Is the theory behind the new system to get away from writing things down? I can't help but notice that all of these tokens and trackers and stuff takes the place of writing things down.

Is that the case?

I think the theory behind the tokens is for easy visual representation.

You've got tokens and cards, etc so at a glance you can see what you need to know, rather than consulting notes or looking things up in the books, or trying to remember how many rounds a spell has left.

Dustin said:

Well, that would certainly help with the fact all the monster and hero token markers for the initiative meter look the same => everyone has to be able to act on each one because they can't be differentiated

dvang said:

i stand currected.......and i think ill house rule it.....if player get the same they will fight....but the initiative order is the order that stands......

cogollo said:

I would agree with this. Unfortunately WFRP 3e only takes Agility into consideration which is the crux of my problem with it. WFRP has just never had the kind of granularity that you describe. My thought behind only having the PC with the highest Agility roll was really aimed at those who like the more abstract nature of initiative described in the Designer Diary and to cut down on needless excess die rolls which to me seem a bit superfluous in light of this new mechanic.

If you are willing to accept that level of abstraction, why not just go the extra step and leave it at a single die roll for each side.

Bertolac said:

I would consider that an action on the Elfs part and it doesn't explain how this would work any better than the old system where everyone moves on their own turn. The fast Elf acts first and intercepts the Goblins thus allowing the slower Wizard more time to finish their spell.

The new system would work more like this... The fast Elf slows down and the slower Wizard speeds up casting their spell... and then the Goblins attack and then the Elf acts.

Maybe next we'll have everyone roll for their action, but then have the players haggle over which character should get the highest roll based on need rather than individual ability. If its ok for initiative, why not everything else in combat. The normally expert Troll Slayer could make a feint at the Ogre thus leaving an opening for the less skilled Priest to attack the creatures flank, but in doing so the Troll Slayer has a lower chance to hit himself.

Redcrow said:

Whereas I would consider it a reason why the Elf's main action is slowed down, he's lowing the Goblins to allow the Wizard to complete his action. It's all a matter of interpretation.

I'm clearly not going to convince you of any potential merits of this new system (I accept that these merits are purely conjecture at the moment), however you're not going to convince me that it's intrinsically worse than static initiative.

Redcrow said:

A good point well made.

Personally I think I will keep a static system because I feel this system is to open to abuse. Regardless of who rolls highest the character that can deal the most damage to the enemy will always move first, essentially this system will promote greased lightning Dwarfs and hyper Wizards while in contrast also feature slug-like Elves and snail paced non-combatants.

dvang said:

What? Am I missing something? Was there a problem with all of this in the first place?

Also, I still don't see how this is all different from the system before other than having tokens represent stuff instead of writing it down on scrap paper (which did not seem like a problem in the first place).

I kind of feel like they are saying "hey, you are retards, so this will help." I still feel like they have forgotten about their original consumer and are going after another crowd with all of this stuff.

Foolishboy said:

i agree fully! makes sence that a agile elf goes first.......in DnD the Rogue will basicly go first EVERYTIME...but thats his job

I think some people are making too big a deal over the initiative thing. In most games, a round is somewhere around 6 - 10 seconds of real time. So in a swirling combat, pretty much everyone is acting near simultaneously anyway. Since for game purposes players need to act sequentially rather than all at once, we need some way to determine the order their actions will be resolved. In a traditional Initiative system, the better stat/higher roll gives that character's player the edge to act before others. But wait, most games usually give the player the option of holding, so they don't always act in the same order every turn anyway. This approach forces to group to think about what order is best for the group as a whole and I like that. Should the best fighter get off his attack first or should the Priest, who is casting a defensive spell, go first this round? After a group has been together for awhile they've developed code words, hand signals, or just gotten to the point where they just know what each other are thinking and work together better as a result. This system gives us the ability to model that. I'm guessing that a lot of times the group will decide on an order and just stick with it round after round unless somebody comes up with a good reason to change it up, so I don't anticipate it being a protracted discussion every round.

But then I think you are missing the point: when did this system become a problem? And what is the problem with the regular initiative system and what does the new rules bring to the table that change the game as we know it for better?

As far as I could tell, they did nothing other than give us tokens to clutter the table with.

Did these guys do any research on cutting edge indie rpgs before they decided to **** with our game?

