The Old World is a dangerous place. Sometimes, despite the characters’ best efforts to avoid conflict, they find themselves fighting for their lives. Other times, the characters provoke someone to the point where they retaliate. With threats lurking in every darkened corner and deepening shadow, the adventurers need to rely on their wits and skill at arms to see them through combat encounters – else they end up face down, bleeding to death in the gutter like so many nameless people who have gone before them.

This is the first in a series of designer diaries that will provide an in-depth look at how combat is resolved in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. This installment takes a closer look at managing Initiative, and the round and turn structure used to help organise the action that takes place during combat.

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=841

this is an awesome system!!! much better in my opinion then the role a d20 and add bla bla bla, thsi way if 2 players get the same number they get to kinda haggle over it....very cool!! cant wait to see more!!

I'm not very fond of the idea that one character generating a lot of successes can somehow make another character who generated fewer successes faster when Agility is the underlying attribute for determining initiative in combat. This is something I will definitely ignore and/or house-rule out in my own games.

So far there have been rules I have liked, some I haven't, and some that I'm waiting to see how they function during actual play. This is the first rule that strikes me as truly bizarre and arbitrary, though.

Redcrow said:

thats a good point.....i might implement that too....like have them role the blue dice on the agility.......thats a really good idea

Redcrow said:

Curiously, that's the bit I liked Redcrow. For me having a system where every Dwarf is slower than every Elf in every situation has always jarred. Throw in the fact that the players need to decide their order under time pressure and you've got a system that actively encourages cooperative gaming (I've one player who actively tunes out until it's his turn but also want to be flamboyant in combat - this should help keep him on his toes).

However, each to their own. I think it's becoming apparent that there are a lot of new mechanics and tools in this game but very few of them are mandatory - you can drop the initiative, someone else might drop stance meters, etc. It seems to be a very open game in terms of how you play it and for new players unused to roleplaying I think it's excellent.

In all I'm liking most of what I see, but as I've said before the only put-off is the sheer volume of bits I'll have to find room for (we don't usually play at a table).

Bertolac said:

Good point here.

And I like the new initiative system.
Looks more flexible, keeps all players focused on what is going on, and adds to the teamplay bit.
Fights become more unique, since you never know, who will act next.

Keep it coming Jay!

PS: and that video, You know

I like this approach as it allows players to come up with strategies that aren't dependent on "Player A" going first but rather just on having a good idea. Ofcourse it'll result in arguments when the players aren't in agreement over which action to make - but that would probably have come anyway! ;-)

42!

yeah i read threw it again...well twice lol and i retract my statement.....ide like to see the players fight over who does next......might get a bit heated....lol

Curiously, that's the bit I liked Redcrow. For me having a system where every Dwarf is slower than every Elf in every situation has always jarred. Throw in the fact that the players need to decide their order under time pressure and you've got a system that actively encourages cooperative gaming (I've one player who actively tunes out until it's his turn but also want to be flamboyant in combat - this should help keep him on his toes).

I feel exactly the same way and I think this seems excellent! And if you want an in-game explanation for it you could say that the elf shouts a warning to the dwarf pressing him to take action or something similar. I like how more emphasis has been put on the party and cooperation in this edition.

Poe said:

I also like a lot the new ideas for Initiative. I think they'll make combats more dynamic and immersive as all the group will be taking decisions all the time. There are also lots of in-game explanations for it, as the above comment proves.

With a fixed initiative, some players feel that they can disconnect from the game between their turns (happens to me all the time while playing D&D3 or D&D4) as sometimes you really don't have much to add while others are playing their turns.

The only thing I see could be abused is acting twice in a row with the same character, although I am sure that FFG has already taken that into account; otherwise it is so simple as houseruling that no creature can act twice in a row before anybody else acting before.

The game is looking better with every new preview... I can't wait to get my hands on it!

cogollo said:

I believe it has been mentioned that you can take more than one action in a round, but every additional action will cost you a point of fatigue. I like it - gives the players more options, forces them to consider the cost:benefit involved.

macd21 said:

You are right and I also like the rule about 1 free action and extra action spending fatigue, but I was referring to something else...

It could happen, as in the example given, that one of the players (i won't call them Heroes as in WFRP campaign that's not usual) has to act first and another last. What could happen is that the group decides for one player to act last in a round and first in the next round, getting two free actions in a row... probably not a big deal but could be abused.

In most games if the fast elf wants to let the slow dwarf go first in order to set up some type of cooperative battle plan or combo attack, the fast elf would simply hold their action until after the slow dwarfs turn. Unfortunately the slow dwarf may not have been fast enough to go before the bad guys in which case the fast elf would also have to wait until after the bad guys have gone.

Apparently in 3e, the fast elf can magically make the slow dwarf act faster (possibly even before the bad guys now) just by virtue of yelling "Go Go Go!" or some such nonsense.

