Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5903181" data-attributes="member: 54877">Using something like this threads' approach in a system that is D&amp;D, turn-based problems become a real issue, without any other changes.&nbsp; I'm not saying it can't be done, but it is possible that the compromises necessary to make it work while remaining &quot;D&amp;D&quot; leave the whole thing less than optimum.&nbsp; I suspect that such a system would work better in D&amp;D using the early D&amp;D side by side initiative, instead of the 3E and later cyclic initiative.&nbsp; Magic 8 ball says &quot;Maybe&quot; when asked if it could work. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;The trick, both for weal or woe, in this kind of change, is that you really want the implications to spread throughout the system--so that the whole things works together, somewhat naturally.&nbsp;For those of you that recall my earlier thread about actions, the way I am currently leaning in my homebrew, (quasi-D&amp;D BECMI and 4E mix, with odd influences from Burning Wheel, Dragon Quest, RuneQuest, and a few other things), is:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Every character gets 3 actions per round, none of which can be the same action (i.e. no multiple attacks).</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Using Frostmarrow's idea above, one of these &quot;actions&quot; is nominally the defense action, either used or unused, but applying to all defense needs if used.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">If unused, the defense action can be used to &quot;super charge&quot; an attack (which still requires one of the other actions, as standard).</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">I'm still leaning towards side by side initiative--though this is not as readily useful in this system as in others--so I'm only leaning.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;Minion&quot; types--or those temporarily pushed into that state by conditions, don't have a special &quot;defense action,&quot; and thus must use one of their remaining 2 actions for active defense, and never get to super charge attacks.</li>
</ul>I think that has the potential to get rid of the &quot;stop-motion vibe&quot; altogether, while also handling the persnickety problem of how to track &quot;engaged&quot; status.&nbsp; If you've still got your &quot;defense action&quot; available when you act, you are &quot;free&quot;--and can lay down the hurt.&nbsp; (It's a bit of design judo.&nbsp; If something has to be done to track, put more information on that something to make it worth the handling time.&nbsp; An &quot;Active Defense + Engaged/Disengaged state&quot; trumps a mechanic that handles only one of those.)&nbsp;So now there is a built-in tension between two competing desires:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Focus fire, to take down an opponents hit points to zero, so that they no longer contribute actions against you, versus,</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Each round, force use of as many opponents' defense actions as possible, to keep them from super charging their attacks.</li>
</ul>With a good design, this could turn into one of those &quot;simple but not easy&quot; deals, where what you want to do is fairly obvious, but how to go about it from round to round is not. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5903181, member: 54877"] Using something like this threads' approach in a system that is D&D, turn-based problems become a real issue, without any other changes. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it is possible that the compromises necessary to make it work while remaining "D&D" leave the whole thing less than optimum. I suspect that such a system would work better in D&D using the early D&D side by side initiative, instead of the 3E and later cyclic initiative. Magic 8 ball says "Maybe" when asked if it could work. ;) The trick, both for weal or woe, in this kind of change, is that you really want the implications to spread throughout the system--so that the whole things works together, somewhat naturally. For those of you that recall my earlier thread about actions, the way I am currently leaning in my homebrew, (quasi-D&D BECMI and 4E mix, with odd influences from Burning Wheel, Dragon Quest, RuneQuest, and a few other things), is: [LIST] [*]Every character gets 3 actions per round, none of which can be the same action (i.e. no multiple attacks). [*]Using Frostmarrow's idea above, one of these "actions" is nominally the defense action, either used or unused, but applying to all defense needs if used. [*]If unused, the defense action can be used to "super charge" an attack (which still requires one of the other actions, as standard). [*]I'm still leaning towards side by side initiative--though this is not as readily useful in this system as in others--so I'm only leaning. [*]"Minion" types--or those temporarily pushed into that state by conditions, don't have a special "defense action," and thus must use one of their remaining 2 actions for active defense, and never get to super charge attacks. [/LIST]I think that has the [B]potential[/B] to get rid of the "stop-motion vibe" altogether, while also handling the persnickety problem of how to track "engaged" status. If you've still got your "defense action" available when you act, you are "free"--and can lay down the hurt. (It's a bit of design judo. If something has to be done to track, put more information on that something to make it worth the handling time. An "Active Defense + Engaged/Disengaged state" trumps a mechanic that handles only one of those.) So now there is a built-in tension between two competing desires: [LIST] [*]Focus fire, to take down an opponents hit points to zero, so that they no longer contribute actions against you, versus, [*]Each round, force use of as many opponents' defense actions as possible, to keep them from super charging their attacks. [/LIST]With a good design, this could turn into one of those "simple but not easy" deals, where what you want to do is fairly obvious, but how to go about it from round to round is not. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification