Troll Lord Games

I just finished reading the rules to All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Eden Studio's zombie game. Like C&C it is rules light and heavy cinematic, although it is a skill based system versus class. Overall, its an interesting ruleset that I'm looking forward to trying.

Anyway, the way they handle initiative is very cool, simple, and IMO, brilliant. They don't roll off -- at least not right away. Before rolls, everyone declares their intentions. The order is determined arbitrarily through GM common sense. For example, if a character is running toward the enemy and then attacking, but another is just going to fire an arrow, then the arrow attack occurs first. Also the GM can make adjustments to the situation based off everyone's actions instead of basically going to the person who won initiative. In the case of two people swinging at each, with neither having any clear advantage over the other, the players resort to rolling off.

I'm going to give this a try at my next C&C game this Sunday. I've mentioned it to my players already, and they seem gung-ho about it too.

Not something I think I would like, but hey! C&C is all about the freedom to try what you want in my view. Let me know if it works well and doesn't result in disagreements or complaints about fairness.

Will do, Treebore. And Seleran, you bring up an interesting point about spell interruption. There is an added bonus with the alt method. Please bear with me.

The C&C rules as printed does not add Dex bonus to initiative, although a lot of people houserule it that it does -- afterall, it does seem like a logical step. However, I can see why it shouldn't. Combat does not go necessarily to the fastest. Plenty of things contribute to reaction speed along with dexterity, such as processing and assessing what is going on (Int) or experience and raw instinct (Wis).

Let's go to a situation of spell interruption: a wizard vs a barbarian. The dark-haired Cimmerian charges the sinister robed fellow as he utters arcane words. The GM rules the barbarian must travel and attack, while the wizard must spell cast and attack. He rules an initiative check, but the barbarian adds his dex bonus and the wizard adds his int bonus. There is more room to figure stuff like this. If the players are recovering from surprise, use Wisdom. I don't think it needs to written in stone what different situations use different attributes. It should be fluid and goverened by the situation -- one of the design goals of C&C.

I only ask for spells or spell-like abilities to be announced before the roll. They roll a d10 and add dex bonus. I count down from 13 to 1 on the round. If I hit your number, raise your hand and tell me what you're doing. It runs fast and simple. Not the most realistic, yes, but it gets done. I could change this eventually.

--Ghul

BeZurKur wrote:
Anyway, the way they handle initiative is very cool, simple, and IMO, brilliant. They don't roll off -- at least not right away. Before rolls, everyone declares their intentions. The order is determined arbitrarily through GM common sense.

Agree, I have been doing this somewhat in my games. There are just too many encounters (initial ones generally), IMO that should be CK adjudicated rather than rolled to determine iniative.
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

This topic is VERY interesting to me, as the whole rolling for initiative thing got pretty confusing for me ("Wait...whose turn was it to go next this round?"). I really like the idea of CK adjudication for initiative, and I think I'll give this a shot at my next session....which may be awhile considering my only car decided to go Hiroshima on me...
Ink
_________________
Check out Inkpot's C&C Downloads: http://www.cncplayer.net/inkpot/index.htm

C&C: Blissfully devoid of gestalt neko-hin rogue/fighter/mages!!

BeZurKur wrote:
Will do, Treebore. And Seleran, you bring up an interesting point about spell interruption. There is an added bonus with the alt method. Please bear with me.

The C&C rules as printed does not add Dex bonus to initiative, although a lot of people houserule it that it does -- afterall, it does seem like a logical step. However, I can see why it shouldn't. Combat does not go necessarily to the fastest. Plenty of things contribute to reaction speed along with dexterity, such as processing and assessing what is going on (Int) or experience and raw instinct (Wis).

Let's go to a situation of spell interruption: a wizard vs a barbarian. The dark-haired Cimmerian charges the sinister robed fellow as he utters arcane words. The GM rules the barbarian must travel and attack, while the wizard must spell cast and attack. He rules an initiative check, but the barbarian adds his dex bonus and the wizard adds his int bonus. There is more room to figure stuff like this. If the players are recovering from surprise, use Wisdom. I don't think it needs to written in stone what different situations use different attributes. It should be fluid and goverened by the situation -- one of the design goals of C&C.

I don't use C&C's initiative, so I may actually be a bit off topic in answering this. However, I'd like to attempt to answer your example, based on my house rules. There is a method to my madness here, I promise.

First...my Initiative house rule. It's based upon Holmes' Basic Initiative rules. Some out there believe that the rules are a group initiative rule system, but it's my belief that it's actually an individual initiative system, and I play it that way.

"When two figures are brought into position 10 feet (or less) apart they may engage in melee. The character with the highest dexterity strikes first. If the Castle Keeper does not know the dexterity of an attacking monster he rolls it on the spot, using 4d6 and discarding the lowest die roll. The two figures exchange blows in turn until the melee is resolved. If dexterities are the same, a 10-sided die is rolled for each opponent, and the higher score gains initiative, first blow."

