3 hours ago, GM Hooly said:

One of the things we have started to do is allow PCs to spend excess Advantages to do things like apply boosts or alter the scene. They then come off the Advantage tie breaker. Its especially useful for those who roll a low number of successes and a butt-ton of Advantages.

I wondered about this because in the rest of the game 3 advantages are a pretty good thing to see. Do you have any experiences with using Setback in initiative rolls Hooly?

5 hours ago, Archlyte said:

Sigh. Ok I was 11B myself, but I wasn't an officer, so I guess maybe you studied this a lot from Army educational material. But for the purpose of talking about RPGs I have seen that vernacular used before to describe Initiative that has an effect or order based on something that is happening in the battle versus a score that counts off action places on the number line. I think in my OP I stated that this was about whether I should use a simplified linear count off system or a narrative system. The problem is that I can't make the Narrative System work because the purple dice throw way too many negatives out, so I was wrong about the whole thing. Can't get any more wrong than wrong man. I was wrong.

Ah, I see what you mean now. Just dump the initiative system all together in that case. If you have a good narrative reason to do things in a specific order, then just do it. As a matter of fact, if you have a good narrative reason to do anything in this game and the RAW is just getting in the way, just dump the RAW out the window. I just couldnt figure out why you were wanting to replace one number with another.

44 minutes ago, korjik said:

Just dump the initiative system all together in that case. If you have a good narrative reason to do things in a specific order, then just do it. As a matter of fact, if you have a good narrative reason to do anything in this game and the RAW is just getting in the way, just dump the RAW out the window.

Those sounds like the words of a storyteller, not a GM.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

I wondered about this because in the rest of the game 3 advantages are a pretty good thing to see. Do you have any experiences with using Setback in initiative rolls Hooly?

Absolutely.

Setbacks can be used at any time, since ultimately, initiative is still just a Simple (-) skill check. ****, if combat started as the ship's atmosphere was rushing into the Deepness of Space, I may even be so inclined to have Initiative be an Easy check (and auto upgrade to a Challenge dice due to the circumstances - as extreme as that may sound). Or perhaps the combat is occurring in complete darkness or in a fog or a storm? Makes carrying those goggles that remove atmosphereic conditions that much more useful

You get the idea.

Just now, GM Hooly said:

Absolutely.

Setbacks can be used at any time, since ultimately, initiative is still just a Simple (-) skill check. ****, if combat started as the ship's atmosphere was rushing into the Deepness of Space, I may even be so inclined to have Initiative be an Easy check (and auto upgrade to a Challenge dice due to the circumstances - as extreme as that may sound). Or perhaps the combat is occurring in complete darkness or in a fog or a storm? Makes carrying those goggles that remove atmosphereic conditions that much more useful

You get the idea.

Thank you for this. I tested it as an Average roll and it was just too many negatives when its a small pool, but I think you are right and as an Easy check it could work. I think I just wanted something else to spend Dark Side Destiny points on lol.

2 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Those sounds like the words of a storyteller, not a GM.

The rules exist to facilitate cooperative storytelling. If they get in the way of that, they're not serving their purpose.

3 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Those sounds like the words of a storyteller, not a GM.

The beginner games do this exact thing though. They just establish an order, no rolls needed, because the aim is to get the players into the action quickly. It feels frantic and sudden.

You could just as well establish Initiative order based on skill ranks (passive check style), or based in the ongoing narrative, or based on previous skill checks performed.

Question: does anyone adjudicate Triumphs by running an S.T.A. or T.S.A. system? Second one might be a bit OP, but first one seems like a pretty good way of adjudicating Triumphs (in that they essentially count as infinite Advantages).

10 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Those sounds like the words of a storyteller, not a GM.

There has been an awakening, have you felt it?

2 hours ago, edwardavern said:

Question: does anyone adjudicate Triumphs by running an S.T.A. or T.S.A. system? Second one might be a bit OP, but first one seems like a pretty good way of adjudicating Triumphs (in that mthey essentially count as infinite Advantages).

My group almost always uses an init triumph as 'I go first'. Multiple triumphs resort back to init order

11 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Those sounds like the words of a storyteller, not a GM.

When I GM, I am trying to tell a story, not be a computer program. I set up the game so that fun things happen, not mindlessly enforce rules. If that means that I toss rules, then rules get tossed.

Besides, one of the jobs of the GM is to determine when to use turns and when not to.

3 hours ago, themensch said:

There has been an awakening, have you felt it?

If you're talking about the TFA film, I felt it was one of the worst things ever to happen to Star Wars.

If you're talking about the shift of some towards storytelling over game-mastering, I feel it is one of the worst things ever to happen to RPGs.

27 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

If you're talking about the TFA film, I felt it was one of the worst things ever to happen to Star Wars.

If you're talking about the shift of some towards storytelling over game-mastering, I feel it is one of the worst things ever to happen to RPGs.

I was referring to the latter, and I thought you were bing a bit tongue-in-cheek as a good GM is almost always a good storyteller to boot. It as much an art as it is a science in my mind, and both are required. Of course your mileage varied, and more power to you. I find this shift very refreshing - 35 years of playing and GMing can lead one to look at this in wholly new ways.

As for the TFA film, I don't share your opinion there either but I respect it as well.

A good GM is generally a good storyteller, yes (as long at the definition of "storyteller" isn't gamist), but he shouldn't be the only one at the table telling the story. You're all there to share equally in the storytelling. The players are just as responsible for the story as the GM is. Therefore, to call the GM a storyteller (in this setting, anyway) is a misnomer; it's antithetical to the intent of the game rules and to the design of the narrative dice system.

40 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

A good GM is generally a good storyteller, yes (as long at the definition of "storyteller" isn't gamist), but he shouldn't be the only one at the table telling the story. You're all there to share equally in the storytelling. The players are just as responsible for the story as the GM is. Therefore, to call the GM a storyteller (in this setting, anyway) is a misnomer; it's antithetical to the intent of the game rules and to the design of the narrative dice system.

Exactly. Everyone at the table is a storyteller, but only one is the game master.

I didn't want to read all 3 pages so I'll just put in my 2 cents and hope someone didn't say it all yet...

I proposed this idea awhile ago in another thread and got the same sort of feedback...basically that the initiative system works you just have to make it work better for you to get things moving along quicker.

Some of the takeaways were to
1. Delegate this task to a player, allow them to deal with it while you prep the encounter
2. Use a Tracker sheet to make it easy to write down who rolled what (Like THIS - I printed it out and laminated it so I can use dry erase markers on it)
3. Have your players get used to announcing their roll number in order of Success then Advantage and announce a Triumph separately (ex: I have 1 & 3, or I have 2 & 0 & a triumph)
4. Pre-roll your enemies ahead of time, before the session jot down some rolls for certain enemies then pass that along to whomever is prepping initiative

All of these tips have helped me combat the slow setup for initiative that I ran into as well. Hopefully they will help you too!

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

Exactly. Everyone at the table is a storyteller, but only one is the game master.

I agree, and it was worth the short discussion. Your previous post implied they didn't mix in how I read it.

2 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

Therefore, to call the GM a storyteller (in this setting, anyway) is a misnomer; it's antithetical to the intent of the game rules and to the design of the narrative dice system.

That hair won't split. Just because one player is a storyteller doesn't imply that the others aren't. If the GM isn't a storyteller, in this system or any other, as a part of regular GM duties, then there is a higher chance for a Bad Time™. NaRDS may emphasize player storytelling but honestly, player storytelling has been a part of roleplaying since tactical wargames birthed the hobby lo those many decades ago. Perhaps we're mincing our definition of "storyteller" so I prefer to use it at its very base: a storyteller is a person who tells stories. I hope that's everyone one of us, every time we play a roleplaying game.

12 minutes ago, themensch said:

That hair won't split. Just because one player is a storyteller doesn't imply that the others aren't. If the GM isn't a storyteller, in this system or any other, as a part of regular GM duties, then there is a higher chance for a Bad Time™. NaRDS may emphasize player storytelling but honestly, player storytelling has been a part of roleplaying since tactical wargames birthed the hobby lo those many decades ago. Perhaps we're mincing our definition of "storyteller" so I prefer to use it at its very base: a storyteller is a person who tells stories. I hope that's everyone one of us, every time we play a roleplaying game.

Right. The problem isn't in definitions, IMO, but in rather in the significance of the word "the." You have THE gamesmaster. But as soon as one starts calling him or her "THE storyteller," at that point one is assuming, with the definite article, that the others involved aren't storytellers.

I'm not trying to split hairs, but more just pointing out that language matters. Like you posted above, each player is "a storyteller." It's when you actually substitute "storyteller" for "GM," calling the position "the storyteller" of "the GM," that you're saying something different about how the game is supposed to be run.

TL;DR: There's a world of difference between "a storyteller" and " the storyteller."

(My apologies for using the indefinite article earlier... I know what I meant!)

8 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

TL;DR: There's a world of difference between "a storyteller" and " the storyteller."

Very true, and I fall into the same pit often enough that I can't decry anyone else for it. It is an important distinction.

Interesting that the comment that started this bit was ' a storyteller not a GM' , now that we agree that the GM is a storyteller...

Bad, interfering rules should be ignored. The point of having a GM with a brain is to do that. No game is perfect, you will find holes in every game. Even where a game works well, it can hit a situation where blindly applying the rules interferes with the fun. In a computer game, that means annoyance and reloading saves. With a GM with a brain, that means a bit of adjust on the fly to keep things going.

The OP hit a spot where RAW was messing him up. Disrupting his fun. Toss the RAW then. If stopping to roll init would disrupt the mood/pacing/tension/whatever of the game, and really just screw up what is going on, then dont bother with it.

The point of the game is to have fun. First last and always. The point of a GM having a brain and not being just an enforcer of rules is specifically to do that. If that wasnt important, none of us would be here, we would be on some computer game companies forum discussing their games.

5 hours ago, korjik said:

Interesting that the comment that started this bit was ' a storyteller not a GM' , now that we agree that the GM is a storyteller...

Bad, interfering rules should be ignored. The point of having a GM with a brain is to do that. No game is perfect, you will find holes in every game. Even where a game works well, it can hit a situation where blindly applying the rules interferes with the fun. In a computer game, that means annoyance and reloading saves. With a GM with a brain, that means a bit of adjust on the fly to keep things going.

The OP hit a spot where RAW was messing him up. Disrupting his fun. Toss the RAW then. If stopping to roll init would disrupt the mood/pacing/tension/whatever of the game, and really just screw up what is going on, then dont bother with it.

The point of the game is to have fun. First last and always. The point of a GM having a brain and not being just an enforcer of rules is specifically to do that. If that wasnt important, none of us would be here, we would be on some computer game companies forum discussing their games.

I was trying to work through something that after a while of trying it as RAW just felt like it wasn't flowing for me. I think I have come to the conclusion that I need to follow your advice though and not use it when it suits me. I'll get the players to sign off on it first, and I'll take feedback later, but I'm going to try and use a more cinematic and narrative approach to Initiative sometimes--especially when I don't want to break immersion. So I'll use RAW with setbacks where appropriate, and when I feel like it I will ditch it completely. If it feels more heroic I will let players attack first. When it would be a better scene I will have the bad guys shoot first. Other than that I guess I'll be counting out 3.2, 1.1, Triumph 1.2..... Thanks for the help though, because this thread was a huge help to me.

We RP on Tuesday night and we actually had a (rare) fight.

The initiative system worked as advertised and it worked really well!

The Fight was 4 PC's vs 8 NPC's. The conflict built up from a narrative encounter and eventually escalated to armed conflict, so we all rolled Cool for initiative. (There were 1 black setback dice for a couple of the PC's due to missing sleep the previous night, but that was it).

