Raven Crowking
First Post
Thank you for the link, really nice of you
RCFG is almost completely OGC, has an init system you might be interested in, and also uses weapon skills (which you were interested in). Link in my .sig.
RC
What do you think of a tick system?
- Thread starter Stacie GmrGrl
- Start date
RCFG is almost completely OGC, has an init system you might be interested in, and also uses weapon skills (which you were interested in). Link in my .sig.
RC
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
The Chaosium Ringworld game was the first one I remember with a system that is (I think) close to your suggestion. I think they called it 'pulses' and you could do something each pulse, or start doing something that took more than one pulse (and the action completed at the end of the requisite time).
There was no concept of rounds at all, you just counted along the pulses until combat ended. Since pulling the trigger on a flashlight laser was only a single pulse, closing ground against someone armed with one was pretty suicidal IIRC.
I could imagine it working well in a game that doesn't rely heavily on rounds, but D&D does for all kinds of effects, so actually integrating a system like that would probably be somewhat more complex, to say the least!
There was no concept of rounds at all, you just counted along the pulses until combat ended. Since pulling the trigger on a flashlight laser was only a single pulse, closing ground against someone armed with one was pretty suicidal IIRC.
I could imagine it working well in a game that doesn't rely heavily on rounds, but D&D does for all kinds of effects, so actually integrating a system like that would probably be somewhat more complex, to say the least!
Raven Crowking
First Post
GnomeWorks
Adventurer
Nah, it's actually pretty easy.
If you translate a D&D round into a set number of ticks, you can easily track durations (instead of an effect lasting X rounds, it lasts Y ticks, which is X times however many ticks a round translates to). You can also do more interesting things, like have an effect that procs more often over the course of a "round," without it getting messy.
For instance, you could have a weak, but fast-acting poison, that deals some amount of poison damage every few ticks... or you could have a slow, but deadly poison, that takes a bunch of ticks to proc, but deals a bunch of damage when it does.
fuzzlewump
Explorer
Could someone briefly describe "ticks" and what a "tick system" is to those of us outside of the know, namely me.
Theo R Cwithin
I cast "Baconstorm!"
@fuzzlewump: "Ticks" are just a way to more finely divide time in an encounter. So a "round" might map into "10 ticks".
Typically, the point is to allow multiple characters to perform simultaneous actions. For example, a combat in one such system might look like:
- a wizard starts casting an 8 tick spell.
- In the next tick, the hobgoblin starts a 5 tick charge.
- 5 ticks later the hobgoblin hits the wizard, wizard makes a concentration check to retain the spell.
- hobgoblin uses a quick 2 tick action to hack with his dagger, wizard makes the concentration check again.
- Finally on the 8th tick, the wizard's spell pops off and the hobgoblin turns into a toad.
Iirc, it's like the "segments" of pre-3e D&D?
Typically, the point is to allow multiple characters to perform simultaneous actions. For example, a combat in one such system might look like:
- a wizard starts casting an 8 tick spell.
- In the next tick, the hobgoblin starts a 5 tick charge.
- 5 ticks later the hobgoblin hits the wizard, wizard makes a concentration check to retain the spell.
- hobgoblin uses a quick 2 tick action to hack with his dagger, wizard makes the concentration check again.
- Finally on the 8th tick, the wizard's spell pops off and the hobgoblin turns into a toad.
Iirc, it's like the "segments" of pre-3e D&D?
Stacie GmrGrl
Adventurer
Take Exalted 2e. Every body rolls a Join Battle Action. Highest person goes on tick 0. Next highest goes on next tick based on the difference, so if the highest got 5 successes and the second got 3, the next player would go on tick 2. And so on...
So, person A in tick 0 does a tick 4 action. He does his action, his marker moves to tick 4. person B goes, does a tick 5 action. He goes on tick 5. Then the tick marker goes up to 1. If anybody has his marker he goes. No one goes. Tick 2 comes... Person C is there, he activates a Charm, a tick 5 action, his marker goes to tick 7.
It's the monsters turn, three monsters. They rush in and charge, doing a slow attack that's a tick 6 action, but it does serious damage if it hits. Do action, their marker goes to tick 8.
Tick 4 next, Master NPC snickers, laughs at the heroes, does a spell and casts spell. He casts it at tick 4 speed, so his marker goes to tick 8. Person A, also his marker in tick 4, does an action that's 2 speed, and his marker goes to tick 6.
As each person acts, he does his action, then his marker moves up the chart. It's a fluid simulation of the randomness of combat. If you think on the nature of combat, this is more or less how a combat would happen.
For spells, a spell might be Charm Person, for example right. This Charm person spell might be - target person who fails his Will save is friendly towrads the caster for the next 20 ticks of combat (worded badly, but you get the jist). So, instead of durations being rounds, they'd be ticks instead.
