Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Initiative: Evolutions in design
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6254739" data-attributes="member: 6677017"><p>We were talking about new ways of considering and handling initiative over <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?352102-Will-D-amp-D-Next-qualify-as-quot-Rules-Lite-quot/page6" target="_blank">here</a> and I thought it deserved it's own thread.</p><p></p><p>In designing my own system, I'm replacing initiative with a different system for action pacing. DMMike has his own initiative system innovations.</p><p></p><p>What have you done to change initiative in your own systems?</p><p></p><p>To give the run down on how I'm currently handling it (still some fuzzy areas in development), let me tell you a tiny bit about my system.</p><p></p><p>I'm creating a role-playing system (I specifically avoid calling it a "game" for theoretical reasons, because I believe only some ways of playing rpgs actually should <em>count</em> as games at all) that is intended as a fairly balanced narrativist/simulationist hybrid. (Savage Worlds is a hybrid slanted towards simulationism, for comparison). I want it to represent fictional scenarios as portrayed in books and movies. Everything is aimed at producing the level of abstraction you see or read, rather than pure simulationism, or pure story-based elements. For example, if you see someone using a zweihander vs. a dagger in a movie, it's going to make a consistent difference in the scene. It's worth having a clear difference between the damage caused by them. When it comes to a mace, a longsword, or a battleaxe, only rarely is any sort of difference going to impact the scene, and that comes from creative usage rather than damage values, so there is little reason from my design goals to differentiate them. Just consider them all "average-sized weapons" and you've got it taken care of.</p><p></p><p>Now, when I started questioning initiative, I started wondering if I needed it at all. Is initiative, as currently used, at all representative of action scenes in books and movies? I submit that it is not. </p><p></p><p>Here is a scenario with a standard initiative system:</p><p></p><p>Heroes are A, B, and C</p><p>Enemies are 1-4</p><p></p><p>Round 1:</p><p>Enemy 2 moves and attacks hero A</p><p>Enemy 4 moves towards hero C</p><p>Hero B moves and attacks enemy 2</p><p>Hero C...</p><p></p><p>And so on. The point is that the entire battlefield is intended to be seen and represented from a bird's eye view, which isn't how it is portrayed in fiction.</p><p></p><p>Here is how a battle between those same characters would actually play out in a movie:</p><p></p><p>The camera shows enemies 1, 2, and 3 moving towards hero A; hero B moves in and cuts off enemy 3</p><p>A fast and furious exchange is shown between hero A and enemies 1-2</p><p>The camera switches to show hero B dueling with enemy 3</p><p>Change in view, and hero C (not a warrior) is being chased around by enemy 4</p><p>Change back to hero B finishing off enemy 3</p><p>Back to hero A, who has defeated enemy 1, but is now on the bad side of the fight with enemy 2, when suddenly hero B jumps into the engagement and they team up and take out enemy 2</p><p>Switch to hero C who is on the ground up against the wall while enemy 4 is raising his weapon to finish him off...then his gaze goes blank and he slumps over, and you see hero A standing there, having just hit him in the head with the butt of his weapon</p><p></p><p>What's the main difference here? The difference is that instead of getting a bird's eye view of the battle, you get camera angles (or descriptive paragraphs in a book) switching from different engagements between heroes and opponents. Initiative only matters within an individual engagement.</p><p></p><p>So that's what I'm going for. The main thing I still need to figure out is how the GM decides when to switch from one engagement to another. It can't be a precise number of exchanges of blows, it definitely isn't going to be one turn for each character in the exchange, but it has to allow for the fact that a hero who defeats his opponents can join another exchange in time to make a difference, without being unbelievable in the pacing.</p><p></p><p>(Is there any chance we can get a sub-forum for game design and theory?)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 6254739, member: 6677017"] We were talking about new ways of considering and handling initiative over [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?352102-Will-D-amp-D-Next-qualify-as-quot-Rules-Lite-quot/page6"]here[/URL] and I thought it deserved it's own thread. In designing my own system, I'm replacing initiative with a different system for action pacing. DMMike has his own initiative system innovations. What have you done to change initiative in your own systems? To give the run down on how I'm currently handling it (still some fuzzy areas in development), let me tell you a tiny bit about my system. I'm creating a role-playing system (I specifically avoid calling it a "game" for theoretical reasons, because I believe only some ways of playing rpgs actually should [I]count[/I] as games at all) that is intended as a fairly balanced narrativist/simulationist hybrid. (Savage Worlds is a hybrid slanted towards simulationism, for comparison). I want it to represent fictional scenarios as portrayed in books and movies. Everything is aimed at producing the level of abstraction you see or read, rather than pure simulationism, or pure story-based elements. For example, if you see someone using a zweihander vs. a dagger in a movie, it's going to make a consistent difference in the scene. It's worth having a clear difference between the damage caused by them. When it comes to a mace, a longsword, or a battleaxe, only rarely is any sort of difference going to impact the scene, and that comes from creative usage rather than damage values, so there is little reason from my design goals to differentiate them. Just consider them all "average-sized weapons" and you've got it taken care of. Now, when I started questioning initiative, I started wondering if I needed it at all. Is initiative, as currently used, at all representative of action scenes in books and movies? I submit that it is not. Here is a scenario with a standard initiative system: Heroes are A, B, and C Enemies are 1-4 Round 1: Enemy 2 moves and attacks hero A Enemy 4 moves towards hero C Hero B moves and attacks enemy 2 Hero C... And so on. The point is that the entire battlefield is intended to be seen and represented from a bird's eye view, which isn't how it is portrayed in fiction. Here is how a battle between those same characters would actually play out in a movie: The camera shows enemies 1, 2, and 3 moving towards hero A; hero B moves in and cuts off enemy 3 A fast and furious exchange is shown between hero A and enemies 1-2 The camera switches to show hero B dueling with enemy 3 Change in view, and hero C (not a warrior) is being chased around by enemy 4 Change back to hero B finishing off enemy 3 Back to hero A, who has defeated enemy 1, but is now on the bad side of the fight with enemy 2, when suddenly hero B jumps into the engagement and they team up and take out enemy 2 Switch to hero C who is on the ground up against the wall while enemy 4 is raising his weapon to finish him off...then his gaze goes blank and he slumps over, and you see hero A standing there, having just hit him in the head with the butt of his weapon What's the main difference here? The difference is that instead of getting a bird's eye view of the battle, you get camera angles (or descriptive paragraphs in a book) switching from different engagements between heroes and opponents. Initiative only matters within an individual engagement. So that's what I'm going for. The main thing I still need to figure out is how the GM decides when to switch from one engagement to another. It can't be a precise number of exchanges of blows, it definitely isn't going to be one turn for each character in the exchange, but it has to allow for the fact that a hero who defeats his opponents can join another exchange in time to make a difference, without being unbelievable in the pacing. (Is there any chance we can get a sub-forum for game design and theory?) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Initiative: Evolutions in design
Top