didn't have a copy of the Modern Arms Guide in, but i think i understand the basic idea: it's basically the same as the Attack Priority system for AD&D. Only difference is that, in keeping with 1e, you rolled init each round, then ticked off a certain amount and got another attack if your total was still positive. With the fluid init system you're describing, there's no random element (after the first round), but it's still about combining init and # of attacks. I like it even better. But i'm not sure it feels "right" for D&D. It seems too realistic, frankly. This is a game that doesn't have discrete damage, discrete hit locations, or discrete attacks, so giving them discrete timing seems sorta strange. If you simply have a (mostly-) static number of attacks staggered through the round, it's still following the D&D mold of each "attack" being an amalgamation of whatever has happened for that unit of time. The staggering is as much for metagame reasons (everybody takes turns, rather than one and then the next) as it is for realism reasons. Interspersing actions also allows a lot of things that the freezeframe of standard D&D doesn't--like goading someone by running up to them, smacking them, and running away. Though it sounds like the fluid init system does that to. Someone in another thread proposed the variable attack staging of Everquest D20, too, and that solves several similar problems. So now i have to go think a bit, and try things out. Unless anyone has any further comments/suggestions? [/QUOTE]

Verification