TTRPGs with simultaneous instead of turn-based combat

[Thomas Shey]

Burning Wheel and Torchbearer both use write and reveal.

It don't think it's a pain in the behind, because the pay-off is worth it. Like in my last session of Torchbearer, where in (what turned out to be) the final exchange I scripted a third volley Feint for my cunning NPC. And outwitted the players! I'm not a very good wargamer overall, and for me that was probably a personal best in cunning wargaming but also in the context of the game produced a powerful and unanticipated outcome. (Write up here.)

Something can be a pain in the behind and worth it. I've got a number of games that have what I consider a good pay-off that I still think the way of getting their is a nuisance.

 

[dragoner]

Agreed. Taking turns is a natural and effective way to interface.

Don't get me wrong if people can get on the same page it works great though, it is just getting there.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Turns out I was wrong about this. I'm surprised nobody nailed me for it, I must be the only TFT fan on the board. "Nothing in Melee happens simultaneously." (Melee, p.3) "Figures attack in the order of their ADJUSTED DX, highest first. (Melee, p.4, emphasis theirs)

TFT fans are rare enough here that we seldom encounter each other. I was about to (belatedly) nail you for your claim when I saw that you had already corrected yourself.

 

[Thomas Shey]

TFT fans are rare enough here that we seldom encounter each other. I was about to (belatedly) nail you for your claim when I saw that you had already corrected yourself.

And while I own TFT, I'm not invested, so...

 

[Thondor]

Some games -- Hackmaster and Aces and Eights, both from KenzerCo., come to mind -- use a second by second clock that is about as close to "simultaneous" as you can probably get at a table. So, for example, it might take 4 second to swing your sword and 3 seconds to cast a quick spell but 10 seconds to cast a more powerful one, and so on. The GM just counts of seconds and when your wait time comes up you act, say what you are doing next, and keep going like that.

I feel like I should add that in Hackmaster's count up system you can always change what you are doing. -- Want to change your position to benefit and ally? Go for it (this may push back your attack by a second). Want to abandon your current strategy/weapon/spell to go with a different one? Go for it, just wait the new interval of seconds as relevant.

Hackmaster has very dynamic combat.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Simultaneous resolution is more prevalent in board games, lots of which have “secretly choose then reveal”. It’s probably no accident that most (but definitely not all)RPGs, in seeking to distance themselves from board games, don’t use simultaneous resolution.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think its that much a direct connection there; at the time when RPGs originated, that was, while not unknown, not a common mechanic. I don't think anyone would have considered it for the sort of basic game D&D was in the first place, and its carried down since then.

(It also would become progressively more cumbersome as more meaningful decisions in mechanics occur, and a lot of people would find it intrusive. Even something as simple as the old MEGS DC Heroes game, which had inverted declaration and resolution (in other words, people with the highest initiative rolls got to declare last (thus knowing what others would do) and act first got a lot of pushback because it turned declaration into a separate process from resolving; having to write it down would put a lot of people right off).

 

[aramis erak]

Some games -- Hackmaster and Aces and Eights, both from KenzerCo., come to mind -- use a second by second clock that is about as close to "simultaneous" as you can probably get at a table. So, for example, it might take 4 second to swing your sword and 3 seconds to cast a quick spell but 10 seconds to cast a more powerful one, and so on. The GM just counts of seconds and when your wait time comes up you act, say what you are doing next, and keep going like that.

No, there are more simultaneous systems that saw print. And they're more simultaneous than HM/A&8. Tho' I'll note that the playtest for Mongoose Traveller 1E had a similar modality, except that it was count up to max 6, at 6, you can take an action. (at 1-5, you can react)... which is about equally as simultaneous as A&8 or HM.

Ones that are more simultaneous:
Technically, Mouse Guard, Burning Wheel, Burning Empires, and WEG Star Wars d6 1e are all simultaneous declarations. MG, BW, and BE explicitly are write down your 3 actions for the turn. SW suggests writing them as a means of preventing «me too» declarations.
BW, BE, and MG all have essentially simultaneous 1st, simultaneous 2nd, and simultaneous 3rd.
WEG 1e has simultaneous declaration, but the action's skill roll total sets the specific sequence for the action subturn - All first actions in descending skill roll, all second actions in descending skill roll, all third actions in descending skill roll, etc...

Tunnels and Trolls is very lax, but within each step, it's all resolved simultaneously.
So, in the spell phase, anyone successfully casting generates the results, and they apply all at once.
Likewise saving rolls for stunts/stupid-PC-tricks.
Then, finally, the combat dice step. This step cannot be resolved other than simultaneously... since the participants in a particular knot of melee all total by side, then the difference between side totals is applied to the losing side...

 

[aramis erak]

I don't think its that much a direct connection there; at the time when RPGs originated, that was, while not unknown, not a common mechanic. I don't think anyone would have considered it for the sort of basic game D&D was in the first place, and its carried down since then.

It was common enough that Moldvay spells out that it's not simultaneous in D&D Basic Set.
And that Ken St. Andre opted to go simultaneous for T&T starting in 1975...
and from Starships & Spacemen (1978):

All combat is assumed to be simultaneous, unless there is an element of surprise (as determined by the SM).

Simultaneity also was also present in several 1975 board games: Star Fleet Battles being the best known.

The 1981 Axis and Allies rules make combat effectively simultaneous; The troops/ships are transferred to the battle board, one side (IIRC, the attacker) makes their attacks, but the hit units are not removed; they are slid back on the battle board; then the second side makes their attacks with all units, then all hit units on both sides are removed.

Not a few GMs used the A&A method in D&D... and so did a few small press RPGs.

(It also would become progressively more cumbersome as more meaningful decisions in mechanics occur, and a lot of people would find it intrusive. Even something as simple as the old MEGS DC Heroes game, which had inverted declaration and resolution (in other words, people with the highest initiative rolls got to declare last (thus knowing what others would do) and act first got a lot of pushback because it turned declaration into a separate process from resolving; having to write it down would put a lot of people right off).

The reverse declaration always gets more problematic as numbers of combatants go up. Simultaneous doesn't of need do so... Just holding the damage effect until after both sides have resolved isn't that big a problem. As can be seen with the A&A example.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It was common enough that Moldvay spells out that it's not simultaneous in D&D Basic Set.
And that Ken St. Andre opted to go simultaneous for T&T starting in 1975...
and from Starships & Spacemen (1978):

There's a difference between "assumed to be simultaneous" and "declared simultaneously". All kinds of games said the latter, but in practice, that was not really expressed in any mechanical process (and often there was very little discussion of how to decide what order to resolve them in at all). Usually it just turned into "everyone declares" (in sometimes kind of random order) and then "everyone resolves" without the ability to change the declaration.

Simultaneity also was also present in several 1975 board games: Star Fleet Battles being the best known.

The 1981 Axis and Allies rules make combat effectively simultaneous; The troops/ships are transferred to the battle board, one side (IIRC, the attacker) makes their attacks, but the hit units are not removed; they are slid back on the battle board; then the second side makes their attacks with all units, then all hit units on both sides are removed.

Not a few GMs used the A&A method in D&D... and so did a few small press RPGs.

The reverse declaration always gets more problematic as numbers of combatants go up. Simultaneous doesn't of need do so... Just holding the damage effect until after both sides have resolved isn't that big a problem. As can be seen with the A&A example.

Again, I'm specifically talking about the rarity of simulataneous declaration, not resolution.