Initiative,movement and rpg's

[GameOgre]

So I was watching a 5E D&D DM run a game at a comic/rpg store and he used house rules that reminded me of classic D&D(house rules maybe?). I really like his jury rigged system a lot as it solved several issues I have always had with tabletop games.

This is my take on his system and what it seemed like to me.

Everyone rolled one Initiative per fight with a D20 modified by Dex and other factors(I know at least the guy with the Great Axe talked about the negative mod to his Init.

Then the initiative went like this.

Missile Combat- Resolved in Order
Movement- Resolved in Order
Melee Combat- Resolved in Order
Magic Casting- Resolved in Order.

While I was watching nobody held initiative so if it allows such actions I am not sure how.

They used miniatures and the battles seemed to flow MUCH better.

Have you guys ever used a system like this? Or even seen one? Was it Classic D&D or Swords and Wizardry? I know I have seen it before but not sure where.

What do you think of it? Can you think of reasons it would negatively effect C&C?

[Arduin]

Too artificial. Why should you be able to move across the room before I can stab the guy I'm standing behind.

I just use init to see who gets a fraction of a sec jump (after all have announced intentions for the round). I resolve combat based on what the situation is in front of me (the GM). Trying to use cookie cutter lists results in impossible situations occurring. Like the one I mentioned in the 2nd sentence.

[Buttmonkey]

Too artificial. Why should you be able to move across the room before I can stab the guy I'm standing behind.

I just use init to see who gets a fraction of a sec jump (after all have announced intentions for the round). I resolve combat based on what the situation is in front of me (the GM). Trying to use cookie cutter lists results in impossible situations occurring. Like the one I mentioned in the 2nd sentence.

I think your example would trigger an attack of opportunity under either 5E or C&C. I'm assuming that in your second sentence "you" refers to "the guy I'm standing behind".

[serleran]

I seem to recall something like it in one of the Classic editions of D&D, but it may have been for War Machine or Battlesystem.

[Treebore]

It reminds me a LOT of how 1E AD&D does it.

[GameOgre]

The normal initiative systems for most rpg just seem wrong to me. I realize it's just a game and frankly I'm not a simulationist at all but in standard play.
Everyone rolls initiative and goes on there turn. So lets say I rolled a 20 and you rolled a 19.

Counting down it's my go. I'm 5 feet from you as last round you chased after me.

On my go I can run the next 10 feet to the open doorway, enter into the building, shut and lock the door, climb the 10' stairway walk to the open window either shoot you with my bow or if the DM made me spend my action shuting/locking the door get ready to shoot you next round.

All while you were just standing there in place unmoving.

Sometimes it is even a more drastic change than that. All because one person gets to do all there actions in one segment of time while everyone else is frozen(unless they trigger someone else's reaction).

Now if anything seems artificial it's that way.

Now granted I can see where this way to causes issues. Perhaps melee combat should be before movement. It just seems a better way to me or at least a way to do it that bugs me less on first glance anyway.

[GameOgre]

Too artificial. Why should you be able to move across the room before I can stab the guy I'm standing behind.

I just use init to see who gets a fraction of a sec jump (after all have announced intentions for the round). I resolve combat based on what the situation is in front of me (the GM). Trying to use cookie cutter lists results in impossible situations occurring. Like the one I mentioned in the 2nd sentence.

My issue is that it isn't a fraction of a second. It's all 10 seconds. If for instance it takes 10 seconds to climb a ladder and we both start at the bottom of the ladder and you go first(you rolled 14), you climbed the entire ladder on your turn and are standing at the top now defending yourself from a goblin(goblin rolled a 12) who was standing near the top and now is attacking you! If the enemy goblin wizard hits you with a spell that kills you and hurls you backwards(wizard rolled a 9 init) then before I can move 1 inch(I rolled a 6) you have climbed the ladder been engaged by a goblin,killed by a wizard and your dead body is laying on the ground a ways behind me.

What about that seems not artificial?

At least in the alternative system some activities like a simple chase and simple combat encounters work out and flow just like they should!