For those of you who like this idea, I would suggest a simplification by just having the person with the highest Agility on each side roll initiative for the group because all that really matters is whether the good guys go first or the bad guys do. If the fast elf can make one member of their party faster by whatever (nonsensical) means, why not the entire party. And if the good guys can do it, why not the bad guys too. So you really will only need to determine which side goes first rather than each individual participant.

Redcrow said:

Because having the players think about who will act when adds to the tension, forces them to think carefully about what they are going to do and is all-round more fun.

I think this is an interesting twist on Initiative. In games like Savage Worlds, Initiative is random card draws. It adds an element of excitement to the game that static initiative order doesn't. Players always communicate with each other during combat, whether it's providing suggestions for actions or recommending someone hold their action until after another player has acted. This can easily be visualized in character. The party is a team, so whether it is shouted words, hand signals, or just familiarity with each others abilities and tactics that allows them to react as a team in combat rather than a group of individuals, I'm all for it. When the team's communication breaks down, that's reflected by the stress meter. I like it.

The action counter that has to be flipped over twice per turn I'm a little less enthusiastic about. I realize that with the ability to change the order of action every round, you need a way to keep track of who has acted this round and who hasn't, but the GM could just as easily write everyone's name on scrap paper and place a tick mark next to it after they've acted. Now he has to watch to make sure the player remembers to flip his action token over. I'm not saying some players would cheat and not turn it over or worse, turn it back over when the GM isn't looking, but someone might forget to turn it over. The player already has to track position on their stance meter, recharge tokens on abilities, counters on effects, etc. All of these things, while useful, may take the player out of character by emphasizing game mode. Hopefully, in time the manipulating the bits becomes second nature and doesn't break the emersion, but initially, it looks like there's going to be a lot of emphasis on bit fiddling going on.

macd21 said:

+1

spot on reply... I could not have said it better...

Long time reader, first time poster but I had a couple of thoughts I wanted to share.

This approach to initiative seems like it might lead to a lot of dice rolling, passing and sharing while everyone rolls initiative. Of course you could always say that Agility -2 is your initiative. Quick and no rolling.

Regarding the "sharing" of initiative spots. As the GM you could always say that only party members in close range (or in contact range) could swap their turns. In this instance the Wood Elf Hunter who is hanging back and firing into the enemies couldn't allow the dwarf to go at 4 instead of 2, but if the Hunter was standing right behind the dwarf he could.

I personally like the idea of players being able to talk and switch, seems like it would encourage playing as a party. Of course I can do the same with the NPC's/monsters as well. Smart NPC's can react to what the PC's are doing, and the fast reacting leader can direct his slow Trolls to go first also.

And off topic but while I am talking: I've been enjoying RPG's since Basic D&D in the boxed set first came out. Although I have never played Warhammer Fantasy I am very interested in the way FFG is developing this product. It seems like a fresh take on things to me and I most certainly will be buying it and trying it out with my gaming group (mix of old and new). I'm sorry Jay and his crew seem to be taking a beating on something that I think they have spent a lot of time and thought on. Just though they might want to hear some encouraging words. Back to lurking and waiting for 3rd edition to be available.

mac40k said:

Descent comes with the same kind of action counter and I must say my group does not use them much, even playing with 4 Heroes (in Descent they are called heroes, not in WFRP) and 8-10 monsters, because it's very easy to remember who acted already... Still it is good to have the tokens, or any of the ideas you indicate, if people find they tend to forget who acted already.

i think you guys are missing something, players only haggle about when to go if they have THE SAME INITIATIVE, so at best you will have 2 players haglling not the whole bunch

I have to admit I'm not thrilled or excited about the change to initiative. I am on the fence on whether it is a good change, or not, and I think only playing it will really tell how well it works.
A few thoughts to help consolidate my thoughts about it --

Pro:
- Progress tracker. A bonus. Most GMs already had a means of keeping track of the initiative order, whether it was writing it down on a piece of paper or using a stack of index cards with names on them. The progress tracker is a nice, easy, visual representation of this.
- "For combat encounters, Agility is used for initiative checks. For social encounters, Fellowship is used for initiative checks." Social Encounters? I like the idea of this, but cannot think of what a Social Encounter could possibly consist of.
- It encourages group tactics and working together. The group has to decide as a whole who goes in which slot.
- It is dynamic. Characters don't go in the same order every turn, so each turn can be 'new and fresh' for different players.
- Alleviates situations where conditions force an order to actions. For example, a narrow corridor or tunnel where the dwarf (being the most armored) goes first. Others cant move past the dwarf, so they have to wait for him to move before they can act.

Con:
- Possible loss of group focus. Players *might* get tired of deciding every turn who goes when. Also, despite the tension meter, it is possible for group arguments to erupt over the order, and causing friction in the group.
- Slower and more complicated. For all the other aspects of the game seeming to try to speed the game up, this will slow combat down as every turn the players (and the GM) will need to decide the order they are acting in.
- A mentioned by others, it doesn't make sense roleplaying wise. It's one thing to say the fast elf shouts a warning to the slow dwarf ... it's another thing to let the dwarf that rolled a 0 for init to go before everyone else, perhaps every turn.

