Initiative Systems in BRP

[Atgxtg]

44 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

I wasn't thinking about multiple actions in a round where it does get a bit trickier.

Yeah or if someone has to swich weapons. 

44 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

Also, what if my action is not really attached to a skill? Does my DEX 14 beat your skill 72%?

Oh, I got that one covered, use the core for Agility  (DEX x5%). 

44 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

That's probably where an initiative skill like in Harn becomes handy.

Or a Strike Rank system, or a cost per action system.

44 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

Still prefer RQ3...

Me too, across the board. It handles a lot of thing very elegantly. 

[weasel fierce]

You could use Attribute x 5 in that case. 

Strike ranks do work fine, though Ive noticed some players have a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact it's both an initiative and an action point system combined. 

 

[DreadDomain]

8 hours ago, weasel fierce said:

Strike ranks do work fine, though I've noticed some players have a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact it's both an initiative and an action point system combined. 

 

This is exactly what I like about it (well, not that some players have a hard time wrapping their heads around it). Back in the day in RQ3, to enhance that specific experience, we removed the limit of 2 actions out of attack, parry, dodge. In a sense, we were using SR similar to how it is described in BGB p.199

[Mugen]

13 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

An option would be to declare intent in ascending order of INT and then act in descending order of %. That way more perceptive/intelligence/intuitive characters get to adjust their intent based on what the others are doing, even if they are not the fastest. 

It seems to me first french edition of StormBringer (based on 2nd US version, but with differences) used ascending INT for delaration of intent, and descendig DEX for resolution.

[NickMiddleton]

15 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

An option would be to declare intent in ascending order of INT and then act in descending order of %. That way more perceptive/intelligence/intuitive characters get to adjust their intent based on what the others are doing, even if they are not the fastest. 

I have used pretty much exactly that system in the past, and IIRC advocated for it during the BRP BGB "play test" / "manuscript review" way back when Jason was pulling the BGB together... but even then I hope I acknowledged (and certainly do so now) that its a bit fiddly for some groups. But I really like the "smart people can _read_ a fight better, but they may not have the reactions to exploit that... and some folk may have lightning fast reactions, but aren't mentally agile enough to properly read what others are doing"...

[DreadDomain]

11 hours ago, NickMiddleton said:

I have used pretty much exactly that system in the past, and IIRC advocated for it during the BRP BGB "play test" / "manuscript review" way back when Jason was pulling the BGB together... but even then I hope I acknowledged (and certainly do so now) that its a bit fiddly for some groups. But I really like the "smart people can _read_ a fight better, but they may not have the reactions to exploit that... and some folk may have lightning fast reactions, but aren't mentally agile enough to properly read what others are doing"...

Correct, it might too fiddly for some. Personally, I prefer the statement of intent to be free for all with players (and gm) declaring what they intend to do and freely adjust depending on what others decide. "I'll run towards Vasana to heal her... what? You want to do it Yanioth? Cool, you are better than me at healing so I'll let you do that while I try to cleave the scorpion man who attacked her..."

It makes the game a bit more collaborative

Edited October 23, 2020 by DreadDomain

[weasel fierce]

On 10/23/2020 at 5:34 AM, Mugen said:

It seems to me first french edition of StormBringer (based on 2nd US version, but with differences) used ascending INT for delaration of intent, and descendig DEX for resolution.

That's really cool though I worry it'd be confusing in play. Worth a try though. 
I've also seen suggestions of using POW for initiative (or declaration) as it tends to represent willpower and keeping your cool.

[Mugen]

12 minutes ago, weasel fierce said:

That's really cool though I worry it'd be confusing in play. Worth a try though. 
I've also seen suggestions of using POW for initiative (or declaration) as it tends to represent willpower and keeping your cool.

I've failed my memory roll... I checked, and DEX was used for declaration also...

[Atgxtg]

18 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

It makes the game a bit more collaborative

And probably makes sense when you have a 12 second combat round. 

[DreadDomain]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

And probably makes sense when you have a 12 second combat round. 

And that's why we removed the limit of number of attack/parry/dodge in a MR. If you had enough SR, you could keep going. We thought it made more sense for 12 seconds and was also more fluid.

[dieselpunk]

An aside, but I like how bgb handles the multiple actions per round by each one of the actions being  5 Dex lower. It's still the best way of handling multiple attacks I've  encountered in rpgs. I also like the ascending Dex (or int) statement phase followed by descending Dex or int actions.