I will be the first to admit perhaps I am not thinking this through and there are things that would break the game with this method, That's why I posted here!

[Arduin]

sentence.

I think your example would trigger an attack of opportunity under either 5E or C&C. [/quote]

I've never seen the "Attack of Opportunity" rule in C&C. In any event. I just use logic.

[Arduin]

My issue is that it isn't a fraction of a second. It's all 10 seconds.

Nope. The combat round is 10 seconds. ALL combatants act in that same time frame. Otherwise you are saying that everyone else is under a time stop. This is an all to common misconception with GM's. It is up to the GM to make it work as simultaneous combat.

[GameOgre]

How? How do you handle it. For instance two characters are at the bottom of a ladder with goblins at the top.

Never in 40 years of gaming have I seen or heard of a DM doing anything but paying lip service to that statement. Oh sure retroactively they might rehash it in such a way so that it makes sense but in play and when it counts.....a pc/npc/monster does all its actions in one segment and once he is done it's the next in lines turn.

This leads to many many situations like I stated above.

What do you do to make it otherwise? A player want to run all out and cover a lot of ground do you make him place his miniature/penny/whatever on the battlemat and then only let him move a fraction of the move per segment? how crazy does that get if everyone is hauling arse!

I'm not saying you can't look and think about it in the book way, it just doesn't work that way in practice.

My examples above are not unusual or even far fetched but regular everyday encounters. It's kinda of like Hit points. everyone knows they are not just meat,it says it so in the book but the only way to heal from wounds is to treat them like they are just meat. A healing spell heals the last two hit points the same as it does the 1st two. In practice the only difference is the DM's description. In the case of initiative the DM's description is often needed because otherwise it makes no blooming sense.

if 5 pc's are in a race to the top of a rope that can be climbed in one round and the first player wins initiative he climbs up to the top of the rope and wins the day! Probably no one else even climbs the rope as there is already a winner.

In practice every being in the initiative order does all there actions at one time, yes we all know that supposedly they spent 10 seconds doing it but they were done before the next to go guy got to do anything.

[Arduin]

Never in 40 years of gaming have I seen or heard of a DM doing anything but paying lip service to that statement.

Your bad luck in not having GM's that were up to it. I'll tell you the absolute key to being able to do it. The GM first decides the intentions of all the baddies. Then each player gives their intention. From there, with an agile mind and LOTS of practice (20 games or so) it becomes fairly routine. It also requires that the GM is good at using common sense and logic. If they lack in either of those two areas they will not be able to pull it off.

[GameOgre]

So your idea is to decide for yourself what all the bad guys do, then ask all the players what they do, then roll initiative? Or do you roll initiative first the decide? Slowest to fastest? Fastest to slowest?

Seems like there would be issues with that(but there are issues with just about anything I guess).

[Arduin]

So your idea is to decide for yourself what all the bad guys do, then ask all the players what they do, then roll initiative? Or do you roll initiative first the decide? Slowest to fastest? Fastest to slowest?

Seems like there would be issues with that(but there are issues with just about anything I guess).

You ALWAYS decide for the baddies and get player intent before any init. Init just determines the "jump off the line" and is useful for tie breaking when all else would be equal. Interaction happens based on logic.

Example:
15' ladder at a 10 degree angle up to loft (ladder sticks past loft floor by 5') with a goblin waiting at top with two PC's at bottom ready to come up? If the goblin is aware and not otherwise challenged he can push the ladder away (topple it) before the PC's get to top no matter his init roll.

[Daniel]

Example:
15' ladder at a 10 degree angle up to loft (ladder sticks past loft floor by 5') with a goblin waiting at top with two PC's at bottom ready to come up? If the goblin is aware and not otherwise challenged he can push the ladder away (topple it) before the PC's get to top no matter his init roll.

Side Comment: I like when a GM plays the monsters who have brains, like they use them.

[Back to Lurker Mode for me. ]

[Captain_K]

If it were that easy, scaling ladders would never have been used.. put enough beef on them and anchor the feet and physics is against you casually "pushing it off".. unless you can somehow slide it sideways.. but no one would put the ladder were it could easily slip off if they had any kind of choice.

