Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7467195" data-attributes="member: 6919838">&quot;I agree with you about events in each round being roughly simultaneous.&quot;Obviously each GM can rule their games how thry prefer, but for me this is just not a position i take up and not a position i use as a basis for rulings in dnd style games.Why?Well like 99% of the mechanics we use are clearly based on treating these as sequential events within a turn. Some dramatically so.If i were to tell a player &quot;events in each round being roughly simultaneous&quot; and then go on to round after round turn after turn,move after move prove thats BS, then i would feel like an idjit.In the game, the dwarf can stab a demon with a dagger, run over to the elf,&nbsp; hand them the same dagger, the elf stab another demon then throw the dagger at a third and then the a cultist pick up the dagger and throw it at the first dwarf. If that sounds like simultaneous to you, go for it.Key point being there are good systems out there which do try and represent much more simultaneous turns, iirc unisystem was one (or one of its variants) but there are others. The key to those systems was usually a unified declaration phase (either all at once reveal or initiative based lowest init declares first) and then a common resolution phase where every declared action went off regardless of order resolved. Two characters might very well KO each other. So, if i am inclined to run a game where i tell players that combat is simultaneous, i am for sure going to choose a system which treats it as sequential every time it matters (and frankly almost all the other times as well.)But thats me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7467195, member: 6919838"] "I agree with you about events in each round being roughly simultaneous." Obviously each GM can rule their games how thry prefer, but for me this is just not a position i take up and not a position i use as a basis for rulings in dnd style games. Why? Well like 99% of the mechanics we use are clearly based on treating these as sequential events within a turn. Some dramatically so. If i were to tell a player "events in each round being roughly simultaneous" and then go on to round after round turn after turn,move after move prove thats BS, then i would feel like an idjit. In the game, the dwarf can stab a demon with a dagger, run over to the elf, hand them the same dagger, the elf stab another demon then throw the dagger at a third and then the a cultist pick up the dagger and throw it at the first dwarf. If that sounds like simultaneous to you, go for it. Key point being there are good systems out there which do try and represent much more simultaneous turns, iirc unisystem was one (or one of its variants) but there are others. The key to those systems was usually a unified declaration phase (either all at once reveal or initiative based lowest init declares first) and then a common resolution phase where every declared action went off regardless of order resolved. Two characters might very well KO each other. So, if i am inclined to run a game where i tell players that combat is simultaneous, i am for sure going to choose a system which treats it as sequential every time it matters (and frankly almost all the other times as well.) But thats me. [/QUOTE]

Verification