Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7579896" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Feels like a half-turn or speed-2 turn based system, ala HERO if every charscter had speed-2. Seen this kind of thing in more than z few places, usually with a lot more robustness in terms of character-based differentiation and action/sub-action details.Without that added robustness and a lot of playtesting, a quick slap-patch into the DnD 5e framework will prove almost sure yo be a yon of moment-to-moment breaks.And you still need an order to resolve because there are going to be a lot of if-then kind of situations or a lot of blindly stupid situations - walk into pit that wasnt there or any number of more complex things. Honestly, seems like a lot of work to just sub-divide turns and still wind up with actor-based initiative system. Only thing it adds is more blind or low-information choices for a system where minute differences can be critical.This kind of thing tends to work best at bigger scale system, where you are managing groups not units, where the granularity is dialed to &quot;sorta-close-enough&quot; and where low-information choices are common - not single-unit systems where the granularity is dialed to the point of a single hp or 5' square can be massive. (Which is why i can see it put in as a **variant** for a single unit game derived down from larger scale miniatures scale games - not their first choice.)Without a ton more meat on the bones and a lot of the transformations of rules resolved, hard to assess further.But in general, having played many &quot;sequential resolution&quot; systems, they dont tend to add more to the experience than complexity and a different host of &quot;doesnt quite work rights&quot; to the game play. More a false precision.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7579896, member: 6919838"] Feels like a half-turn or speed-2 turn based system, ala HERO if every charscter had speed-2. Seen this kind of thing in more than z few places, usually with a lot more robustness in terms of character-based differentiation and action/sub-action details. Without that added robustness and a lot of playtesting, a quick slap-patch into the DnD 5e framework will prove almost sure yo be a yon of moment-to-moment breaks. And you still need an order to resolve because there are going to be a lot of if-then kind of situations or a lot of blindly stupid situations - walk into pit that wasnt there or any number of more complex things. Honestly, seems like a lot of work to just sub-divide turns and still wind up with actor-based initiative system. Only thing it adds is more blind or low-information choices for a system where minute differences can be critical. This kind of thing tends to work best at bigger scale system, where you are managing groups not units, where the granularity is dialed to "sorta-close-enough" and where low-information choices are common - not single-unit systems where the granularity is dialed to the point of a single hp or 5' square can be massive. (Which is why i can see it put in as a **variant** for a single unit game derived down from larger scale miniatures scale games - not their first choice.) Without a ton more meat on the bones and a lot of the transformations of rules resolved, hard to assess further. But in general, having played many "sequential resolution" systems, they dont tend to add more to the experience than complexity and a different host of "doesnt quite work rights" to the game play. More a false precision. [/QUOTE]

Verification