DeathFromAbove said:

-1

I'm sorry, mate, but not much argumentation or reasoning in your post... As usual, you just say that you don't like the game but not why... This is the last time I'll answer a post from you until you include some reasoning for your likes or dislikes, but I had to tell you at least once that reading your whining is mostly, in my opinion, a waste of precious time.

cogollo said:

OK, fine. Then I'll try and put forth something you can argue against.

The dice are a good example. The extra side results have very specific reasons why they fail or success with a side effect. In 2nd Edition, failing a test with a description is up to the GM. With 3rd edition, the results are right in front of you and there's no interpretation. You can certainly argue that as a good thing, but when DeathFromAbove said that 3rd edition is too focussed on it's own mechanics, I think he meant stuff like that. Sometimes in trying to promote roleplaying in group with mechanics you can end up stifling it.

All he's doing is arguing his own feel of what has been read so far. The fact that he hasn't been able to articulate exactly why is NOT grounds to label this whining and ignore it.

phobiandarkmoon said:

Much better, I don't agree with what you say, but at least you argue it and don't go trolling around the whole time.

I have no trouble with someone expressing their opinion without reasoning from time to time... I do have trouble with someone cluttering every single post with the same whining statement... seriously, it is a waste of time and space and, I fear, a lack of respect for the people giving arguments for and against the new system.

Now, to answer your argument, why is 3rd edtion more focused in its mechanics than 2nd edition? Every RPG out there has its own mechanics, some of them promote munchkinism, others promote intrigue adventures, others promote horror adventures, etc.; still, all RPGs have mechanics and they are still RPGs, so your argument is very flawed...

As for the dice side results, as you correctly say the action cards come with results to apply those side effects to the game mechanics (i.e., add stress, fatigue,etc.)... but I don't share your conclusion because again the logic you put into it is flawed... that there is a mechanic result does not mean that the result is specific, as shown in the example that Jay Little gave about escaling a cliff, the dice are there to inspire the players and GMs ideas to explain why the character lost a wound, a stress or a fatigue point, but the possible explanations are tens if not hundreds, as the examples given by many people showed...

To prove to you how flawed your line of argumentation is, one could say, following your line of argumentation, that WFRP2 is too focused in its mechanics because when you roll an attack it already gives as a result the area of the enemy body you have hit, or because when you get doubles in a Magic roll you "are forced" to roll in Tzenteech's Curse table...

(and I love WFRP2, one of the best RPGs ever designed, imo).

Personaly I think the iniative system is a little of an oddity.

By alowing the change forward and backwards takes away the unknown of a rushed situation, In 3rd ed its likely all characters will know what all other characters are going to do and can act acordingly. Which unless you are talking about well trained troops or groups just isn't the way it would work and even in well trained groups they dont always work like a well oiled machiene.

It also tends to break the sence of rapid time in a combat from the group perspective, so the group can act more tactically like they have some kind of commander controling the group as a single unit.

While it gives the group more tactical advantages, I think it will loose something of the rushed and time limited feel, the 'chaos of combat' so to speak.

The realism though generaly goes out the door since combat is typically a stop start affair, as each person/charcter undertakes all their 'actions' for the time period in one instance.

In reality I guess though this is one of the things that will need to be seen in action to realy see the benefits/hinerances of it.

Loswaith said:

I guess this depends on for how long and how much you let the players actually plan out the round. As is mentioned in the diary they need to decide quickly or start accumulating stress. I don't really see my players being able to say much more than "I want to go first, I have an idea!", and definitely no detailed discussion of "optimal course"! If the GM keeps putting pressure on the players the chaotic and unknown nature should remain intact.

Cogollo,

I'm sorry to cause you headaches, but english isn't my native language and, sometimes (quite often sorry), I'm not able to explain myself or, sometimes, I'm only pointing out a feel.
I must also note the tendency of dismissing other's thoughts, that aren't clear, as whining and "trolling". To me this is another form of whining itself.

That said I'll try to explain a little better my criptic point of view explained above.

What I've read in the develper's diary is a post as long as my arm with only one (1) infomation about system mechanics:

Initiative roll.

Now, I've played many games, some with static initiative, some with dynamic initiative.
Personally I haven't any issues with both of them. They are different ways of accomplishing the some thing.
Both with their own merits and demerits.

My personal point of view is that battle experience, more that quickness, is the difining factor on who act first. I've seen very fast people beeing litterally frozen when confronted with a chaotic situation (in real combat). So I prefer a static initiative (with a little dynamic factor) based on same skill that veteran warriors will have highers than athlethes. But this is not the issue here. I'm fine with the rules as presented.

Returning on the Develper's Diary, what I've read is how to use counter and sticks, flipping cards, etc.
The overall impression is that insted on focusing on the combat, the drama, the actions and dynamic of battle, I must arrange and re-arranged counter, cards, etc.
This diary is all about gadgets (I'll can call it smoke), but the meat is about three/four lines of tried and true mechanics: roll for initiative.
To explaing that the system is focused on his own mechanics means, litterally, that you loose focus of what you are doing, just to "keep track" of something that, IMHO, will dilute the drama and excitement of the overall combat scene.

Another factor that will "take a step away", IMHO, is the possibility of taking an action after a party "consultation", right in the middle of a fight. This approach can't help the sensation for being there. I know that when in battle you must decide for yourself or you are lost. Even in thight formation is very difficult to follow orders (this is why romans were so highly trained troops).

Added "infos" like changing stance and "receiving stress" is very interesting but are a little obscure to elaborate on.

DFA

P.S.

What dice I must roll for an Init chek?

The ability to switch places in the Initiative order is it a "super power" that only players get? Or can allied NPC's also switch positions?

For example could a Turbo Skaven Night Runner switch with either a gang of Clanrats or a Rat Ogre, allowing the tough but slower NPC's to attack first?

Foolishboy said:

Yes, they can. I think it was alluded to in the designer diary that the orc leader and the group of goblin hencmen could switch "initative slots".

EDIT: Here you go:
"After one of the heroes is activated and takes his turn during Initiative 4, then one of the NPCs is activated at Initiative 3. The GM can choose to activate either the orc or the group of goblin henchmen. Once the NPC on Initiative 3 has acted, two heroes activate and resolve their turns during Initiative 2. The remaining NPC group activates during Initiative 1, and finally the last hero activates during Initiative 0."

DeathFromAbove said:

OK, interesting points you make, and I agree that my message was a bit rougher than I originally intended, so my apologies if it sounded rude.

About the initiative, I can understand most of your arguments and the arguments of the people that dislike the system... but I still think the main reason you dislike the proposed system is because most RPG gamers have become too used with a fixed initiative system and consider it natural, while, in my opinion, it is only some artificial way of putting order into a simulation of a chaotic situation.

For me, the new system is worth the try and it does not matter if you use a progress tracker, a piece of paper or a magnetic mat (I use the one from Paizo) to track the initiatives, it will always remain an RPG.

Finally, I think you are getting too focused in the extra elements like cards and counters... In my WFRP2 campaign, my players were a bit confused about what they could do in combat (they were used to playing D&D, Call of Cthulhu, Runequest, GURPS and many other games and so many different mechanics were becoming confusing) so they asked me to create little cards with explanations of all possible actions they could, mechanically, take... so yes, I have used cards in my WFRP2 campaign and the players found using them extremely convenient, as they had now extra time to focus on the role of the situation and the drama of the combats... I know that's my experience and maybe cannot be applied to everyone, but at least there's one RPG group in the world that has played RPGs using cards and they liked it.

Loswaith said:

To be fair though, that's pretty much the case with most RPGs. Usually the players will give each other advice, tell each other to do/not to do certain things. "Don't charge the goblins yet, I want to fireball them and don't want to hit you." "Ok, I'll delay until after your action...." The v3 system at least has the potential to put some pressure on the players through added stress.

I think that everyone of us can play his games in any way he feels appropriate.

Just remember that the systems mechanics are the game world reality.
If mechanics allow (or even promote) initiative exchange, the perception of the players of the gaming world reality will be "different".

Some players will imagine like everyone waiting on their feet the next decision of the group.
Other players will imagine that faster characters will give position to more slowed ones.
Whatever the "specific implementation" now the gaming world can be perceived as a world were combats are more strategic, less instinctive, slower or not so breathless.

