Today I have a question for you guys. it has been a long time since I've worked on a system, any system, but my brain has been turning that way again. Maybe it's because I need to kick myself to start shopping around the two games I have done and ready, or maybe it is just my brain finally waking up now that I have time again. Either way, I thought it would be fun to put a mechanic out there and see how you guys think it might work out. The idea for today is for an initiative system. So, take a moment, read the mechanic, and tell me how you think it would work.
The Mechanic
The idea for this is based on two things. One is that each character would have a statistic called "Reaction." A character's Reaction would determine their initiative, with the higher the number meaning the better the person's initiative. Each character would only have one major action a round (attack, defend, dodge, move) with maybe the possibility for some free actions thrown in.
With this, combat would work like this. When a round started, the GM would start at 0 and work their way up. As the timer reached each character's Reaction they would have to act. However, at any time during the statement of that action someone with a higher Reaction could interrupt with their action. Multiple interrupts would be handled with the highest Reaction having priority.
Example
GM: Ok, starting the round off we have Reaction 0...1...2...3..alright, on 4 the street thug is going to pull his pistol and shoot at Trevor.
Trevor: When he goes to aim at me I'm going to dodge behind the mailbox for cover. I got a 21 on my dodge check.
GM: Alright, the thug misses as you get behind cover before he can get a shot of. On five, the other thug is going to throw a molotov cocktail.
Sarah: I want to shoot it out of his hand!
Jessica: I just want to shoot him!
GM: Alright, well Sarah has the higher reaction time, do you want to change your action?
Sarah: No
*rolls happen*
GM: Ok, so Sarah shoots the molotov out of the thugs hand, at the same time Jessica drops the thug with a well placed arrow. Moving on..
and so on.
Pros
On the good side, I can see this making for more dynamic combats. Restricting the players to one action means they have to choose between defending themselves and attacking. How they do that is up to them obviously, but it is still there. It also allows people with higher initiative to see what happens before they act, and choose when they want to go which gives them more control over the round. However, using that interruption also leaves them vulnerable to other actions. In the example, Trevor dodged the pistol, but he used his action and now may be caught if another thug tthrows something like a molotov behind his mailbox.
There is also the fact that it is easy to understand and has no dice rolls to determine order. Moving lowest to highest, with highest always being allowed to interrupt, is easy to explain and go with.
Cons
On the con side, it could put too much pressure on players to use interrupts. There is also a bit less dynamic in an individual round since if I have a higher Reaction, I will always have higher priority than you. These could both be fixed with other modifiers (surprise modifiers, etc) but that would be for a different post.
I can also see things getting bogged down more than usual where multiple people want to use their interrupt on the same person. If someone pulls a rocket launcher, and the whole party wants to stop him, who is locked in? Who isn't? You could again use priority to determine this (like in the example where Sarah was given the option to change her action but not jessica) but it is still a problem. Especially when two people have an equal Reaction and both try to do something.
Thoughts
What do you think? Would this work? Do you think you'd enjoy a game with this as the initiative mechanic? Sound off in the comments.
Would this system work? Yes. Would players like it? I'm not sure. I don't think you'd have a problem with either the single actions or the static reaction score - it's the counti.g up that could cause issues. Essentially, you're playing the round in reverse, with the slowest characters going first in sequence and the faster players going last. This permits the interupt action, but will likely feel to the players like they are being penalized for being faster, especially if they don't interupt anyone. It's hard to feel fast when you go last. Also, there is a certain measure of disinclination to try very fancy actions if anyone can be interupted by a faster opponent.
ReplyDeleteWould this system work? Yes. Would players like it? I'm not sure. I don't think you'd have a problem with either the single actions or the static reaction score - it's the counti.g up that could cause issues. Essentially, you're playing the round in reverse, with the slowest characters going first in sequence and the faster players going last. This permits the interupt action, but will likely feel to the players like they are being penalized for being faster, especially if they don't interupt anyone. It's hard to feel fast when you go last. Also, there is a certain measure of disinclination to try very fancy actions if anyone can be interupted by a faster opponent.
ReplyDeleteThat is a valid concern, and one I didn't address directly in the post. The mechanic of interrupting would also allow a faster opponent to go first if they wanted to. It would mean their action was used, but nothing would stop a player with Reaction 10 from going at 0. They just wouldn't have the luxury of seeing what everyone else was doing before they acted.
ReplyDeleteI use a segmented time system. Minor action two segments, standard action four, full action ten segments. I use weapon speeds. Also, most 4e actions and terminology. Movement happens every ten segments.
ReplyDeleteIt's handy for DMs. No initiative tracking. Players are attentive, and (once they grok the timing) eager to act.
Initially it can feel more complex, but my combats tend to run faster than 4e did for us.
A lot of it depends on how defense works. If passive defense is horrible compared to active defense, then you'll see the high initiative people always defending and never acting. Essentially, everybody would defend until only one side has actions. Then they all attack.
ReplyDeleteI'd also add some sort of randomizer to this. I think it would add a lot of excitement to not know that you are always the fastest person. I'd either add a flat die to your score or I'd make the score a die code. I could see this being fixed for a combat or for a combat round.
Another issue with "one action systems" is that non-combat actions don't happen. Most people will attack at every opportunity. I suggest each person have one major action (attack, sprint, dodge all remaining attacks until next turn) and one minor action (walk, draw an item, dodge one attack) each turn. In your system, I'd let them do each one separately. i.e. interrupt with a minor action on one turn and then interrupt with a major action on another. When it gets to their reaction, they must take all remain actions or lose them.
Or, I'd allow multiple actions at an increasing penalty until you got to your reaction score.
Philo, a very good addition. And yes, active defense vs. passive defense would need to be balanced - or at least an option for the player in some way.
ReplyDeleteThe addition of minor actions, or at least the distinction that there is a difference would also be good. All in all, a lot of great stuff to ponder on.
I've got a system I've been working on (off and on) for a few years now and I use Actions and a Reaction score as well. Reaction is really just a static initiative for me now though since I don't have interrupt actions (anymore, really). I really like where you're going with your initiative system. In developing mine, I ended up having to make defense rolls free (and grant a bonus if they used an Action to defend) because I saw two things happening.
ReplyDeleteIn scenario 1, nobody defended and it was like everyone stood in a circle and shot the guy across from them. You survived almost by virtue of not being attacked, because nobody reserved any Action for defense.
In scenario 2 I saw what Philo described, where PC's and NPC's alike would reserve all their Actions for defense.
I don't know if making defense rolls free is an option in your system but it worked really well for me . . . so far.
I saw this today, describing the MHRP initiative system. It seems quite awesome. Also a similar desired outcome, but a more tactical way of doing it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.deadlyfredly.com/2012/02/marvel/