[Daniel]

If it were that easy, scaling ladders would never have been used.. put enough beef on them and anchor the feet and physics is against you casually "pushing it off".. unless you can somehow slide it sideways.. but no one would put the ladder were it could easily slip off if they had any kind of choice.

And that is also why many castles had long poles with y yokes so that several defenders could combine push the ladder off the wall.

But now we are off topic I think.

[maximus]

So your idea is to decide for yourself what all the bad guys do, then ask all the players what they do, then roll initiative? Or do you roll initiative first the decide? Slowest to fastest? Fastest to slowest?

Seems like there would be issues with that(but there are issues with just about anything I guess).

You ALWAYS decide for the baddies and get player intent before any init. Init just determines the "jump off the line" and is useful for tie breaking when all else would be equal. Interaction happens based on logic.

Example:
15' ladder at a 10 degree angle up to loft (ladder sticks past loft floor by 5') with a goblin waiting at top with two PC's at bottom ready to come up? If the goblin is aware and not otherwise challenged he can push the ladder away (topple it) before the PC's get to top no matter his init roll.

This makes a lot of sense. I've been playing it as everyone rolls init and then just goes in order for the battle. Your example seems to be more realistic. I'll give it a try this weekend.

[GameOgre]

Having pc's and creatures being able to take actions regardless of what initiative they rolled doesn't really work though. Why bother rolling initiative then? How much can he do before his initiative comes up? Does it effect what he can do for the round? You completely removed, in your example, the pc's choices! Why couldn't one of the pc's at the bottom grab the ladder and hold it in place so the other pc could climb it?

Why couldn't one of the pc's at the bottom throw a dagger and kill the goblin before he could push it off? In your world that would be impossible? What the heck?


with EVERY critter and EVERY pc doing actions even outside of their initiative things can get confusing very fast.No matter your brilliance as a DM,your system doesn't work.


Nope ,he got to do it no matter what anyone else rolled for initiative.What about everyone else...WE ALL WANT TO DO THINGS BEFORE OUR INITIATIVE! WHO GETS TO GO FIRST?

In short,your idea on how to run a game doesn't work. It's horribly flawed and would only work in a vacuum or at least with your particular players. Mine would eat you for lunch.

[GameOgre]

Also not a fan of everyone gives their actions at the start of the round. It doesn't really help things as either you force people to waste their round if what they wanted to do doesn't work or you let them off the hook (with or without a penalty) and they do something else(in that case what was the point of making them declare at the start of the round?

This just doesn't work in practice. Well that's untrue. If the players are willing the DM can make anything work,it just doesn't work as well as the stated C&C rule.

[Captain_K]

I think initiative is tough, to say the least, mix into that things we don't normally do or experience, not the least of which is cast spells, and you have a serious soup of concerns and endless fodder for debate.

But it the end it is a game, a game where one person referees for several, but the goal is everyone is to have fun. Couple that BASIC goal with what even the slowest monkey knows, "Hey, that isn't fair!"

So call it abstract or realistic or whatever, but in the end each player wants his or her turn, a chance to shine (or run in fear), and since they're (usually) not against each other and they want a challenge, the monsters need their chance to attempt to kill the PCs, run away (they want to live too), etc.

In the end, take turns, and play.. everything else is window dressing and detail (yes I know a host of Devils live in the detail). ;}

[Arduin]

If it were that easy, scaling ladders would never have been used.

It IS that easy if you put the ladder as I wrote. Physics is wonderful but also horrible if you don't understand it. You'd probably start get the hang of it after a few of your PC's were chucked off the walls.

[Arduin]

So your idea is to decide for yourself what all the bad guys do, then ask all the players what they do, then roll initiative? Or do you roll initiative first the decide? Slowest to fastest? Fastest to slowest?

Seems like there would be issues with that(but there are issues with just about anything I guess).

You ALWAYS decide for the baddies and get player intent before any init. Init just determines the "jump off the line" and is useful for tie breaking when all else would be equal. Interaction happens based on logic.

Example:
15' ladder at a 10 degree angle up to loft (ladder sticks past loft floor by 5') with a goblin waiting at top with two PC's at bottom ready to come up? If the goblin is aware and not otherwise challenged he can push the ladder away (topple it) before the PC's get to top no matter his init roll.

This makes a lot of sense. I've been playing it as everyone rolls init and then just goes in order for the battle. Your example seems to be more realistic. I'll give it a try this weekend.

If you are an experienced GM who also knows the rules of the game you are running, it doesn't take long to get the hang of it.

[maximus]

So your idea is to decide for yourself what all the bad guys do, then ask all the players what they do, then roll initiative? Or do you roll initiative first the decide? Slowest to fastest? Fastest to slowest?

Seems like there would be issues with that(but there are issues with just about anything I guess).

You ALWAYS decide for the baddies and get player intent before any init. Init just determines the "jump off the line" and is useful for tie breaking when all else would be equal. Interaction happens based on logic.

Example:
15' ladder at a 10 degree angle up to loft (ladder sticks past loft floor by 5') with a goblin waiting at top with two PC's at bottom ready to come up? If the goblin is aware and not otherwise challenged he can push the ladder away (topple it) before the PC's get to top no matter his init roll.

This makes a lot of sense. I've been playing it as everyone rolls init and then just goes in order for the battle. Your example seems to be more realistic. I'll give it a try this weekend.

If you are an experienced GM who also knows the rules of the game you are running, it doesn't take long to get the hang of it.

Experienced yes, but rusty. I just started playing again after years away from gaming. I'm new to C&C but like the system much better than 2e and 3E D&D.

[Arduin]

So your idea is to decide for yourself what all the bad guys do, then ask all the players what they do, then roll initiative? Or do you roll initiative first the decide? Slowest to fastest? Fastest to slowest?

Seems like there would be issues with that(but there are issues with just about anything I guess).

You ALWAYS decide for the baddies and get player intent before any init. Init just determines the "jump off the line" and is useful for tie breaking when all else would be equal. Interaction happens based on logic.

Example:
15' ladder at a 10 degree angle up to loft (ladder sticks past loft floor by 5') with a goblin waiting at top with two PC's at bottom ready to come up? If the goblin is aware and not otherwise challenged he can push the ladder away (topple it) before the PC's get to top no matter his init roll.

This makes a lot of sense. I've been playing it as everyone rolls init and then just goes in order for the battle. Your example seems to be more realistic. I'll give it a try this weekend.

If you are an experienced GM who also knows the rules of the game you are running, it doesn't take long to get the hang of it.

Experienced yes, but rusty. I just started playing again after years away from gaming. I'm new to C&C but like the system much better than 2e and 3E D&D.

C&C is easier to play & GM than D&D IMO. That rust will fall away pretty quickly I imagine.

[mbeacom]

So I was watching a 5E D&D DM run a game at a comic/rpg store and he used house rules that reminded me of classic D&D(house rules maybe?). I really like his jury rigged system a lot as it solved several issues I have always had with tabletop games.

This is my take on his system and what it seemed like to me.

Everyone rolled one Initiative per fight with a D20 modified by Dex and other factors(I know at least the guy with the Great Axe talked about the negative mod to his Init.

Then the initiative went like this.

Missile Combat- Resolved in Order
Movement- Resolved in Order
Melee Combat- Resolved in Order
Magic Casting- Resolved in Order.

While I was watching nobody held initiative so if it allows such actions I am not sure how.

They used miniatures and the battles seemed to flow MUCH better.

Have you guys ever used a system like this? Or even seen one? Was it Classic D&D or Swords and Wizardry? I know I have seen it before but not sure where.

What do you think of it? Can you think of reasons it would negatively effect C&C?

This is roughly similar to the action resolution list in the 1E DMG, which lists ranged attacks, spells, movement and melee as different parts of the puzzle as far has how to resolve things more granularly. The list you've mentioned is nearly verbatim that which I've seen in several modern retroclones and simulacra (S&W Complete uses it). Some people and games may benefit from this and enjoy the extra control and simulation. Others may find it offputting and overly minute in its detail. I don't find it any more "realistic", nor more contrived than other schemes. I think it's all a matter of taste.

