They wouldn't necessarily always go first. If they have lower reaction/intuition for example. Also even the person with one pass is getting the +2 for free, and most runners will probably have 2 IPs, so it won't make that huge of a difference. Right now +3 reaction is effectively +4 initiative score (3 to initiative, 1 average success on dice). Of course that bonus could be lowered to just number of initiative passes as a bonus to initiative, if 2x is indeed too high in practice.

I simply have never seen a realistic context where that kind of exact movement has been necessary. For almost all cases, (total movement) during (full combat turn) is fine.

I'm fine with decoupling Reaction from Initiative a little bit (for augmentations), but it of course makes sense to have them related. The guy who moves like Neo *can* dodge better.

And right now, those with multiple passes always go first anyway. Hence the issue.

Divide by the passes the person has, reach Destination at HIS next pass/end of turn.

Lets say Jack the rabbit has a movementspeed of 12 (to lazy to look up the numbers) (We remember he had 3 passes and INI 24)
So in his first pass he moves 12/3=4 meters and his movement ends at INI 12, when he can start his next action.

Did I miss anything? Did not seem complex to me...

The idea is, that every player is handled individually. First it sounds more komplex but now you just have to count down one time.
(It is not like: What this was pass 3? Did I get my thired pass?)

The exact movement typically matters in chase scenes. The biggest issue comes up when you have a 4IP person chasing a 1 IP person. 1 IP person takes his move, moves a full 25 meters and ducks around a corner, while the 4IP person spends the next 4 passes moving 6 meters per pass trying to catch up. You need to have it divided up so everyone moves at roughly the same rate/time to make things like that make sense. (in the above scenario, you'd instead have both participants moving about 6 meters per pass, but the 4IP guy getting more shots off before the 1IP guy can make it around the corner.



Maybe. But IPs are something people already really want to buy. And reaction is something people already really want. Packaging them together always basically removes choice, because pretty much everyone will get them both one way or the other. I could be convinced this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I tend towards thinking attribute augmentations should be separate from other augmentations.




Well like I mentioned, increasing the unified condition monitor does allow for more rugged characters, but also makes it nearly impossible for anyone to be dropped in one.

I do agree that having an attack that does less damage knock somebody out when if it had done a couple points more it would have done physical and left you fine isn't good, and earlier (like last page) I did put forth a house rule I already use: When the damage is below armor, it gets transfered at half and half rather than in full. So a guy with more armor actually does stay up effectively twice as long, though taking much higher penalties. Someone with less armor takes the full physical and goes down quickly.

The only downside I'm seeing to this post is where that quote came from, so I can reply to it directly, as I have no idea WHAT system the one being referenced is.

So basically the character doesn't move at all until his next pass comes up? That seems even more awkward to be perfectly honest. Or are you wanting to constantly calculate how far they've made it each pass, which is way more intensive. I'm just not seeing how it resolves simply in a way that makes any sense.

The system he was referencing is you move in initiative count order, divide your initiative count by 2 for every pass you have until you run out of actions.

Ah ha.

And yeah, it doesn't have a reliable indicator of how far you move in a given moment.

That will sometimes prevent it from happening, but not if the PC already has substantial Stun damage but no Physical damage. (Which isn't all that implausible, with Drain for example, or SnS/tasers.)

I'm not exactly sure what you want; do you want rugged characters who can still be dropped in one? Isn't that contradictory?

Another nice advantage of a unified condition monitor is that trolls don't fear Stun more than Physical anymore.

What I want ideally:
-Shadowrunners/player characters in general tough enough to take 2 or 3 hits before going down, with characters built specifically towards being tough lasting a bit longer than that.
-Characters (mostly lower quality NPCs, but also PCs who don't take care to protect themselves from being squishy) capable of being dropped in one burst.


The problem as you note is that the two are somewhat contradictary.

This simply doesn't happen. By RAW, it takes Mr. 1 the full Combat Turn (4 IPs) to duck around the corner; Mr. 4 already, RAW, gets the chance to shoot him the whole time.

Yes, by RAW the character moves 1/4 his movement speed per pass, getting it to work as you described.

Or are you saying the way it actually works is 1 IP guy stays exactly where he is on his turn, and his movement doesn't have any effect until his next turn? Because in that case it's just as odd, but the other way around.



However we were discussing an alternative system, where initiative passes aren't clearly defined, so you can't just say "Everyone move on initiative pass", because the initiative passes are incredibly fluid. This is great for everything EXCEPT calculating movement.

When I complained about this, the answer I got was "When does this level of precision movement matter" to which I responded with that example.


To give an example in the context of the proposed system: You have two guys. One has 3 intuition, 9 reaction, 3 IPs. One has 3 intuition, 4 reaction, 2 IP.


Guy 1 has an initiative score of 15 on average, guy 2 has an initiative score of 9 on average. So actions look like this:


15-Guy 1 acts
9-Guy 2 acts
8-Guy 1 Acts
5-Guy 2 Acts
4-Guy 1 Acts
2-Guy 1 Acts



Now, looking at this, where would you say you determine people are moving? On Guy 1's initiatve passes? If so then consider this example:


Guy 1 has 3 IPs, but an initiatve score of 18. Guy 2 has 4 IPs but only an initiative score of 16

So instead you have:
18-Guy 1 Acts
16-Guy 2 Acts
9-Guy 1 Acts
8-Guy 2 acts
5-Guy 1 acts
4-Guy 2 acts
2-Guy 2 acts

So now do you make movement happen on guy 1's passes? Or Guy 2's passes since he has 4? Or do we make movement happen on your own pass, and extrapolate out where your extra passes would be if you didn't have them? Actually now that I think about that that may work. It would lead towards a lot of movement being at the very end of the initiative track though. Not sure if that's a bad thing or not.