First, I'd like to know what consists of Social Encounters? Jay, can you provide an example without spoiling anything? (PLEASE!) I think this would be a great selling point if it is true and is something that is likely to occur.

I don't see how some people still think this in any way relates to a boardgame more than any other RPG. So you get tokens to visually show how many rounds your Bless spell lasts, or tokens for how many rounds you are blinded, etc. Lots of GMs already use something similar (poker chips, small gem-rocks, etc) to record/keep track of various things. FFG just gives the GMs (and players) nice, solid quality tokens to use instead of home-made stuff.

Overall, I think I'll have to play a few combats to see if I (and my group) like this new method or not.

Farin said:

Not true Farin. Read the article again. Every round the group decides which Player Initiviate slot each character will go in (actually, I think it's even as they come up to act, not at the start of the round). So, no, the whole group 'haggles' (decides) over who is going to act on which player initivative spot, not just two with the same initiative.

macd21 said:

Players would still have to think about who will act first. My suggestion only differentiates between groups, but its still up to each group to decide who will act first among them. The idea is to cut down on a lot of needless die rolling.

I would argue that the party waiting for a slower character to act adds more to the tension than allowing that character to act whenever they wish regardless of their Agility. Imagine the party waiting for the Wizard to cast an Area Effect spell on their enemies, but the Wizard is slow and can't act until the end of the round. In 3e its no longer a problem because now the party Elf can magically make the Wizard fast enough to get that spell off much earlier. Oddly though, the usually fast moving Elf is mysteriously slowed by his magical ability to speed up others. No, the only tension I see this adding to the game is between players arguing and that to me is a bad thing.

As for "all-round more fun" that is very subjective as I don't find having the players constantly bickering about who is going to act when adds anything to the enjoyment of the group. Not to mention I can already foresee dropping the fast 'n furious combat narrative in order to give the players time to strategize (i.e. meta-game) in ways that should not be happening during combat, but should have been thought of and discussed beforehand. I'm sure one of the Designer Diary's mentioned a difference between Narrative Time and Combat Time.

Redcrow said:

If you view it as the Elf magically making the others faster, then it's not going to work for you. However, if you consider that in combat people don't take turns and that there's lots of simultaneous action then you might get something like this...

The wizard begins to cast his spell, reciting the words of the mystical incantation. Focused on his craft he is vulnerable to attack and sensing an opportunity two of the Goblins clamber across the table to reach him. Sensing the danger the Elf throws himself infront of the Goblins, thrusting a chair infront of him, forcing them to back off and buying the Wizard time to finish his spell.

The Elf's quick reactions have allowed the Wizard to perform his primary action first. One thing I did note was that rounds weren't mentioned as being linked to a specific time frame (i.e. 10 seconds) - if this is the case rounds can be as involved as you like.

Obviously, Redcrow, if you don't like it, you don't like it. That's fair enough. You've pointed out a way of keeping with fixed initiative which is simple and effective and if after trying this system I find it to fiddly or full of bickering, believe me I'll be joining you.

I have to somewhat agree with Redcrow that the reasoning behind it doesn't seem sound.

Here's a possible suggestion to try to compromise between the two. Allow a higher initiative player to (once at the start of combat) reduce their initiative by one to increase another (lower initiative) player's initiative by one. This allows a slight shifting of initiative, without totally disrupting the order. You could allow it every round, I suppose, but that would mean keeping track of initial initiative and current initiative, so a bit more headache.

I don't know. As I said, despite not 'feeling' story-wise like a reasonable thing, game mechanics-wise it could work the way it's written. It will just take some playtesting for each GM/group I think to know if it will work for them. If a group is cohesive and works together, it shouldn't be a problem. If your group tends to be a bit fractious ... well, it could be a headache.

Redcrow said:

One of the main reasons I like the change to the initiative as we know it is that I never liked initiative being based almost exclusively in Agility... of course your reflexes have a lot to say how quickly you react to something, but in a real situation your intuition (Willpower) and how quick you analyse your situation (Intelligence) should also play a role... Also, things in the field of battle can influence a lot your reaction, and good leaders can position and direct other people to better react to threats... so I think, from in-game point of view, that the system has some sense in it (at least as much as having a completely fixed initiative order, as if all creatures were some kind of perfectly working engine...).

Now, I also doubt there would be a lot of arguing in the group; don't confuse arguing with deciding among the players... If any of you has played Descent, you'll know that, in a turn, players will decide in which order each Hero (remember, Heroes in Descent; characters in WFRP...) will act and I have, to date, never seen players arguing strongly (and believe me I've played Descent a lot)...sometimes it takes them a bit more time to react than normal and in Descent what I do is gain some Threat if they take too much time to decide... similar to adding stress here.

So, what I see is that they have improved and generalized the simple system used in Descent (which works very well) so that they can apply it to a roleplaying system... I'll use the proposed initiative system for sure (the only change I might do is considering Initiative a skill based in Agility, Intelligence and Willpower instead of only Agility).