Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject:	Initiative
Date:	Wed, 18 Jun 1997 06:58:21 -0600

Message no. 1 Bruce H. Nagel wrote:
|
| You wrote:
| > Possibly, what do you think of using -20 initiative per action
| > instead of -10, but keeping the same number of actions?
| > (So someone with 21 init. gets an action at 21, 1 and -19. So slow
| > folks act 'in the middle of the turn' rather than at the end.).
| > (That one's to the list.).
|
| This is a possibility that I rather like. :) This has real potential if you
| want to tone down your speed monsters a little bit, and doesn't require a lot
| of changes in the system.

Or, the characters could go in order of highest initiative to lowest,
*then* subtract ten and go from highest to lowest again, until
everyone has used all their actions. Characters A, B, C and D with
intiatives of 40, 27, 12, and 8 respectively, would normally go in
the sequence of A, A, B, A, B, C, A, D, B, then C. If you wait
untill after all the characters have acted before subtracting 10 it
would be A, B, C, D, A, B, C, A, B, then A. Character A still gets
his 4 actions, while character D stands a chance of getting to
contribute (or run away :) Just another idea from David that's never
been playtested ;)

-David
--
"What's the point spread on World War III?"
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm

From:	Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject:	Re: Initiative
Date:	Wed, 18 Jun 1997 15:59:26 +0000

Message no. 2 David wrote:
> Bruce H. Nagel wrote:
> |
> | You wrote:
> | > Possibly, what do you think of using -20 initiative per action
> | > instead of -10, but keeping the same number of actions?
> | > (So someone with 21 init. gets an action at 21, 1 and -19. So slow
> | > folks act 'in the middle of the turn' rather than at the end.).
> | > (That one's to the list.).
> |
> | This is a possibility that I rather like. :) This has real potential if you
> | want to tone down your speed monsters a little bit, and doesn't require a lot
> | of changes in the system.
>
> Or, the characters could go in order of highest initiative to lowest,
> *then* subtract ten and go from highest to lowest again, until
> everyone has used all their actions. Characters A, B, C and D with
> intiatives of 40, 27, 12, and 8 respectively, would normally go in
> the sequence of A, A, B, A, B, C, A, D, B, then C. If you wait
> untill after all the characters have acted before subtracting 10 it
> would be A, B, C, D, A, B, C, A, B, then A. Character A still gets
> his 4 actions, while character D stands a chance of getting to
> contribute (or run away :) Just another idea from David that's never
> been playtested ;)
Could add that we've playtested the -20 initiative bit a lot, and it
works very well. It also gives a very nice 'middle of turn' time...
time 0 - for grenades and fun stuff to go off. The method you mention
clusters the fast character's action at the end of the turn rather
than the start.. too many actions in a row is bad. (Exhausting the
target's combat pool, then keeps firing. Of course, it'll be bad with
clustering them at start and end too (with the -20) when the next
turn starts, but hey, nothing's perfect.
(With your example and -20, they'd go A B A C D B A C B A. With -10
they'd go A,A,B,A,B,C,A,D,B,C)

--
Rune Fostervoll

"But the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we no not of."

From:	"Bruce H. Nagel" <NAGELBH@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject:	Initiative
Date:	Fri, 4 Jul 1997 03:31:31 -0500

Message no. 3 Since I may lose my EMail soon, and since I've been bouncing this idea around
in my head for some time now, looking for somewhere to get some feedback on it,
I've decided to post it here. The original idea was to come up with an
initiative system which didn't rely on combat _rounds_, thus keeping combat and
other initiative actions flowing along rather than 'my action this round
is...'. Rather than being a simple die roll as SR's, it is based off an
attribute roll (perhaps SR's Reaction in this case) against a target number,
fairly low (a 2 or a 3 in this case). The number of successes determine who
acts first but, rather than running down the order for the next person 'in
line' until the 'round' is over, instead the character who acted re-rolls, and
only that character. Everyone else simply adds one or two successes to their
total and the person with the new highest total acts (and then re-rolls, ad
infinitum). This means that characters with an enhanced Reaction would have a
much higher chance of acting first, but no minimum value. They also have the
possibility of acting more than once before their opponents, but it isn't
guaranteed so much as it is in SR. But as I said before, the primary aim of
developing this was to eliminate combat rounds... SR's 3-second round never
made any damn sense to me. It also nicely simulates other char's coming into
the fight late... they just roll init. and come into the fight with that total,
their lower total reflecting their time spent 'catching up' and figuring out
what to do. I think this system, if worked into SR, could make combat a bit
less predictable (same folks always go first, and always get X number of
actions, etc.) and more 'realistic' (much as I know the term makes some around
this list cringe). One might even go so far as forcing char's who dodge, etc.
to re-roll rather than keeping their built-up initiative total (since they have
to re-evaluate their situation).

Please note that the system I was originally coming up with this for was an RPG
system for my own use (still in progress, natch) and so was based off multiple
d-12's (yes I'm odd, they just seem nice and random to me). In SR terms, I'd
figure that the difficulty for the init roll should be a 2 or a 3, and add 1
to the totals for each round they've not acted. Dice pools would refresh as
with SR2, on your actions. The Simple, Free, and Complex Actions could be used
as-is.

If this makes no sense whatsoever, say so and I'll try to explain it further,
or post an example or two. If anyone likes the idea, great, if not, I'll go
back into my li'l mad scientist's lab and putter away at it some more myself.
:) Sorry Bull for posting something more about tinkering and house rules,
but... It may be a while before I get another chance.

losthalo

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer