macd21 said:

It is usualy the case the difference is though that the faster character needs to delay their action to suit the warning (I'd assume something like the wizard saying/shouting 'wait', and since they have worked togeather for a while the other character knows the wizard is likely doing some area spell) given by the wizard, its a reactive occurance (the character makes some concious decision) to the situation. The downside is in doing that it may mean the enemies (some or all) get actions due to the slower reactions of the wizard. (for me iniative is about how fast an individual character can react compared to others in the situation).

The character doesnt have to wait or may not have heard the warning, which has occured in many games I have been in. Hell in one game the dwarf (the fastest in the group) allways charged in even to the detriment of the two characters with rifles, that typically were ready (and wanted) to take shots.

Personaly I'd likely use the mechanic to alieviate some of the stop-start action in the game by limiting the characters based on the kind of action they do, those that need to move to attack would be acting later than those just needing to attack as an example.

Loswaith said:

I think any mechanic that allows the players to communicate among themselves to decide what each player will do is not going to be a very realistic simulation of a real combat, no matter how many artificial limitations you place on them. Also, a game with too many extra rules would only make combats slower and more tedious (that's my feeling now with D&D3 and D&D4).

So, if you want to have a realistic system, you should try to implement something where players cannot talk much among themselves during combat. That's what I tried to achieve in my Descent games, where players can only say one short sentence during other people's turns (and they have about 1-2 minutes to discuss their strategies at the beginning of each turn)... That's the reason behind the houserule I proposed for the initiative (above and in its own thread).

Any system that allows players to discuss their moves in combat is not going to be realistic , no matter how you set it up. Don't get me wrong, I'm still OK with these systems because they reduce complexity of the game, but it's also true that sometimes combats become too "gamey" and like a "tactics boardgame" because of that, so I can understand the criticism expressed by Peacekeeper and DeathfromAbove among others (although I don't see why they don't apply the same critics to other RPGs that suffer from the same lack of chaos in combat)...

As for not letting players discuss among themselves tactics during combat, I've found that the players in my group that complain about this sort of systems do so because, at the beginning, they feel a bit stressed for being solely responsible for their actions... Most of us need reassurance from others so not to feel that we screwed it... but the counterargument I have to that is that you should view it as part of the RPG experience... in real life people make a lot of tactics mistakes (I'm a great fan of football/soccer and I see that happening constantly) and the good thing with an RPG is that you don't have to really pay for them after that... I must say that, as our Descent games have advanced, people have enjoyed more and more the system and myself I've started also moving my monsters in a "not-optimal" way, sometimes even purposefully, so that the whole experience feels both a bit more relaxed (nobody fears making mistakes any more) and more realistic, while at the same time playing faster.

commoner said:

I hope, for all that is good, that no player will encounter a GM with this style.

Really.

commoner said:

I may.

or I may not.

(its nothing personal. No secret I am not a fan of 3E thus far. But what I am a fan of is people defending what they like. In all honesty, the only reply I need is "Cause I like it, so there!" followed by a raspberry.)

Peacekeeper_b said:

LOL truly i LOL'd.......wow ide love to game with you some time peacekeeper......wow......still laughing......totally made my day

Peacekeeper_b said:

Saying "you can houserule it" is not an adequate defence of a system, true. However neither is it a condemnation of that system. Different people will always have different preferences. On the other hand "this system is easy to houserule" is a good defence of that system. Many elements of v3 seem to be easy to remove or alter, allowing each campaign to be adjusted to the preferences of the players.

Saying you are going to houserule an aspect of the game doesn't mean that you are saying that it doesn't work - it just means that you have a different preference. The character creation system works fine, for example - but some people prefer random character generation and therefore will houserule it. This initiative system looks great to me, but other people are uncomfortable with it so will houserule it.

The point when you say the system doesn't work is when you throw it out and use something completely different. Even if you are using a heavily houseruled system, that system still serves as the foundation and therefore must have some benefit to you - otherwise why not pick something else (and then start houseruling that)?

macd21 said:

Well said and I agree.

I would wind up houseruling the hell out of 3E from all appearances.

I know I houseruled the hell out of Star Frontiers when I was 12.

DeathFromAbove said:

I do the same as you, but I allow some more time for figuring out what to do. Combat should be fast, and spending 10 minutes figuring out what to do, decreases the thrill of combat. So my players have to act fairly quickly, but they don`t loose the round. Instead I Put pressure on any player that don`t know what to do. I might describe to him the scene of battle, adding in what his comrades are doing and ending with the question what do you do? what do you do?

other times I make noises lik tick, tick tick or rapping at the board, to create the feeling of urgency. If nothing like this helps, I tell that he have lost his round because the chaos around him have overwhelmed him, and that he need to re-focus. But I also give any player that loses his round, a bonus to his next round, since he have been observing the combat, and therefore can make a better call next round.

I don`t take withou giving. That`s how I game.

I suspect this initiative rule could be used very effectively to differentiate between new groups who have only just come together, and groups who have been together for a while. I do not know how the initial scenario in the Core rules works, but if you are a group that is thrown together by accident, for that scenario, then I would play the following: 1 The group does not pick a group card until after the first scenario, because they have been thrown together and do not have any clue on each others inclinations, until it is over. 2 The players have to go in the order that the dice thrown indicates, until the end of the first scenario, because they do not know each other, and each others fighting styles or abilities. Obviously if they are supposed to be a party that has been together a while then none of this applies. I also have no problem with a player going at the end of one round and the beginning of the next, because the GM can do the same with the NPC's. From my own experience, I would say that after one or two sessions a GM should be able to get his players to make quick decisions on initiative order, or face problems on the tension meter, as was specified in the Designer Diary. Long discussions should be banned from the start.

I would expect some kind of default order will imerge when the party finds an optimal tactics path and only change as the occasional circumstance needs.

Loswaith said:

very true......but inthe spirit of realism.....which every roleplayer should look for....the rogue/agile elf/ swiftest character would go first......just makes sence

Well, except in the spirit of realism I'd also agree that combat experience plays a great part in reaction time. A nimble thief, unused to conflict, very might freeze/pause for a moment.

Whereas a combat seasoned dwarf fighter, although less agile, is unfazed and begins moving immediately into action.

dvang said:

that goes into your characterization of the character.......and besides....the dwarf is slow....the fow could be faster and act before him

In combat, at last in my experience, going first is the least important, most sensless of all the thing.

Going first mean creating an opening first.
Speed, in trained warriors, is the basic. Forget the sloooooow, devastating axe wielding dwarf. To deliver (real) damage, he must be fast

I do not know if anybody remembers the final gunfight in Clint Eastwoods superb film 'Unforgiven'. I read around the subject and found like Eastwood that the best 'gunslingers' were not always nearly the fastest, but the coolest under fire (or in action). Inexperienced gunmen would either freeze or would squeeze off shots too quickly, and with lousy aim, while experienced ones would try to minimise the target and make sure that each shot mattered. Hence also the use of a lot of shotguns, which you don't generally see in Westerns. To be trully ' accurate' initiative would have to be calculated from agility, willpower, intelligence and past experience. Even then the past experience needed might be less useful in some situations than others. Also just because a dwarf is short, and an elf tall does not mean that latter will be faster in combat ( except in ground scale movement). I think that Jays solution is, although not perfect, a very workable and innovative way of dealing with this, and also may keep players more intereted in what is going on outside their turn, and may also encourage better party (and player ) interaction.

ragnar63 said:

Great post. I also liked a lot Unforgiven and agree with what is said in the film and by you about initiative.

In my WFRP3 campaigns I plan on using a mix of Agility, Intelligence and Willpower as the basic stat for Initiative. I also plan to do a similar thing for other skills.

For Initiative, I would add Agility, Intelligence and Willpower together, divide by 3, then round to closest integer and use this value instead of the Agility value as basic Initiative stat. The mechanics of WFRP3 make it very easy to apply this sort of houserule.