Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5622320" data-attributes="member: 54877">Carrying on from Herremann's different ways of looking at the issue, I'd say a potentially bigger pitfall than bogging down the game is that initiative is really one of those things you can embed into your core game, or it can be this small piece on the edge--but you have to decide. I think that decision should be based on some of the other things you want to do or not do. For example, one consequence of combining initiative and movement into a single check is that you will likely diminish the import of weapon lengths. Small weapons let you get to where you want to go easier. But big weapons with reach can let you control other movement and perhaps get in the first strike. If intiative and movement is combined, then a dagger not getting in your way when running up the stairs gets cancelled out by being shorter when you get there, and vice versa for a big spear. If you want weapon lengths to feel like they matter, this is not only a minus, it is one that is going to be hard to tweak rules around. The game design will fight you. OTOH, if definitely want this aspect of weapons to be abstracted into something else, well there you go.  Likewise, for any variant of a cyclical or semi-cyclical system. If skill is going to matter for going first, then going first needs to be something that is going to imply a definite advantage. 3E/4E went for a split on this one. Going first matters to a few characters at the beginning of the fight--e.g. rogues, save and die spells, and then matters again at the end of a close fight--i.e. when several on each side down to the point where one more hit can take them out. In the middle, not so much. So it was ok to mainly just tie initiative to Dex. So you have to decide how much "going first" matters, before you can decide how much weight, complexity, and handling time into it. Another place where initiative may matter a great deal or be completely separate is in "race conditions", including chase scenes. Obviously, if people are making some kind of movement checks, this can matter more than in a game with phased movement and static movement scores. Joe the Barbarian and the Nasty Orc are making a run for the Fountain Zone. The one that gets there first gains some high ground, and first dibs on whatever unknown (to them) magical effect the fountain produces. Finally, the issue of abstract time, and how far you want to take it. With my system noodling, I kind of backed into my initiative idea, because I am deliberately going for abstract time where characters can pack a little or a lot into a single "action". It's not full-bore conflict resolution instead of task resolution, but an "action" can be a lot more involved than a traditional game like 3E/4E. The more you pack, the more efficient you are, but the more likely to fail your initiative roll and not get to act at all, this "turn". It's deliberately designed so that people will often routinely "fail to finish" their action, and thus: 1. Have the choice to abandon the attempt or keep what time they have invested thus far. 2. Keep the rolls moving around the table, because "fail to finish" has some interesting rider effects that can be handled while the next player rolls. 3. Naturally, keep the tension, in that no one really knows who will really go next. In a more discrete task resolution system, obviously, none of that applies.</blockquote>

Verification