In all honesty, when I do reenactment with other 400 armored fellows, it's difficult to coordinate with spearmen, swordsman and archers (I've seen mad people with poleaxes ).
More often than not you know beforehand your "role" and will act accordingly.
In the largest engagement some "commander", OUT of the melee, can give directions on unit movements, but not single fighters.
During skirmish it's even worse. Shouting stretegies over to the field will get appropriate reactions from enemies (unless their are so outnumbered that are dead meat already).

Returnig to DD in question, I think that the initiative roll, as presented, is acceptable. After all it's nothing new or unheard of. Many games use dynamic initiative.
What I think is that this DDs should focuse more on the "game" and less on how to use the pieces inside the box.
While these pieces can be a great addition, they are not the game.

As a side note I keep my melee very fast moving. I don't allow players more than few (very few words) and don't give them more than three seconds to decide how to move. If they do, they lose the turn.
Moreover, just to improve the feeling of a real battle, I appreciate very fast systems, where even if there are many players/NPCs, the roud flows in minutes.
More than once I've cought a player off-guard, in the intent of following others' actions, and he was imprapared for his turn. Three seconds ... and puff! Turn lost!

I think the 'issue' or difficulty is in how you play. You certainly make the game more challenging during combat with each player only allowed 3 seconds to state their action before missing their initiative. I agree, if pressuring the players to make split-second combat decisions is how you normally play, then this new initiative system isn't for you.

Like cogollo said, most groups (at least in my experience) have a bunch of meta-game discussion already for player actions, just as in his examples. So, in a way this is just formalizing it a bit more and giving the group a more tactical control.

As for the cards and bits ... I think you're getting too hung up on them. They are there to facilitate use. They are 'new', so the diary talks about them. The point is that in any RPG you'll need to know how many rounds your bless spell has left, for example. Some people use paper, some people use colored dice. 3e gives the players tokens they can put on the spell card. It's not really anything new, it's just handy that FFG is providing the tokens instead of the player/GM having to make their own. The fact is, the bits are there to make the game easier to quickly read the status by looking around the table. The 'active' counters, for example, make it quick and easy for a player trying to decide what to do to see who has already gone. Sure, there are other ways to find this out, but the tokens (if used) make it easy without affecting anyone else. They are tools, to use or not depending on your needs, but I hardly think they are anything that is going to adversely affect the roleplaying experience.

I try to discourage meta-gaming as much as possible by penalizing earned x.p. for anyone who does it in my games. If the group is in combat, then anything one player says to another (aside from "hey, could you pass me another soda" or similar) is considered "in-character". If it is more than a few words, I may even require a listen check (possibly at a penalty because of the battle and distance between the two PCs). If any player meta-games (i.e. substituting player knowledge for character knowledge) I deduct 10 x.p. on the spot from my running total and tell the player right then what I'm doing and why. I may give a warning the first time and I'm reasonably lenient with players new to my group, but those who have gamed with me for awhile know better.

If players want to plan some basic strategies, I think that is great and I encourage them to do so... outside of combat not during. WFRP has always been a game that rewards good tactics and strategy, but its also a roleplaying game and IMO the "role" should be maintained as much as possible. If you want a purely strategy game sans the roleplay, GW has a wonderful game for that too and it even has a great setting.

I'm also partial about this diary.

I like the novelty of the system (for me it is new, at least), but I'm still considering what it's effects on the flow of the game. I don't like when players start coordinating actions and talking out of game. Actually it's against what I consider the essence of role-playing: playing a role. The storyteller is the GM, the players are the protagonists, actors, in a way. IMO. So as protagonists, they should not interact out of character, especially during combat !

Because of that, I wonder how I'll be able to use this rule, or houserule it.

I'd like to try something different than the regular static initiative, but I don't want to make the flow of play more complicated. Maybe I'll just give fast characters the option to "wait" without cost (as opposed with the Delay Action of V2) and cut in when they want afterwards. Another option would be to have fast characters decide who will take their slot if they don't use it. But that already feels very metagaming to me.

The present rules allow for one same character to act "twice" before another can react. I don't know yet if I like that. I does make combat more unpredictable and scary...

EX. A Trollslayer and a Pistolier attack a Troll flanked by a goblin henchman group. The order of initiatives as rolled alternate PC-NPC-PC-NPC. So if in the first round, the PCs decide the Trollslayer will go first, then the Troll goes, then the Pistolier then the Goblins... When the second round comes, if the Pistolier acts first, he will have acted "twice" with regard to the Troll before it can act. But then the Troll might act first again and it will also have acted "twice" with regard to the Trollslayer.

That possibility of acting "twice" really makes planning anything quite hard. Basically, you can use it to gain some advantage, but the you'll probably give the enemy the chance to do so as well. This said, this mechanic can be metagamed and optimised to death... Of course the rules give tools to the GM to intervene, but that puts him at odds with the players, which can become annoying on the long run. A GM never wants to feel like a referee.

Jericho said:

yeah...i talked with my players and we desided that where you roll ( 0-5 ) is where you act and if 2 players are in the same spot then they get to haggle......other wise it will never get anywhere

To give some added flexibility, you could consider allowing PCs to, once at the start of combat, reduce their initiative by one and increase another PC's (with a lower init) initiative by one.

I'll wait and try the official way at least once, before making a decision.

I hear a lot of people aready making house rules for character generation, initiative, combat and other mechanics.

I dont think "you can always houserule" or "I plan to houserule" is a compelling argument for the new system. I know most games wind up being houseruled and most groups have their own rules to move the game the way they want, but going into a new system with a pre-set list of planned houserules seems like a money sink to me.

If you already see what is broken, why buy it? If you see what you like already, house rule it into your current game?

I guess Im just asking, what is the number of house rules for a system before that system is just a waste?

Peacekeeper_b said:

there are only house rules to fit the individual tastes of the users....its not really wide spread i dont think im personally only house ruling one thing, initiative...thats it really

Peacekeeper_b said:

Because not everything is broken.
Because right now, it is the only way for Warhammer to move on (at the printer, no more books for 2-nd ed).
Because it is the only way to get some new info/fluff on the warhammer world in the near future.
Because 2-nd ed is no longer supported, and will not be supported anymore, even if 3-rd ed will fail.
Because if we do not, then warhammer will die, and we don't know if there will be someone willing to risk another try, and even if there will, it will not continue with 2-nd ed.
Because I'm a collectioner and I like buying things referring Warhammer stuff.
Because it is pointless to sit down and cry, as it will change nothing, already too late for that.

I posted some of this in a different thread, but I figured it merited being put here. So far, the initiative mechanic is my second favorite part, it really is. Players actually deliberately working together and the capacity for truly spectacular, cinematic moments, what? Fantastic!

But, to the point now, I hear where Farin is coming from, I do. I understand you want realism and though Riddle of Steel was alright, I have to say that a little system called Pendragon I prefer over almost every combat order resolution mechanic out there. You should check it out if realism is what you're looking for. I proxy the mechanic into most of my games (at least some version of it). But I won't be with 3e.

3e offers an edge of realism with a lot of great story appeal. People do react to their situations and when the human boat-hand is surrounded by green-skins, the Troll Slayer will charge right in. How do you determine if he gets there before the human is hacked down? In fixed initiative this is just not possible. In this system, it is. The Slayer can go first, before the green skins (of course this is based on rolls) and is not forced to obey arbitrary limitations of fixed statistics and initiatives. It allows him to act as he is capable of acting. Generally, when I look at stats, they are just that, a reflection of the character, but not the character itself. This mechanic allows players to be in the driver-seat at all times of the encounter and do what they want to do, what their characters would be capable of doing, given the abilities they have. Now sure, if the Troll Slayer is running from across the room, a check would be in order to see if he could make it in time (a way to plug back in your realism). If he fails, he doesn't make it. If he succeeds let the axe swing and green blood fly! Response checks are an easy way to add that edge of uncertainty. I also say, if the Troll Slayer is right next to the Dock-Hand, but the Dock-Hand has a better Agility (just because he generally would as a dock-hand) does that really reflect he's a better fighter than the trollslayer? Would he always react better to combat than the troll slayer? I'd say sure maybe, but then again, the Slayer is out to slay for life and is that honed soldier you keep talking about. He should be able to react faster and the slayer being next to the human dock-hand will just dive in if given the chance. This is a matter of finesse and role-play and its hard to say how stats in anyway reflect realism. That's a whole other discussion, but just think about my points before you condemn the system.

As to the cookie-cutter role assignment of this initiative system and the "absurdity" of the best fighters going first and how much players will make choices on the best tactics, all I say is, so what if the healer always goes last? Isn't that what a healer would do anyway? I mean, he's not a great fighter, but he's a great healer and all his buddies are about to get a good beat-down. Wouldn't he want to wait to see who needs healing the most, then start healing? Wouldn't he actually wait for the guy who goes down from a blow then rush up and heal him before it's too late? Wouldn't the Troll Slayer be charging in to die? Wouldn't the wise elf be patient as the Troll Slayer goes into the fray to help keep him alive by picking off foes with his bow? The argument the initiative mechanic will force specific tactics all the time and override role-play I see in the exact opposite. It stops the healer (who rolled the highest) from having to go first and the Demon Slayer (who rolled like crap) to have to wait until after the Demon has already been killed. It also creates tactical flexibility in a sense of: We're going to run away and the Troll Slayer is going to cover the rear. Everybody gets run and the Troll Slayer now has the freedom to attack the greenskins as they try to break passed him, instead of him having to go at the bottom of the round (because that's what he rolled) and the Greenskins getting to go before him (when he couldn't attack since they rolled higher than him). Again, this enhances the roleplay. So in the same scenario, the players being chased by Greenskins run into a room with a troll just after the Troll Slayer had put down several greenskins. Well, the players did let the Troll Slayer go first to fight the greenskins, but now the feeble rat catcher and gambler have to have a go at the Troll for one round by themselves. New role-playing opportunities were created and a better story is told. If players can't solve who should go first because the elf and dwarf are competing for kills, I'd love to see them settle it with a die off so the best man gets to go first while the human just stands back and shakes his head. It could absolutely be used to allow players to have fun with combat in these sorts of ways, competing to go first or second, or to work as this finely oiled machine...whatever they want to do, not what the system tells them they HAVE to do.

Just think about those points and I think, if you look at combat from a different direction than you have in previous RPGS, you'll see some serious merit to this new initiative mechanic and a whole bunch of new avenues to explore.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Well...because it's still a good game, no matter how much you want to see it die. I know this isn't my job, but please man, I know you don't like this, but this really has nothing to do with the initiative mechanic. It just really brings down the whole dialogue and gets people's backs-up when they come across this blatent-resentment in the middle of an otherwise good discussion. Could you please start up your own thread about bashing the game just to bash it rather than bog down this thread with a critique (be it a worthy critique or not) and stick to the topic at hand.

Peacekeeper_b said:

I have always houseruled all RPGs with which I've played. It's a matter of taste, but I hardly believe everyone loves every rule about a game and I am one that prefers to spend some energy in adapting the rules to my taste than becoming annoyed by some mechanic I don't like.

Also, I consider most rules in RPGs as options, the publisher cannot force me to play exactly as he intended, but at the same time I don't have the means or energy to create a full set of rules for my games, and I also love the art and many good proposals that come from a publisher.

Come on, mate, I cannot believe you have never played an RPG without houseruling parts of it...

Cogoll and commoner, my last question was not a bash of the rules as presented, or houserules, yes I house rule the hell out of things. My question, which I think goes along well in this thread which is about a rule in the game that several have announced intentions to already houserule out.

My question still stands, is not houserulling a rule before you have used it, really read it or seen it in action the same as saying it doesnt work? Or it doesnt work for me? Believe it or not, in this question I am trying to find where the support for the system truly lies.

But you win.

Peacekeeper_b said:

That x% of people announce they'll houserule a rule also means that (100-x)% of people will use it as intended...

You know, don't think the official rule does not have appeal only because some people say they'll houserule it... usually the people that don't like something are the ones you hear the most because they are the ones voicing their complaints and proposing changes, but that does not mean they are the majority... politics and journalism is a good real life example of this... You always have people demonstrating against something, but that does not make them right or a majority...

And I know what I'm talking about here as I have made already at least 3 proposals to houserule stuff but have hardly talked about the things I like from the system apart from saying that I like them.

I'll say it again, considering the proposals as a whole, I'm confident this game will rock!

Peacekeeper_b said:

Back at it again eh, nice closer to goat people into your discussion here. If you actually read my reply in a thread dedicated to your position on this game with love, (I believe its called That Certain Locked Thread) and the comments I posted there you'll find where my support (and I think the majority of us who support it) really stand on the issue.

As for the reply to the designer diary about combat training 101, Initiative, Rounds and Player Turns in WFRP I think you'll find that that topic actually doesn't deal with the ethical debate about to house rule or not to house rule and the validity of purchasing a game, but it's actually about, Initiative, rounds, and player turns. Here someone can say I will house rule and everybody can be like absolutely, or no wait, you're missing the point about this mechanic and listen to why I think so. It doesn't really beg the question in anyway, what-so-ever, any criticism on the nature of house ruling versus the validity of purchasing a product you personally, wish to see "die."

So, going back to the nature at hand, you mention in the other thread dedicated to your "wrongfully" shut down thread (I know you didn't repost it, but it was your thoughts that inspired the locked thread) you mention that this combat system loses the fog of war against the players finally oiled machine.

I believe the designer diary mentions that the NPC'S can act when their tokens come up as well, playing into the fog of war. You see, the Troll Slayer may charge the Chaos Spawn thinking its the biggest threat, but low and behold, the gnoblar is packing a magic sword of everything slaying and he is sent in before the Chaos Spawn. Who saw that one coming? Again that is the fog of war. The players think the Spawn, running at them, will come in first so they send in the Troll Slayer, but instead of going with the Spawn, the Gnoblar charges, unpredictable, chaotic, and goes against the great plan of the well oiled machine. Also, if you roll a delay on a conservative roll, your initiative token drops down a step the next round (or something like that). Remember, some abilities (like shooting a bow) work better off a conservative action so you won't be able to count on that slot for certain from round to round. This makes a dramatic difference between phases. Also, I have to ask, do you not allow your players to talk during combat? Mine do. They make plans. Otherwise, they sit there waiting, fiddling, doodling, spacing out because they are completely detached from the action. You also claim that being able to to go earlier should be a special ability. I've house ruled in other systems before a system similar with "stealing initiative." Sure it cost and took actions and was a good enough mechanic at its own right, but adding more system just for the sake of more realism can bog down a system. Also, where is the fog of war in a fixed initiative mechanic? I always act on 6. Oh, we got jumped by goblins that always act on 9. I'm screwed. Is that really the "fog of war?" Yep I always go at six, predictable, tested, reliable, six. Maybe with roughly a 1-10 point difference (if you roll a d10 and add it to your agility), but pretty much its always six. So I stand here, watch all my friends die, that Goblin or two beat on me and then wait, oh yeah, I get to go. Great. Or is chaos truly people flip flopping back and forth with who acts when and making choices on what they assume to be true, but really isn't? Is it really always best to lead with the Troll Slayer? Are you sure? I generally find the people who go first in combat rounds generally want to go later because they can't react when they need to and their friends go down because they're not their to help them or the guy they're after gets away or the person they're trying to protect gets killed. If the healer also always goes last, won't he be at risk at getting pounded down before he can heal? Being able to act when you want to is when you think it is appropriate to act, but this is not always the best case. The real fog of war is when unpredictable elements occur regardless of what you thought was best. So when you charge the greenskin horde as the Troll Slayer and think you can handle them and you do, who knew you were leaving your buddies to get beaten down by the Orc Warboss over there. Also, the fog still exists because players will fail. Initiatives will shift based on success and failures and delays and enemy attacks. This allows the fog to happen organically rather than systematically. Combat is unpredictable...this will let it be unpredictable, just not in the way you're used to.

I know Peacekeeper may not respond to my thread, but I hope this can get us all back on track with a dialogue about the mechanic itself.

Cheers