Second, my house rule regarding spells. This one is rather important, because the answer I'll end up giving is going to take this and the initiative rule into account.

"Spells take one round to cast, and concentration is required for the duration of the round or the spell is lost. All spells require nothing more than a verbal component, consisting of the name of the spell, shouted out at the opponent. Spell effects occur at the end of the round. The Castle Keeper may allow a Constitution check at a Challenge Class of Difficult to avoid losing the spell or to change targets."

Now, if the two aren't within 10 feet of each other, there is fun to be had. Everyone can make a five foot movement, so if the barbarian were at 15 feet from the wizard, by making a five foot movement, he'd be within 10 feet, so initiative would be determined for the attack. Everyone can also move up to half their movement rate and still attack unless they're charging, so if the barbarian had a movement rate of 60 feet and he was within 40 feet of the wizard, he could get in range by moving 30 feet. Initiative would be determined for the attack.

If the wizard has a higher dexterity than his opponent, the wizard goes first. So he can either choose to take the damage and attempt a constitution check to avoid losing the spell, or he can give up the spell and attack hand to hand or (more likely) either dodge or evade. Since wizards don't necessarily take constitution as a prime, that check could be tough to pull off. I assign a standard challenge level to the challenge classes, and in this case a constitution check to prevent the loss of a spell would require a 19 (prime) or 25 (non-prime) to succeed. This is the ONLY situational check that I have spelled out in my house rules.

If the wizard does NOT have a higher dexterity than the opponent, then the spell is very likely to be ruined, unless that constitution check is made.

The way wizards function in combat in my games is really simple. They don't get within ten feet of a barbarian wielding a five foot long piece of sharp steel unless they want their spells ruined. Fighters need to keep the wizards protected on a world where magic is dying (my "magic in decline" motif).

Now, the method to my madness is this. I don't need to make a special check for initiative and don't need to use any special modifiers. All I need to know is whether the wizard and barbarian are within ten feet of each other. If they are, the initiative sequence takes over. Initiative does have a tremendous effect on spellcasting, because if the guy with the sword goes first by having a higher dexterity, then the wizard's spell is likely to be ruined. I believe the system to be very fluid without requiring extra modifiers and all. Your system probably works just as well, but it just doesn't seem as fast.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Sounds interesting Traveller, I would have no problem as a player using that system, but I like the simplicty of the C&C iniative for the games I CK. Highest Dex wins all ties and I gives the ties to the players (unless its the BBEG and he has an actual Dex score). Before every session I write the names of my players on a large piece of paper in the order they are sitting around the gaming area. After they roll Init I ask each person their roll, I know the order and then I ask each person on thier turn. It creates some extra paperwork for me, but it prevents people from forgetting thier Init or cheating in the order.
_________________
CK the CK
"My goddess touched me at an early age."

-Grikis Valmorgen, Paladin

The beginnings of my homebrew campaign world and info for my play by chat game:
http://kbdekker.googlepages.com/home

The only real differences between Holmes' initiative and C&C initiative are:

1. Dexterity scores are what determines who goes first. Die rolls are used for ties, and if the die rolls are tied, actions occur simultaneously.

2. C&C is standard group initiative, whereas Holmes' initiative (at least how I think of it) is individual initiative.

In regards to point 2, this can lead to some rather interesting effects. Say for example that you are a fighter, named A, and you're facing off with Orc's named B and C. You're in the middle of a room, with B 25 feet from you, and C 15 feet from you. Neither is charging.

A stands his ground and waits for Orc B and Orc C to advance. Orc B and Orc C can move half their movement rate and still attack. Orcs have a movement rate of 30 feet. Both Orcs can advance to attack range (ten feet or less). The fun part comes from what is next.

Two seperate combats occur, between A and B, and A and C. Let's say A, our fighter, has average dexterity, 11. Orc B and C have their dexterity diced, using 4d6, dropping the lowest. Orc B ends up with a 14 dexterity, but Orc C is an oaf, having a dexterity of 6. Splitting up the two combats:

B has higher dexterity than A, and thus strikes first.

A has higher dexterity than C, and thus strikes first.

So B whacks at A, and A whacks at B in return. At the same time, A takes a cut at C. Now this here illustrates the big deal about individual initiative over group initiative, and why I prefer the former to the latter.

In group initiative, each person on each side gets one attack, unless they are of sufficient level to where they get a second attack, or if they are a fighter with combat dominance. If group initiative is used, that poor fighter only gets one swing while he gets whacked twice, possibly dying in the process. It doesn't sound terribly sensible for the fighter to ignore one target to focus on another. He's likely going to try to fend off blows from both, and try to attack both.

Individual initiative allows the outnumbered sap to take swipes at all the opponents that are attacking him and not just concentrate on one. Now, he's still likely to get badly hurt or even killed, because the odds favor the superior force, but now he's not going to ignore targets simply to take on one particular foe.

I think that tendency to ignore the foes around you because you're focusing on one, while easy to manage, strikes me as being a bit too simplistic. Now, I like simplicity as much as the next guy, but I believe the slight increase in paperwork for initiative is worth the added flexibility of that fighter being able to attack all his opponents.

And I thank Holmes for making it all possible, by being vague.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

What is Holmes?

While nowhere near as thought out as Traveller's ideas, I've pretty much decided that I will ask players to make an "initiative modifier" space = which will equal the total (+ or -) of both Dex and Wis mods (my theory being that Wis plays as much a part of reaction as dexterity). They then just have to add or subtract this mod each time the d10 is rolled. As for the magic, I won't ask to declare at start of each round, but I will adjudicate that if the caster is hit during the rolls before them then it might affect their success at casting.

John 8)
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

BeZurKur wrote:
What is Holmes?

The Basic D&D set edited by Eric Holmes. That was the set I started with. It has more in common with OD&D (the original three booklets) than with later versions of classic D&D (e.g. the Moldvay/Cook or Mentzer sets), IMO.

These are the designations I use (they're pretty common):

OD&D = the original three booklets and supplements

Holmes = the Holmes basic set (aka the "blue book" edition)

B/X = the Molday/Cook/Marsh basic & expert sets (Erol Otus cover art)

BECMI/RC = Mentzer sets (basic through immortal/Rules Cyclopedia)

1E = First edition AD&D. You also see "OAD&D" for this.

2E = Second edition AD&D.

3E = Third edition, in general. Also 3.0 or 3.5, specifically.

Thanks PJ for clearing that up. The designation list is very useful too. I've made a note of it.

Traveller, our two ways of handling initiative (mine to-be actually -- I haven't tried it yet, although others have been doing it for some time with good results) once again show off the strength, flexibility, and ease of C&C. Yours seems to lean to a table-top, tactical, element and mine toward a narrative, story element. I'm sure they appeal to different people. I'll let you know if it slows down combat. At my last session, we ended just before a critical fight was to outbreak. Man, I'm itching for Sunday!

I use just one d20 die roll, and a chart in which I simulated by computer 400 d10 dice rolls. A column (or row, at the CK's choice) is selected by the d20 roll. The numbers in the column (row) in order are the initiative for up to 20 characters; ties are resolved as by PHB. Simple and fast.

Cheers,

Antonio

We've come up with a non-iniative system. It's taken some time to get right but we have enjoyed it as it has sped up combat.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

BeZurKur wrote:
Traveller, our two ways of handling initiative (mine to-be actually -- I haven't tried it yet, although others have been doing it for some time with good results) once again show off the strength, flexibility, and ease of C&C. Yours seems to lean to a table-top, tactical, element and mine toward a narrative, story element. I'm sure they appeal to different people. I'll let you know if it slows down combat. At my last session, we ended just before a critical fight was to outbreak. Man, I'm itching for Sunday!

Miniatures may help, but they're not absolutely required. I can do the same thing with graph paper and be all set for life. On a serious note though, while I've made it sound more like a tactical exercise, it really isn't. All I've done is changed initiative to allow fighter A to take a swipe at every foe he is facing. To do that, all I need to know is if the foes are within ten feet of fighter A. I do not need miniatures to figure that out. The other rules, regarding five foot movements and the ability to move half the movement rate and still attack, are in the Castles & Crusades rules.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Last night I ran the game with my alternate initiative rules and we all had a blast. It actually sped the game up in places. We didn't spend time rolling initiative for characters who were clearly going first or last. As the battle spread across the map, there were even more cases of that because smaller battles started taking place, so no one cared if figher A involved in a melee would go first before monster b in a separate melee. We only rolled when two or more characters were directly competing against each other and their action gave equal chance to either side of going first.

What I liked most wasn't the time saved -- although it was a nice side effect -- but the way it contributed to the narrative. Players did not only go for the more damage attack/weapon. If a shield bash meant going first while another hard hitting character joined the fray, then they did it. Last nights battle had shield bashes, knee lifts, and even one body slam! Despite all that, it never seemed trite. The actions were cinematic and appropriate.

About the time it took: it was faster to determine initiative, but the combat did take longer. I allow my players to discuss their actions out of character and there was more discussion. However, if it is between the players contributing to a narrative or dice solely determining outcomes, time spent on building the story will win over speed everytime in the games I run. As a result, we all had more fun. We felt more in control and the dice, when rolled, felt more important.

Overall, I think this style of determining initiative is a good match and runs along the design philosophy of C&C. I look forward to trying it again.