The turn order was:

1 PC (Yay!)

3 NPC's (Ugh!)

1 PC, (Ngggg).

2 NPC's (Yikes).

1 PC, (Feeling a bit overwhelmed here).

3 NPC's ( Ho boy).

1 PC . . . .

Fortunately we were fighting from a defensible position from a raised palisade and the creatures attacking had to close to melee to do damage.

Once the wildlife made it apparent that they were hostile, we did the predictable thing and shot at them to discourage them from advancing.

Unfortunately they didn't seem to mind getting shot and raced to the palisade . . . Fortunately one of the critters began fleeing (I don't recall the exact cause, but it was suitably motivated towards self preservation. IIRC that lone critter had been 'exploring' a number of the PC's had sent a fusilade of stun bolts to discourage it from getting closer).

Turn 2 we continued our staggered attacks and began dropping 1 or two of the opponents, but their action was to CLIMB. And climb they did, in their staggered waves.

Turn 3 got tricky as they were now in Melee with all of the PC's. Our heavies were tag teamed and beat soundly (about the head and shoulders). Two of the most effective PC's were knocked down.

The Initiative became REALLY important at this point (for both parties) and being able to switch out when we went was a life saver. The axe wielding Nikto was being beaten about badly but his high soaked kept him alive. Unfortunately he was knocked off his feet and eventually knocked off the palisade. But he was going to be okay . . . probably.

The lightsaber wielding FS Initiate was burning through strain very fast, but his parry kept him in the game.

And as the palisade became overrun the two squishy PC's retreated and continued to provide cover fire.

One thing that I found ourselves doing was that we'd have the FS Initiate go first most rounds because he needed to down his opponents before they attacked him. This allowed us to keep him from being attacked more than once most rounds.

The next character to go was usually my squishy. They couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but I was generating a ton of Advantages, which we shifted to blue dice for the next combatant . . . which was usually used to good effect.

And since it didn't matter as much what happened to the Nikto, that PC usually filled out the final rounds.

That whole fight was pretty intense and mechanically was 4 PC's vs 8 GMPC's. Yes that was a tough fight (and it was supposed to be).

The whole fight, both groups jockeyed for positions and being able to flexibly choose our slot probably saved the FS Initiate's life.

My point? The initiative (and combat) system worked! And brilliantly. IIRC that poor FS Initiate was knocked off his feet 3 times, and spent pretty much each turn "standing up" for one of his maneuvers. Using the Advantages and Threats (from the GM chart) was pretty impactful. Both of our Melee fighters (The Nikto & Force Sensitive) got their melee weapons knocked out of hand (and so did one of the squishy PC's).

Though it was probably an inevitable outcome that the PC's were going to win, it sure looked like it might have gone either way for quite some time.

My recommendation is to get familiar with the whole system and stick with it. This is, my preferred initiative system out of all of the other RPG's that I've worked with.

One thing that made game flow better for us, was when I started to roll NPC initiatives before hand, and just apply any situational modifiers to the result when appropriate. (e.g. if PCs manage to give setback dice to opponents, or do something stupid and give boost dice to opponents, I just roll those and apply the result to pre rolled results.)

Bu still, often I just fudge the initiative and allow the party with advantage to act first. Or decide that initiative is PC, NPC, PC, NPC, PC, NPC etc. Especially when fight is less meaningful to story, e.g. when PCs just get to a fight I wasn't anticipating.

On 9/4/2017 at 1:22 AM, kkuja said:

One thing that made game flow better for us, was when I started to roll NPC initiatives before hand, and just apply any situational modifiers to the result when appropriate

I honestly don't see how this is different than just rolling it all - there's still rolling dice and doing simple math, just like a normal initiative roll. Okay, perhaps just adding the results of one or two dice to a fixed sum is easier for some folks, I can accept that.

16 hours ago, themensch said:

I honestly don't see how this is different than just rolling it all - there's still rolling dice and doing simple math, just like a normal initiative roll. Okay, perhaps just adding the results of one or two dice to a fixed sum is easier for some folks, I can accept that.

And there are always those cases when there are no changes to results. This is not my invention. It might have been Order66 podcast where I picked this up. Of course, this might not actually help, but I thought I'd tell it, because it might help some one.