Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Pie Wedge Initiative?
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="jeffh" data-source="post: 6265265" data-attributes="member: 2642"><p>In <em>Fantasy Infinity</em>, I'm using something like this. In my system, there is a (fairly abstract, compared to 3rd and 4th generation D&D) "battle board" everyone is assumed to be sitting around anyway, though the playtest version is actually a magnetic whiteboard that tends to be propped up next to me - the <em>point</em> is there's a visible display everyone's attention is assumed to be focused on regardless. That's really important, for reasons I'll get back to.</p><p></p><p>Around the outside of this board is a track of numbers, similar to the scoring tracks found on many Eurogames. The combatant whose token is in the first position takes an action, and then moves that token clockwise around the track a number of spaces ("ticks") based on the action (referred to as the action's "recovery"). This typically leaves some other combatant's token in the first position, which makes it their turn to act.</p><p></p><p>In playtests so far, this has moved like greased lightning, though that may be partly because of good streamlining in other aspects of the game. I can do probably five combats in the time it takes to do one of comparable complexity in 4th Edition. (<em><strong>IMPORTANT CAVEAT:</strong> To date, this has only been tested at low levels. Whether this scales to high-end characters is, at this point, a matter of theory. However, there's no obvious reason why it wouldn't <em>other than</em> players having more options to choose from.</em>)</p><p></p><p>Having said that, I tried a similar roundless system (also of my own design) back in the 90s and it sucked big. Mathematically, it was the <em>same</em> system; the only real difference (other than my doing a better job, I believe, of thinking through the underlying numbers this time around) is the shared visible display. In the earlier version, it was numbers on a notepad on the GM's side of the screen, partly because I massively overvalued keeping the opponents' speeds a secret. It actually plays far better with that information in the open, it turns out planning around them adds to the fun, at least for the players who've tried it so far. Doing it without the shared display aspect was horrible.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what the advantage of having a cycle with only four positions in the system described above is. That sounds like it would be more confusing than helpful, while also limiting how much you can differentiate actions. For a board game or something that was built around that mechanic from the ground up, I'm sure that could work well, but I don't like the sound of it for an RPG. Having said that, I haven't seen how it works in practise and might very well change my view once I had.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jeffh, post: 6265265, member: 2642"] In [I]Fantasy Infinity[/I], I'm using something like this. In my system, there is a (fairly abstract, compared to 3rd and 4th generation D&D) "battle board" everyone is assumed to be sitting around anyway, though the playtest version is actually a magnetic whiteboard that tends to be propped up next to me - the [I]point[/I] is there's a visible display everyone's attention is assumed to be focused on regardless. That's really important, for reasons I'll get back to. Around the outside of this board is a track of numbers, similar to the scoring tracks found on many Eurogames. The combatant whose token is in the first position takes an action, and then moves that token clockwise around the track a number of spaces ("ticks") based on the action (referred to as the action's "recovery"). This typically leaves some other combatant's token in the first position, which makes it their turn to act. In playtests so far, this has moved like greased lightning, though that may be partly because of good streamlining in other aspects of the game. I can do probably five combats in the time it takes to do one of comparable complexity in 4th Edition. ([I][B]IMPORTANT CAVEAT:[/B] To date, this has only been tested at low levels. Whether this scales to high-end characters is, at this point, a matter of theory. However, there's no obvious reason why it wouldn't [I]other than[/I] players having more options to choose from.[/I]) Having said that, I tried a similar roundless system (also of my own design) back in the 90s and it sucked big. Mathematically, it was the [I]same[/I] system; the only real difference (other than my doing a better job, I believe, of thinking through the underlying numbers this time around) is the shared visible display. In the earlier version, it was numbers on a notepad on the GM's side of the screen, partly because I massively overvalued keeping the opponents' speeds a secret. It actually plays far better with that information in the open, it turns out planning around them adds to the fun, at least for the players who've tried it so far. Doing it without the shared display aspect was horrible. I'm not sure what the advantage of having a cycle with only four positions in the system described above is. That sounds like it would be more confusing than helpful, while also limiting how much you can differentiate actions. For a board game or something that was built around that mechanic from the ground up, I'm sure that could work well, but I don't like the sound of it for an RPG. Having said that, I haven't seen how it works in practise and might very well change my view once I had. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Pie Wedge Initiative?
Top