[X] My Assistant

[Moon-Hawk]

I remember them saying that they based it off Champions. (which I've never played)

[Joe Outside]

I personally find SR3 initiative rules to be both balanced and realistic. The problem is with the visualization.

[Moon-Hawk]

But that's a question of how fast do you think someone with wired reflexes 3 really is?
If you don't think the sammy really moves that much faster, then why should everyone get one turn and then wait around while sammy takes four more actions?
I don't think SR3 or SR2 init is any more realistic than the other. They just miss the mark on opposite sides.

[Dashifen]

I've always wanted to use the method that Stumps metioned above (I even call it the Cain/Stumps Initiative System in my book o' house rules) but I've never worked with a group to try it.

[Stumps]

holy crap!
Someone out there still remembers that arcayne(sp...about to fall over dead tired) ruleset?
Wow...I'm flattered just by that alone.

[Bigity]

So what about some kind of system like 40k, where the shooting and fighting is all rolled one at a time, but is resolved, or takes places at the same time at end of the turn.

[Joe Outside]

[Stumps]

This diagram style works best for describing things to folks who have the idea that everyone sits and waits to start moving.
([----] = time elapsed for one action)

SR3 Standard Initiative:
Slow Guy:......[----------------------------------------] [----------------------------------------]

Medium Guy:..[----------------------] [----------------------] [----------------------]

Fast Guy:.......[------------------] [------------------] [------------------]


SR2 Standard Initiative:
Slow Guy:...............[----------------------------------------] [----------------------------------------]

Medium Guy:.......[----------------------] [----------------------] [----------------------]

Fast Guy:.......[------------------] [------------------] [------------------]


My personal view of combat speeds:
Slow Guy:........[----------------------------------------] [----------------------------------------]

Medium Guy:........[----------------------] [----------------------] [----------------------]

Fast Guy:.................[------------------] [------------------] [------------------]


SR3 basically says everyone starts at the same time but takes longer to accomplish actions.

SR2 says that everyone takes different amounts of time to react and start their actions

My idea of it all is that the faster guys more or less, react to actions started by the slower characters.

[Joe Outside]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I ws trying to say. Thanks.

And I can see what you're getting at, too. It makes sense, but I still see it the other way, myself. Which is all right, really. It'd be boring if everybody agreed all the time.

[mmu1]

[Ol' Scratch]

I think the best thing to do is combine the various rules into one set.

Basically, you start off with SR2's system and then incorporate SR3's philosphy of allowing everyone a chance to affect a scenario. Everyone determines Initiative as per the standard rules. However, instead of starting with the highest number, working down, then subtracting ten, you start with the lowest number and count upwards until everyone gets a phase. At that point, everyone subtracts ten from their roll and continue until no one has any more phases remaining.

This is where we borrow the concept seen in Cain's and other similar systems. While the slower character gets to declare his action first, anyone with a higher Initiative roll than that character can "interupt" the slower character. At that point, the slower character's action is "locked" -- he can't change it in order to respond to the new situation, because he simply can't react as quickly as the faster character can.

The interupting character must then declare his action (at which point it, too, becomes locked). If anyone with a higher Initiative roll wishes to do so, they can in turn interupt that character. Continue until no more interuptions are declared.

At this point, the highest interuption resolves his phase. If his action(s) during that phase change the situation so that one of the characters he interupted can no longer complete their action (the interupting character dives behind an impenetrable wall to avoid a shot from the slower character), the slower character effectively "loses" his action.

Once the slow character and any interupting characters have finished resolving their actions, the next slowest character who didn't interupt gets to declare their action. If anyone else still has an action remaining this phase wishes to interupt, repeat the cycle.

Continue until everyone has declared and resolved their action. Once they have, subtract 10 from everyone's Initiative and repeat as per the standard rules.

It adds a little more complication and bookkeeping to the scenario, but it's a tad bit more believable in its results as far as I'm concerned.

[Bane]

It's all about your interpretation (that sounds familiar...) when it comes to which style is most believable. I like the sound of some of the suggestions put up (the Cain one and Doc Funk's alternative especially). It's a fantastic balance between the wired-to-hell Sammy blowing everyone away before they can even move and, well, fairness is bad term for it, but I think you get what I mean.

On the other hand, though, some people may view these wired folks to be more reckless and hence not reacting to what other people are doing. At least, not to the extent that some of these systems would allow. The books talk about characters with WR being twitchy, jumpy, prone to reacting without thinking, etc. In a fight, I can see one of these characters just blowing everyone away, uncaring of what they do. Hell, it's almost more of a roleplaying nitpick that can be extrapolated to how combat is handled. In one case the character is using his enhanced reaction speed to react to and counter other characters' actions, while in the other case he's using his enhanced reactions to just...go faster, and perhaps recklessly.

I'm not saying one is better, or more realistic, than the other. Just something to think about.

[Dashifen]

[Stumps]

Doc did sum it up very well indeed.

Here's what I believe is a better example of Cain's (and mine with help from others like thunderchild and many more) Initiative system in concept.

Now make note of the system I mentioned above. It IS actually different than the prior Cain's Intiative system but it works the same concepts. I simply tried to simplify it and fix a few things.

REMEMBER: players only get HALF of their passes, rounded up, as interrupts.

ERRATA: I made a serious error in the above posting of this system.
You do not simply resolve starting from the lowest Initiative number to the highest.
You resolve from the slowest player to the fastest. This is a little tricky to explain.
If a mage has 2 passes and the sammie has 3, the Mage will go first no matter if the sammies lowest valued pass is lower in numerical value than the Mage's.
(Forget that the numbers mean anything for a moment here)
Now if we have the Mage, the sammie, and a gaurd that look like:
Mage: 3, 13
Gaurd: 2, 12
Sammie: 1, 11, 21

The mage and the gaurd have the same amount of turns but when this happens, the player with the lowest Initiative goes first, which would be the Gaurd.
Following him will be the Mage, then the Sammie, Gaurd, Mage, Sammie, Sammie.

Now, to bring out the idea more directly that the actions are on going, and since the present system states that we minus 10 from each valued pass to produce the next passes arrival, we are going to say that a simple action is equal to 5 Initiative Value passes (whether a player goes on those values or not) and a complex action is equal to 10 Intiative Value passes.
Now, if you have an Intiative on 3 you will actually roll your first simple action on 8 and your second simple action on 13, right before you start your next action.
However, you will have declared your actions on 3 and 8 for everyone else faster than you to "see".

Now If I have an Intiative on 5, I will actually roll my first simple action on 10, which is 2 passes after your first pass and my second action will be rolled on 15, again 2 passes after your action but my first simple action will be before your second simple action and my second simple action will be after your entire pass.

This is where I have the ability to "F&%^ you up" as I will be shooting at you and have the chance to add modifiers from damage to your second action that will be on 13 when I'm shooting at you on 10.

If one players action roll lands on another players action start then the roll will be resolved before the other player starts their action.

If you are a Mage and you are hit while you are casting a spell, you still cast your Spell or magic if you generate ONE (read, two dice) successes with your Willpower against a Target Number equal to the power rating of the attack.


Did I lose anyone on this??

[Stumps]

My brain is hurting again...I must be re-working Intiative systems for shadowrun again :grinbig:

Ok...the above one is one way I've been recently thinking about.

This is another.

Shadowrun describes a Round as 3 seconds.

(bare with me)
Until I can convert the basic rolling of Initiative I'm going with the following start up to find Intiative.

Roll Initiative and count the rounds that each player earns and track the order of who is in front of who in numerical order. (I really want to replace this to fit better)

Now, if you have, let's say, 3 passes you will divide that by 3 seconds.
This will give you a result of 1.
This means that this player will perform a complex action every 1 second, or rather, he will perform a simple action every 0.5 seconds.

If you have 2 passes, you will again divide by 3 seconds.
This will give you a result of 1.5.
This means that this player will perform a complex action every 1.5 seconds, or rather, he will perform a simple action every 0.75 seconds.

If you only had 1 pass this round, you will be doing one complex action in 3 seconds, or rather two simple actions in 1.5 seconds.


"So how the hell are we supposed to track this crap if we start using seconds?"
.........2 Passes.....3 Passes
3.0.......__...............__
2.75.....##..............##
2.50.....##..............##
2.25.....##..............##
2.0.......##..............__
1.75.....##..............##
1.50.....__...............##
1.25.....##..............##
1.0.......##..............__
0.75.....##..............##
0.50.....##..............##
0.25.....##..............##
0.0xxxxxx

If you had 2 passes you would claim it on 0.25 and act on 1.5, and claim again on 1.75 and act on 3.0 if both your passes were complex actions.

There's much unfinished with this however.