[alcyone]

No matter how you are doing initiative, no one is just standing around waiting to go next. Each action within a round happens in order, but the time it takes isn't necessarily non-concurrent with other actions in the round. The round has a set amount of time because of spells and the need to measure overall time, but actions within a round aren't necessarily even slices within it. As far as chases, many games have additional rules so that chases don't need to be resolved using the initiative rules; other factors such as speed, exhaustion, tripping up, getting lost, etc. are more important than who goes first and how far they went during the round.

What matters really isn't the overall sequence of events but between any individual people or groups in a round who are actually affecting one another, which one goes first. Even that isn't necessarily important unless one of their actions can prevent the other's. Such as killing them or putting them asleep. Two melee combatants who can't do enough damage in a round to kill one another may as well go at the same time if all they are doing is swinging swords, for instance.

I've tried doing things that way, drawing little graphs of who was fighting whom, and it works, but nothing is really as simple as a countdown. I think Arduin is right, too, you can use your judgement and common sense and use the initiative roll only to decide when no combatant has a clear speed advantage.

You shouldn't feel like you need to do things how C&C prescribes. OD&D had no clear initiative system at all (unless you were using Chainmail.) Holmes says little on the subject but it's basically grouping the pairs that are going to be in contact and using d6 as necessary. Classic D&D had phased initiative; d6 per side and on a side and an order of actions to prevent certain ambiguities. It also allowed per-individual initiative as an alternative. AD&D has a very complex system, but really only when surprise is involved, or when weapon speed is a factor (see http://www.dragonsfoot.org/files/other/ADDICT.zip). The C&C system is perhaps most like 3.5/Pathfinder without different action types (standard/move/immediate/free/full/swift etc.) and with withdrawal rules more similar to RC and no "attack of opportunity". Given how little initiative is discussed in OD&D, I don't think it was intended to be the most important thing in combat; DMs were supposed to do as they judged to be right and keep things moving.

For a more AD&D like system that could work with C&C, look at "A Curious Volume of Forgotten Lore" by BRW Games.

Declaration of Intent before initiative removes most ambiguities. Think of wargames where players have to write down all of their actions on a notecard and hand them to the referee. This is a tried and true method and one of the reasons referees exist in modern gaming. A secret ballot isn't necessary in C&C because usually all of the players are cooperating and the honest DM has already determined the monster actions independently of the players (but if using a system without declaration, the DM might well decide on the monsters turn, just as the players react to things that went earlier in the round.)

[Captain_K]

The physics of your problem does make a 4' tall Goblin really have to be right on the edge to push or hold past vertical (in your problem the ladder is only about 1.72 feet back from vertical assuming your 10 degrees is off the vertical). A 6' tall person can barely lean over and push 3' out (just did it myself). So let's assume your 4' goblin can push no more than 2', past that it is very likely to fall after the ladder goes. 9.922' of ladder climb should happen in one round or less. Right there I would say initiative matters in a "daring climb" of 9.77 feet up a 9.922' ladder face; you could do that darn fast. Let's assume he does not push an empty ladder, but one guy gets on to the middle, at the initial 10 degrees a 200# man in the middle only exerts about 18#... So a Goblin should be able to push a single man in the middle over backwards but that is an action just like climbing (jumping?) 4.4 feet up a ladder, heck a 6' man is going to start nearly 3' up on his first step. Plus the fall from 4.4 feet is pretty trivial... even if the goblin waited till the first guy was on top and the second in the middle the force is only about 53#.. not sure if that's too much for a goblin to bench press or not.

So strength to move, no problem, arm length to push past vertical.. shaky, but speed to climb such a short height vs speed to push the ladder also pretty tight.