[Atgxtg]

20 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

And that's why we removed the limit of number of attack/parry/dodge in a MR. If you had enough SR, you could keep going. We thought it made more sense for 12 seconds and was also more fluid.

Uh, not so much, at least with melee weapons The thing is "an attack"  in melee constitutes more than just a stab or swing, but instead a combination of moves that ultimately lead to a stab or swing that can potentially damage the opponent. And the time for that would be variable.

Now I could see someone letting SR roll over into the next melee round, like with RQ3 magic or as in the Ringworld RPG, and maybe rolling a die to see how many SR an  attack takes (base weapon damage is a good start), modified by skill, or some such. But that would be a radical shift from what we have now, and I'm not sure how it would play out. It would be a a very interesting playtest though.

 

 

[DreadDomain]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

The thing is "an attack"  in melee constitutes more than just a stab or swing, but instead a combination of moves that ultimately lead to a stab or swing that can potentially damage the opponent. And the time for that would be variable.

Sure. RQ3 RAW was approximating that combination that way. We decided to approximate it a different way just by removing the arbitrary limit to the number of melee actions. Without that limit, the variable duration of that approximation was well represented by the SR mechanic. For us it made combat more fluid, more believeable and more fun.

[Kloster]

On 10/23/2020 at 2:10 PM, NickMiddleton said:

I have used pretty much exactly that system in the past, and IIRC advocated for it during the BRP BGB "play test" / "manuscript review" way back when Jason was pulling the BGB together... but even then I hope I acknowledged (and certainly do so now) that its a bit fiddly for some groups. But I really like the "smart people can _read_ a fight better, but they may not have the reactions to exploit that... and some folk may have lightning fast reactions, but aren't mentally agile enough to properly read what others are doing"...

What we did with RQ3 was doing the Statement of Intent in ascending INT order, and then, for each SR, action in descending DEX order, exactly for this reason.

Edited October 25, 2020 by Kloster

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Sure. RQ3 RAW was approximating that combination that way. We decided to approximate it a different way just by removing the arbitrary limit to the number of melee actions. Without that limit, the variable duration of that approximation was well represented by the SR mechanic. For us it made combat more fluid, more believeable and more fun.

How were you implementing the SR mechanic? I could see several variations:

1. You just used the normal attack SR of the weapon provided it added up to 12 STR or less.

2. As above but you let attacks roll over into the next round.

3. You used the normal SR for the first attack, and then added the DEX SR for the next attack.

 

 

[DreadDomain]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

How were you implementing the SR mechanic? I could see several variations:

1. You just used the normal attack SR of the weapon provided it added up to 12 STR or less.

2. As above but you let attacks roll over into the next round.

3. You used the normal SR for the first attack, and then added the DEX SR for the next attack.

You are challenging my memory now! It's been decades

I am 100% sure that we did not roll over from one MR to another and kept the arbitrary 10 SR reset limit (it was 10 in RQ3, not 12).

For spacing the actions, we tried various methods but I would be hardpressed to say with certainly which one we ended up landing on. I think we ended up using the standard 3 SR between actions because it was consistent with RAW since it also takes 3 SR to ready a weapon, prepare an arrow or execute a second attack with a skill over 100% (but see below for other methods we tried*).

Which makes me think about a few other things we needed to adjust

• Splitted attacks if skill was over 100% both happened on the same SR.
• Aimed attack would not be delayed at the end of the round. Having the attack % divided by two seemed a big enough penalty for us.

 

 

*Other methods we tried

a) We tried only adding DEX SR between actions. It meant high DEX character were very lethal.

b) We tried adding the full SR (DEX, SIZ and weapon) between melee attacks. It meant big, long-weapon fighters were very fast compared to small, dagger fighting but it was giving interesting results once the small dagger fighter closed.

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by DreadDomain

[Atgxtg]

Thanks DreadDomain,

It's an interesting idea to tweak the SR system that way, especially when handling modern firearms, many of which can empty their magazine in under 12 seconds.

Ringwolrd used to add the full Action Rank (but it was just a DEX SR but with a wider scale) and allow for rollover.  For instance a character with a DEX of 13  would have an Action Rank of 4, and could draw a weapon on 4 impulse, aim in for action 4 impulses (impulse 8 ) and shoot the weapon on impulse 9 (a minor action taking only 1 impulse), then aim again to impulse 13, and shoot again on impulse 14.