I really have to go back and rip SR's A$$h@le open again and find out how to convert "(Quickness + Intelligence) / 2 = Reaction" into some easy form of second addition or the like.
Then I have to go into the Dice Rolling and figure out what the dice rolls add up to in seconds.

Then I have to come back to this nice clean graph above and add more intervals between the blocky 0.25 and 0.50 distance in time.
Off hand...I'm guessing it to be in 0.05 incriments.

[DarkShade]

hmm.. like the idea.. as it solves the `time to move`issue that was such a non issue in sr2..but is one in sr3.. examples..combat drone rigged init 32 wants to get into the riggers apc .. will it make it and will the rigger be able to close the door before the guard in 12 launches a grenade through the open door?.. Will adept init 28 be able to reach & chop at mage initiative 21 & 5 m away before the mage floors the adept with a stun bolt?, will street sammie be able to get into cover behind the bins 5m away before the enemy combat drone fires its 15 d barrage?
these are vital to sr3 as <at least in my games> they happen fairly often, so who is doing what WHEN is needed in more detail.
When the order is first guy init 31 then guy init 7 then 3x times the init 31 guy... it just does not work properly.


btw has anyone ever attempted using the basic sr2 initiative system but adding a die to everyones base initiative? this would give all unaugmented avg 2 actions and might give runners an extra action now and then but balance might be a bit better <3-4 actions/runner vs 2 actions /unaugmented makes initiative less über important which is what the sr3 system tries to do imho >
DS

[Shockwave_IIc]

House Rule: Modified SLA Industries System

[Arethusa]

I wrote up a variant on the SLA Industries (or was it Champions? I don't recall, exactly) concept (basically, took it from the last Big Thread On Initiative and refined it). I'll post it here when I get home.

[Cray74]

[GaiasWrath8]

Umm I forgot, it a full combat round 10 seconds or a min? Just trying to get a feel for the time thing.

[Ol' Scratch]

Approximately 3 seconds. Or are you talking about one of the other systems?

[hobgoblin]

personaly i dont have a problem with SR3's system at all, atleast it gives the others a bigger chance of survival (and makes the sammie pack more then wired to avoid getting hurt).

still, im wondering about a system where a free, simple or complex action costs you points. points are what you rolled on the initiative test. lets say that free costs you 1, simple costs you 5 and complex costs you 10.

after everyone have rolled the gm starts counting down from the highest initiative. when its your turn you can elect to take any action, substracting the cost and thereby getting when you can act next time. you can allso elect to hold your action, and you as a optional rule you can take a free action any time, thereby dropping your points by 1.

when holding a action you can only react to a action with a another action of equal or lower level, so no going full auto based on someone shouting a word (or if you prefer a very lethal game, go ahead and allow any action as a reaction). after action is done you calculate your new place in the chain based on the current count.

ties are resolved based on reaction stat...

and yes, this is basicly the same system as used in feng shui, with modifications to insert sr style actions.

hmm, another option could be that you can burn as many rounds as you feel like in full auto but every 10 round beyond the first 10 costs you another 1 point in the chain...

[Moon-Hawk]

Hmmm, a bit more flexibility, that's good. I don't really see any major points of abuse. All the rules still work normally. Well, MBW gets weird, but we can hardly determine merit based on one very wacky bit of gear. I guess things are a touch more cumbersome, but not significantly. Your free actions are less free, I'm not sure how much I like that.
Overall, I think it's a very interesting idea. Also, in a wild-west time "DRAW!" situation then the initiative winner might only get one shot, instead of the faster automatically getting two, I definitely like that better. Hmmmm.

[hobgoblin]

heh, that made me think of a potential problem. what is the diff of single shot and semi-auto weapons in a system like that?

oh and free actions are never realy free, you can only take one at any given moment in the official system.

heh, and i just got thinking about the nasty diff between a smartlinked gun and a non-smartlinked one in that system...

there are clearly some modifications to be done...

[Moon-Hawk]

My thoughts:
Single shot you can't take two simple actions to fire the weapon in a row. Some other simple or complex action has to come in the middle.

Free actions are certainly a bit different. In general, you'll be able to act less than in the current system. In the current system you can still take a complex action if your init score is 1, and you get several free actions that are, well, free. In this proposed system it'd be a bit different, but I'm not sure how you'd want to handle that.

The difference between smartlinked and non is certainly significant, but not game-shattering, in my opinion.