Now, let's assume the second try or even the initial is done with some smarts (guys setting the ladder are not so silly in their placement or simply get a second chance at it after the first push over (possibly the mage give them some advice). So let's kick that ladder back for the second try so only 1' is above the loft. Its about a 45 degree angle (which makes the climb a bit longer, 14') BUT the little Goblin would have to lift or push out 100# AND at 2' out of the edge it would never tip over... That gets to 200# when fighter #1 on top and 300# when second is in the middle.. way past Goblin strength I think.

Thus the physics of scaling ladders is simple, "Ladders should be 1.5 times LONGER than the height to climb" to stop all attempts to flip you back off. That my friend is physics (well statics - sum of the moments equal zero and a bit of trig). Now a team of goblins with "pushing hooks", that's another story. Just burn the loft down or shoot them when they try for the ladder ;}

[Arduin]

The physics of your problem does make a 4' tall

Back to school of common sense & physics you go. The human climbing in pulling the ladder's center of gravity away.

[Captain_K]

I'm afraid not, the higher he gets the more horizontal wall force is exerted on the wall. Sum the moments around the base support. There are now two forces: 1) weight down and wall exerting a horizontal reactive force. Weight pulls straight down times its arm which is the distance from the vertical reaction or support or simply where the ladder touches the ground to the cg or weight center of the climber (this distance gets longer as you get closer to the top or wall) and that must balance, to be in static equilibrium, with the horizontal force the wall exerts times its acting arm which is the vertical height (this does not change). So when you first start climbing this is the "initial condition" or time with the least load against the wall, when the climber nears the top this will be the end condition or time when the wall support feels the most load.

Do this thought experiment, a horizontal ladder between two end supports, you start walking across the ladder, that end support takes nearly all your weight, in the middle its even weight to each support and as you near the far end the load is on that far end support. Now slowly incline that ladder from horizontal to an ever increasing angle... you still must shift the load from one end to the other.

The only way your above statement is correct is if the 10 degree you're noting is a backward overhanging ladder they must hang from to climb... but that would be too silly.

I'm NOT trying to be snotty or rude, but you are flat out wrong. Below are some worked out problems, I've assumed frictional force on the floor is high enough not to be the issue. I'm pretty good at physics, statics, and trig, my credentials for this discussion are a PhD in Mech Engr, 27 years in the aerospace field designing the mounts that hold commercial jet engines onto the aircraft, plus teaching engineering on the side for 10+ years.

http://www.physics-online.info/book1/ch ... m2B-14.htm

http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/c ... %20wall%22

Please show your work to prove your new theory of physics

[mbeacom]

I'm afraid not, the higher he gets the more horizontal wall force is exerted on the wall. Sum the moments around the base support. There are now two forces: 1) weight down and wall exerting a horizontal reactive force. Weight pulls straight down times its arm which is the distance from the vertical reaction or support or simply where the ladder touches the ground to the cg or weight center of the climber (this distance gets longer as you get closer to the top or wall) and that must balance, to be in static equilibrium, with the horizontal force the wall exerts times its acting arm which is the vertical height (this does not change). So when you first start climbing this is the "initial condition" or time with the least load against the wall, when the climber nears the top this will be the end condition or time when the wall support feels the most load.

Do this thought experiment, a horizontal ladder between two end supports, you start walking across the ladder, that end support takes nearly all your weight, in the middle its even weight to each support and as you near the far end the load is on that far end support. Now slowly incline that ladder from horizontal to an ever increasing angle... you still must shift the load from one end to the other.

The only way your above statement is correct is if the 10 degree you're noting is a backward overhanging ladder they must hang from to climb... but that would be too silly.

I'm NOT trying to be snotty or rude, but you are flat out wrong. Below are some worked out problems, I've assumed frictional force on the floor is high enough not to be the issue. I'm pretty good at physics, statics, and trig, my credentials for this discussion are a PhD in Mech Engr, 27 years in the aerospace field designing the mounts that hold commercial jet engines onto the aircraft, plus teaching engineering on the side for 10+ years.

http://www.physics-online.info/book1/ch ... m2B-14.htm

http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/c ... %20wall%22

Please show your work to prove your new theory of physics