Dustin said:

The new system brings the interesting concept of group actions to initiative - which adds a lot more than just adding tokens. I've played a lot of systems but have so far not come across one like this that allows the group to decide who would benefit most from going when which means you'll have the opportunity to add a lot more strategy to your fights without having to bend the rules or spend severel turns in order to get it done. Sure it may result in arguments over strategy and who has the best idea and in most "average fights" it'll most likely still be the fast character that acts first as strategy won't be needed, but in the situation where you NEED to cast the heal before you friend dies or someone needs to grab the chaosartifact then this will add a lot more cinematic effect to fights and make the players feel like more a team.

The old initiative rules added nothing to the game except a queue and a complete certainty of who acted when - the new system allows both players and GMs to come up with surprises and tactics which is great in my opinion.

42!

@ Dustin

What? Am I missing something? Was there a problem with all of this in the first place?

Also, I still don't see how this is all different from the system before other than having tokens represent stuff instead of writing it down on scrap paper (which did not seem like a problem in the first place).

I kind of feel like they are saying "hey, you are retards, so this will help." I still feel like they have forgotten about their original consumer and are going after another crowd with all of this stuff.

I think you are missing something. There is quite a bit similar, yet also different with the cards and tokens.
- First, the cards allow for faster and easier look-ups without consulting rulebooks. It becomes a more significant factor once several expansions come out and skills/talents/actions come in different expansions. Rather than needing to search through a variety of expansion rulebooks to find a skill/talent/action it is on a card which just gets added to the deck.
- Second, by utilizing tokens, various events and rolls can easily modify the recharge timers or actions/spells. Take a look at some of the example cards we have seen. Some of them say that if you rolls X boons you can remove a recharge token, or Y banes add a recharge token, etc. It makes it significantly easier to keep track of these ups and downs without scribbling on paper or trying to keep track in your head.
- Third, as I pointed out, you can easily glance around the table at all the player's various actions and spells to see which ones are active, and how many turns are left, etc, without having to peer at other players' notes/chicken scratch.

It doesn't mean that things were necessarily a problem in the first place, but the implementation of these devices make things easier and faster. I certainly don't feel like FFG is saying the WRFP players are 'retards', just that they desire to reduce extraneous mechanics/recordkeeping time. They are trying to make our life easier, whether they succeed or not is another matter.

But then I think you are missing the point: when did this system become a problem? And what is the problem with the regular initiative system and what does the new rules bring to the table that change the game as we know it for better?

As far as I could tell, they did nothing other than give us tokens to clutter the table with.

Did these guys do any research on cutting edge indie rpgs before they decided to **** with our game?

I think 42! gave a pretty good reasoning behind the new initiative system and the advantages it brings. My earlier post also listed some things I beleive to be pros for the new initiative system. It's not that the old way was broken. The new way makes initiative and combat much more of a group-oriented task. Similar to the implementation of the party sheet and allowing individuals to play cards that affect the entire group, initiative is now something discussed and decided by the group as a whole. In some ways, it's allows more strategy. As I said, I'm not sold on it working better ... but it does have its positives.

Again, 3e isn't necessarily about 'fixing' 2e (although some of that has been done, IMO). It is also about trying to make the game mechanics and recordkeeping faster (so more focus on the story and gameplay), as well as trying something new that could be better, even if the old way wasn't broken.

Overall, I think it looks to be a better system and a better game, IMO. Although, only actual playing will tell me for sure what works and what doesn't. That doesn't mean that 2e was broken or a bad game. I loved it and thought it was the best fantasy RPG available.

Redcrow said:

Some days ago I opened a post about houseruling skill basic characteristic. WFRP3 makes it very easy to finally have a system where more than one characteristic is important for your action. I'm pretty sure FFG would not publish it in their rule book as it would involve a bit of extra math and they want to make the game available for everyone, but for us that like a bit more complexity and nuances in our games it should be simple and easy to make the calculations.

The proposal I made is that every skill could have as basic characteristic more than one. Examples I gave were:

• Weapon Skill: add Strength, Agility and Intelligence together, divide by 3, round to closest integer.
• Ballistic Skill: add Agility, Intelligence and Willpower together, divide by 3, round to closest integer.
• Intimidation: Strenght, Willpower and Fellowship.
• Intuition: Intelligence and Willpower (this time, divide by 2).
• Ride: Strength, Agility and Willpower.
• Initiative: Agility, Intelligence and Willpower.

The system would be very easy, as you only calculate the numbers when you create your character or when your characteristics change. You could just write the number beside the skill, instead of simply writing the main characteristic.

