Why IPs?, ...and no jokes about my soycaf addiction, please. Options

[MikeKozar]

I was watching Iron Man 2 last night, and really enjoyed the scene where the secret agent KOs a dozen security guards. However, it did remind me of one of the issues I have with Shadowrun - the IP system.

The basic premise is fine - faster things get to go more often then slower things. The implementation leaves something to be desired, however - during IP 1, everybody gets a turn to make one action. After everybody has had a turn, the faster people go again.

This is easy to illustrate in a cinematic fashion. Let's look at gunfighters - in a one-on-one fight, where a hit is lethal and neither is expected to miss, the gunfighter who 'wins initiative' and is quicker on the draw will walk away.

Now, consider that one hero gunfighter is up against two slower enemy gunfighters, and the hero is fast enough to go twice. In an IP system, the hero will kill one enemy, who won't get a turn, and then the second enemy will kill the hero. The first gunfighter won't survive to use his second IP.

Conversely, if we imagine a system where people with multiple IPs instead get multiple actions on their initiative order, the quicker gunfighter will win initiative and then fire twice, and walk away alive.

We could even replicate this 'faster first' using the Shadowrun's IP system if we flipped the order - IP 3, IP 2, then IP 1. This maintains some of the advantages of simultanious IPs while increasing the power level of the wired reflexes up to a more cinematic level.

That greater power level is the only argument I can imagine against 'fastest first' instead of 'fastest again'. It makes sams who traded their soul for Wired-3 incredibly lethal killing machines, and they will tear through half of a go-gang before the unaugmented bastards even draw their guns.

My question is, is that wrong?