I suspect some variation on that idea would probably work out really well. 

[hix]

In Space Cowboys, we do this, allowing multiple actions. This quickly led to the fast guys acting 5 or 10 times a round, so we added SR to guns: 1 to pistols, 2 to sniper/anti-materiel/Mellowlink guns that are harder to swing around or you have to set up. This gets most players acting 2 or 3 times a round, which is about the right tempo for a gunfight, for my money.

[Atgxtg]

14 hours ago, hix said:

In Space Cowboys, we do this, allowing multiple actions. This quickly led to the fast guys acting 5 or 10 times a round, so we added SR to guns: 1 to pistols, 2 to sniper/anti-materiel/Mellowlink guns that are harder to swing around or you have to set up. This gets most players acting 2 or 3 times a round, which is about the right tempo for a gunfight, for my money.

That kinda depends on the length of a combat round. For 12 seconds it's probably a tad slow, but not horribly so.

[fulk]

On 10/25/2020 at 11:09 AM, Atgxtg said:

Uh, not so much, at least with melee weapons The thing is "an attack"  in melee constitutes more than just a stab or swing, but instead a combination of moves that ultimately lead to a stab or swing that can potentially damage the opponent. And the time for that would be variable.

 

My experience from fencing (Italian sabre) for the last few years is that Initiative doesn't really exist the way we model it in games. Of course, in the game, we need to order actions some how.  But in my experience, some one decides to attack. The first attack is just a set up to draw a specific reaction (parry, riposte), then a counter riposte etc. It is more strategy than speed. Games like The Riddle of Steel or Burning Wheel do combat more along these lines.  Pendragon has no initiative and just opposed weapon skill rolls.  

As for action points (in BRP or Mythras), I think they should be based on skill level, not dex etc.  Skill level = time.  Getting your opponent to run out of time is how you hit them. You don't need to be fast, you need to be efficient, which is skill not dex (directly).  Just a pet peeve.

I kind of dislike the fixed number (SR, dex) version of initiative because certain characters always go first. I could see something more like Dex +1d4 as more fun because quick characters would usually go first (always against some opponents) but not always against some one with similar Dex.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, fulk said:

 

My experience from fencing (Italian sabre) for the last few years is that Initiative doesn't really exist the way we model it in games. Of course, in the game, we need to order actions some how.  But in my experience, some one decides to attack. The first attack is just a set up to draw a specific reaction (parry, riposte), then a counter riposte etc. It is more strategy than speed. Games like The Riddle of Steel or Burning Wheel do combat more along these lines.  Pendragon has no initiative and just opposed weapon skill rolls.  

Yeah, intiative is mostyl a game convention. In real life it's more like everybody is trying to do something at the same time and some people's stuff work and other people stuff doesn't. I think Pendragon might have one of the more realstic methods with everything combined into one opposed roll, with the winner inflicting damage upon the looser. 

 

1 hour ago, fulk said:

As for action points (in BRP or Mythras), I think they should be based on skill level, not dex etc.  Skill level = time.  Getting your opponent to run out of time is how you hit them. You don't need to be fast, you need to be efficient, which is skill not dex (directly).  Just a pet peeve.

Yeah, I know what you mean. DEX/reaction speed in important,but it also improvses with experience. 

1 hour ago, fulk said:

I kind of dislike the fixed number (SR, dex) version of initiative because certain characters always go first. I could see something more like Dex +1d4 as more fun because quick characters would usually go first (always against some opponents) but not always against some one with similar Dex.

Yeah, I could see the die being determined by the weapon type and speed (again the damage dice are a good starting point) and perhaps dropping down a die size when skill hit certain thresholds. So maybe a Sword would be DEX+1d8+1 to start but drop to DEX+1d6+1 when skill hit 50% or so then the to DEX+1d4+1 at 75% and so forth. But that would be a bit complicated, and I'd rather go with an opposed roll first as it would be simpler and sidestep most of this fairly elegantly.

[Lloyd Dupont]

MM.... I was thinking to use (DEX+D10) for initiative.. But perhaps I should do (DEX + Skill/10% + D10)?
I am already using Skill/10% bonus in few other places (like resistance rolls)

[Atgxtg]

5 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

MM.... I was thinking to use (DEX+D10) for initiative.. But perhaps I should do (DEX + Skill/10% + D10)?