So, I'll use this houserule to calculate the Initiative base stat, and follow FFG system, as my experience with Descent tells me that it will work nicely with my group of players.

mac40k said:

+1

Nice comment, and I'm also of a very similar opinion.

Bertolac said:

What if the elf is on the other side of the room, in a combat of his own, and the 2 goblins are standing right next to the wizard? How does the elf slow them down them?

I don't know like You guys, but for me Initiative is not how fast someone is, its just some artificial game attribute to help with combat handling, that has nothing to do with reality, and actual action resolving time.

Also in my opinion dwarf, or human, or hobbit, or anything can react as quick as any elf (even if the dwarf is "short" and slow if we talk about running).

Normal fight is total chaos of simultaineous actions, the real reaction time difference is miliseconds (I know something about this, I trained a few martial arts styles in my life, and have my share of real fights behind me), what we have in game is pure abstraction to prevent this chaos to take place at the game table.

So if an elf in on one side of the room, and 2 goblins are standing right next to wizard, I say, that wizard acts first, because wahatever elf can do, he will not get to the goblins before wizard reacts (miliseconds in reaction time difference), even if he can reach the goblins using all of his actions in a gameplay terms.

You will never convince me, that any character can finish even one of his actions, before some other will start to resolve his own.
In "real" situation neither wizard, nor elf can end his action before the goblins can react, its only for the sake of gameplay.

I like the change of initiative because it is actually more real for me, than old v1/v2 style.
No more elf acting first, because he is an elf.

I must also say, from my experience (the real one), that reaction time does not depend much on your agility/inteligence/willpower, or any other artificial attribute.
It is your experience, and current situation, that dictates if you can, and not less important IF YOU SHOULD react, especially if you work in group.
Your skill, and attributes just adds to it, but does not prejudge, so it is not of great importance.

And yes, you can talk about players abusing the system, blah, blah, blah.
But hell, you are GM's right? Your word is the last word at the table. You know your players. Deal with them!

That much from me, on the subject.

Sunatet said:

This is a good example of why I like the initiative system proposed by FFG for WFRP3... Actually, your whole post is a good example but I did not quote it completely so to avoid unnecessary repetition.

In a fixed initiative system, in the example above, the Elf would "magically" pull his bow, shoot and kill a Goblin 30 meters apart while the Goblin and Dwarf that are hacking at each other don't do anything... but in real physics, the distant action of the Elf would take more time to complete than the action of the Goblin or Dwarf affecting each other (unless they both are stoned or sharing a pint) so for those who say the proposal seems artificial, I reply that fixed initiative is at least as artificial...

The main reason why some of you find this system more artificial than a fixed initiative system is because you have become used to the fixed initiative that has been used in most RPGs up to now ... but custom does not necessarily make right.

Thanks dvang & 42! for your two pence on the subject. I am sorry to be a grumpy butt about this.

Sunatet said:

Yes, I think this is exactly right.

The standard fixed initative mechanic has just been around for such a long time (and as long as you don't think to hard about it, it makes sense) that anything else feels strange and artificial. However, I believe this new mechanic have the potential to add a lot to the party dynamic and am looking forward to trying it out.

That's a good point, Sunatet! Yeah, I think if we keep in mind that a combat (round) is actually near simultaneous and initiative is more of an ordering for resolution purposes, that is becomes a bit more reasonable 'fluff-wise". Although, the fact is that it isn't *really* simultaneous, since an entire action is resolved before the next one. But yeah, I see the point.

@Dustin:

No problem Dustin! I'm just an optimist, so I want people to help see the positive side of things (or at least consider it).

Sunatet said:

well put...lol i must say.....that does make since. i also have martial arts exp. and it its all in reation time...so the wizard that isi standing back can cast way before the elf gets to the target......good point

I believe Sunatet and I are on the same page with how we see this translating from player (ooc) perspective to PC (in character) perspective.

Also recall that one of the possible outcomes of a player getting a delay result on a roll during an encounter is for the GM to move the topmost Initiative token (it says for the character, but obviously this means his side) one spot down on the Init Tracker. This means that in addition to each side being able to change the resolution order, circumstances could alter the interplay between them as well.

I do medieval combats myself and I like combat games that gives that feeling of reality.
I must say that this v3 is a step away from what I call a "real battle".

Please, I know that no RPG will ever exists that can be a simulation (The riddle of steel tried hard, with good results), and I don't want a simulation, but what I search for is "the right feel".

From what I'm reading this v3 is little focused on his own mechanics, leaving the feel of the battlefield... a step away.

All above is personal opinion.