So, person A in tick 0 does a tick 4 action. He does his action, his marker moves to tick 4. person B goes, does a tick 5 action. He goes on tick 5. Then the tick marker goes up to 1. If anybody has his marker he goes. No one goes. Tick 2 comes... Person C is there, he activates a Charm, a tick 5 action, his marker goes to tick 7.
It's the monsters turn, three monsters. They rush in and charge, doing a slow attack that's a tick 6 action, but it does serious damage if it hits. Do action, their marker goes to tick 8.
Tick 4 next, Master NPC snickers, laughs at the heroes, does a spell and casts spell. He casts it at tick 4 speed, so his marker goes to tick 8. Person A, also his marker in tick 4, does an action that's 2 speed, and his marker goes to tick 6.
As each person acts, he does his action, then his marker moves up the chart. It's a fluid simulation of the randomness of combat. If you think on the nature of combat, this is more or less how a combat would happen.
For spells, a spell might be Charm Person, for example right. This Charm person spell might be - target person who fails his Will save is friendly towrads the caster for the next 20 ticks of combat (worded badly, but you get the jist). So, instead of durations being rounds, they'd be ticks instead.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
"Theoretically", I find tick systems interesting and appealing. But I feel they are also a little... clumsy or involved. If I roll initiative once, and that sets the turn order for the rest of combat, it's a lot easier to track. You just move the marker one step to the next one getting his turn. If you are at the end, you know a round just ended and you start from the beginning. You can track durations "turn-wise" (from start to end of your turn, e.g. the time you get to say what your character does) or "round-wise". 4E did a lot to clarify durations with stuff like "end of next turn" or "start of next turn".
If you use "ticks", you will have to track every duration individually, You can't base it on another creatures turn or the duration of a round, it is its "own" thing. You probably want to avoid using conditions most of the time (at least if they are suppoed to start and end during an individual combat). Or you want to create conditions that have a different trigger condition then "time".
A good example might be "prone". You are prone until you stand up. No mysteries here, and no need to track any durations or ticks. You know when you take the "stand up from prone" actions. I suppose you could do this with a lot of conditions, define a "remove condition action" with a fixed tick cost.
For example:
Prone: 5 ticks. Dazed: 10 ticks. Stunned: 20 ticks. Unconcious: 100 ticks. Shaken: 5 ticks. Panicked: 10 ticks.
The question might be - how would you do that with buffs (a form of conditions) lasting on you? I don't want to model "removing" the condition, I want something to signify that you've "used it up". But without actually counting ticks, so "once you spend 30 ticks on attacks, Cat's Grace ends" is out. (Yes, harsh design parameters, are they not?) Do you add to the tick count cost of actions?
Other factors:
What I personally would not like is a system where initial initiative is determined by the weapon you wield. No one knows if you actually want to do, right? Weapon "Speed" should only matter for the tick count cost afterwards.
Another thing is how the interruption mechanic works. When is an action resolved? At the end of the ticks spent? If I can interrupt spellcasting, can I also interrupt someones melee or ranged attack? What happens when something is interrupted? Does he still have to wait until the end of his original ticks, or does he resest his tick count to the point where he was interrupted? Is there a recovery cost?
If you use "ticks", you will have to track every duration individually, You can't base it on another creatures turn or the duration of a round, it is its "own" thing. You probably want to avoid using conditions most of the time (at least if they are suppoed to start and end during an individual combat). Or you want to create conditions that have a different trigger condition then "time".
A good example might be "prone". You are prone until you stand up. No mysteries here, and no need to track any durations or ticks. You know when you take the "stand up from prone" actions. I suppose you could do this with a lot of conditions, define a "remove condition action" with a fixed tick cost.
For example:
Prone: 5 ticks. Dazed: 10 ticks. Stunned: 20 ticks. Unconcious: 100 ticks. Shaken: 5 ticks. Panicked: 10 ticks.
The question might be - how would you do that with buffs (a form of conditions) lasting on you? I don't want to model "removing" the condition, I want something to signify that you've "used it up". But without actually counting ticks, so "once you spend 30 ticks on attacks, Cat's Grace ends" is out. (Yes, harsh design parameters, are they not?) Do you add to the tick count cost of actions?
Other factors:
What I personally would not like is a system where initial initiative is determined by the weapon you wield. No one knows if you actually want to do, right? Weapon "Speed" should only matter for the tick count cost afterwards.
Another thing is how the interruption mechanic works. When is an action resolved? At the end of the ticks spent? If I can interrupt spellcasting, can I also interrupt someones melee or ranged attack? What happens when something is interrupted? Does he still have to wait until the end of his original ticks, or does he resest his tick count to the point where he was interrupted? Is there a recovery cost?