That kinda depends on how important you want each factor to be. DEX+d10 makes DEX about twice as important as the random factor, since the average DEX is twice what the average roll in a 1D10. DEX+Skill./10+1d10 puts skill somewhere in the middle, as while it is lower than DEX will be, it is still a constant. But there are a gazllion (technical term) ways to handle it. You might be a bit concerned with ultra high skills though Bladesharp/Sharpen 6 would mean +3 to Initiative, and true sword would double the skill component. But that might not bother you. 

I could see using the DEX as a way to determine the random die (i.e. DEX/2, nearest for a high roll wins) and then shifting the die up or down depending on skill. But in the end it's not that much different.

5 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I am already using Skill/10% bonus in few other places (like resistance rolls)

I'm curious. IS that straight +/10th increase to the % change or a 1/10% increase to the stat for the resistance table? 

[Lloyd Dupont]

19 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

That kinda depends on how important you want each factor to be. DEX+d10 makes DEX about twice as important as the random factor, since the average DEX is twice what the average roll in a 1D10. DEX+Skill./10+1d10 puts skill somewhere in the middle, as while it is lower than DEX will be, it is still a constant. But there are a gazllion (technical term) ways to handle it. You might be a bit concerned with ultra high skills though Bladesharp/Sharpen 6 would mean +3 to Initiative, and true sword would double the skill component. But that might not bother you. 

I am still using a single action per round (with the 100%+ split action bonus) and instead of always the highest DEX beng first.. That would enable other people, like less DEX but more skilled to go first.. no biggie, I reckon.. except it involved on the fly Maths,... (some of the player are not that good at additions 😮 )  
So... I might not do it.. due to the "added complexity" And, beside, RPGs do have a strike a balance between realism and simplicity....

22 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I'm curious. IS that straight +/10th increase to the % change or a 1/10% increase to the stat for the resistance table? 

It is a straight increase to the defender (and attacker) stats...

Instead of DEX vs DEX in disarm it's DEX+Sword/10% vs DEX+Sword/10%. So a dexterous young newby is less likely to disarm an old master!
Also it kind of advantage the defender when resisting spell... The defender get the same bonus to its POW when it increase the one skill Willpower, whereas the attacker has to have a good spell skill for each spell... (I know, I use XP, you don't, so that change things a bit for you)

 

As a side note, since it's totally equivalent but does not requires any lookup, I do not use the resistance table, instead the defender must roll
Defence Score + D20 >= Attack Score + 11

to successful defend.

[Atgxtg]

2 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I am still using a single action per round (with the 100%+ split action bonus) and instead of always the highest DEX beng first.. That would enable other people, like less DEX but more skilled to go first.. no biggie, I reckon.. except it involved on the fly Maths,... (some of the player are not that good at additions 😮 )  
So... I might not do it.. due to the "added complexity" And, beside, RPGs do have a strike a balance between realism and simplicity....

Ah, in that case the idea of shifting the die type might work out better for you. For instance, let';s say DEX 10 is 1d6 (10/2, =5 round to the d6) and you shift it up a die for skill above 50% to 1d8. That would be easier to do beforehand and die dshift on the fly are fairly easy.

 

But then, I'm just brainstorming.

2 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

It is a straight increase to the defender (and attacker) stats...

Instead of DEX vs DEX in disarm it's DEX+Sword/10% vs DEX+Sword/10%. So a dexterous young newby is less likely to disarm an old master!
Also it kind of advantage the defender when resisting spell... The defender get the same bonus to its POW when it increase the one skill Willpower, whereas the attacker has to have a good spell skill for each spell... (I know, I use XP, you don't, so that change things a bit for you)

Okay, still a bit confused, as there have been multiple ways to handle opposed rolls. . For iFor instance is is DEX 10 vs. DEX 15 on the resistance table (so 25/75%) with 1/10th the skill thrown in i.e so 90% vs 20% would be (10+9) =19 vs (15+2) =17 on the resistance table ), or 25vs 75 with a 7% shift for the difference in skill, or  is it something like an opposed 50%+10th skill vs 75%+1/10% skill roll.

2 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

As a side note, since it's totally equivalent but does not requires any lookup, I do not use the resistance table, instead the defender must roll
Defence Score + D20 >= Attack Score + 11

to successful defend.

Ah, okay. Basically the AC formula. Although I'd be tempted to let both sides roll and let the higher roll win. I'd even drop initiative and go with that for melee combat too. It really simplifies a lot of stuff.