I ask this because yes, it is important to know where a person is at any given point in a combat turn, and having people move at different rates is wonky. So a new initiative system needs to take that into account and have some way.


Edit: Honestly though, just using the 3 IP system where everyone acts on 2nd pass, 2 and 3 IP people act on 3rd, and 3 IP acts on first pass, is more intuitive and easier to deal with, even if it is a bit less fluid.

Well, PCs will tend to have somewhat more impressive Body ratings, leading to both more boxes on the Condition Monitor and a higher Armor rating. The difference in Damage Resistance tests should really start adding up. (And the difference in evasion/Reaction, too.)

Another option: let minor NPCs check Composure everytime they suffer Knockown from something scary, like gunfire. If they fail it, they prefer to lie down and play dead, or slink away. Because getting shot down tends to make people wonder if they're really getting paid enough for this.

You don't have to kill someone to make them lose the will to fight.

My point: we don't need this weird two-track system.

Oh, Seerow, I didn't realize you were suggesting a movement system for a 'fluid IP' variant. Per the existing movement rules and the existing IP system, there are two options. By default, (1) your total movement is evenly distributed across the entire Turn: Mr. 1 declares his intention to run around the corner, but he's not fully there until the very end. Optionally, you can (2) calculate exact distances on a per-IP basis, yes.

Still, my answer remains that 'total movement per total Turn' is plenty of detail 99% of the time. This should work fine with the fluid IP system.

Initiative, Movement, and the Phase System

I like the idea that only those with the best augmentations get to automatically act before anyone else.

The movement problem is an interesting one, but I think the best way to solve it is to change how we perceive initiative passes. Instead of being treated like full turns with movement, they should be considered brief periods of opportunity for those with the reflexes to take them.

For discussion purposes, let's call this the Phase System, to differentiate it from others.

So, each combat turn is broken into three phases:

Preemptive Phase
Normal Phase
Cleanup Phase

The Preemptive Phase occurs before the Normal Phase and lasts only a fraction of a second. Those with two levels of reaction enhancers may take two simple actions during the Preemptive Phase. Characters acting in this phase may move up to one meter. This does not count as part of their normal movement rate.

The Normal Phase is where most of the action takes place. Everyone gets two simple actions, and characters may move up to their movement rate.

The Cleanup Phase occurs after the Normal Phase and lasts for only a fraction of a second. Those with one level of reaction enhancers may take two simple actions during the Cleanup Phase. Characters acting in this phase may move up to one meter. This does not count as part of their normal movement rate.


Some basic thoughts on this system:

1. Characters with reaction enhancement can move slightly further per combat round than those without. I have no problem with this, and it keeps things simple.

2. Augmentations could specifically state which phase they let characters act in, as an option.

3. I wouldn't mind limiting the Preemptive Phase and the Cleanup Phase to a single simple action each. Alternatively, one level of reaction enhancement might give you a single simple action in both phases, whereas two levels would give you two simple actions or one complex action in each.



Stun Damage and Damage Tracks

One thing I really like about the current two track system is that it nicely simulates how almost every non-lethal weapon in existence will sometimes kill a target anyway, particularly if the target is frail. Just like a fistfight is more likely to render you unconscious than kill you, but it's possible to beat a man to death.

I do agree, though, that overcasting needs some work.

The issue is that I'm talking about non-lethal 'weapons' that *aren't* in existence: magic, cinematic knockout gas, etc. (Tasers do exist, and strictly speaking won't kill a 'normal' person in an additive way, so they also count.)

One way to make overcasting truly dangerous could be to have it deal BOTH Physical and Stun damage. That neatly gets rid of the "My stun is almost full, so I'll overcast" problem and makes it even less of a good idea.

Yeah, I like that. Someone else suggested it above.

Speaking of dodge, that reminds me...

...were we thinking of dumping the dodge attribute entirely, or simply making it so that gymnastics is not mechanically superior? Because right now there is seriously no reason to take dodge at all when another attribute does everything it can do, does more, and is easier to augment to boot.


Yup, that was me.


My fear is that we are rapidly starting to swing back to the overly-complicated side of things, especially with all this talk of partial actions and whatnot. Also, trying to nail down how long each phase really lasts is not going to end well, and neither will move-one-meter-pseudo-AOO-mechanic. Shadowrun simply doesn't lend itself well to tactical, battlemap-style play. I realize I'm sounding like a broken record here, but you do have to embrace the abstraction.

I will give you props for coming up with the first genuinely interesting initiative possibility that I've heard in a while though. *grins*

My follow up question though would be how people would price that as an augmentation? Linear, increasing, or decreasing? Or to put it another way, is going from 1IP to 2IP more, less, or equally valuable compared to going from 2IP to 3IP?

Thoughts?

I vote for dumping gymnastic dodge personally.





Assuming this is going with the 3 IP system that was proposed earlier and not one of the more complicated ones: I figure getting to 2 IPs should be relatively cheap and easy, and be the assumed default for your average runner. Average joe on the street might only have 1, but someone working the shadows is going to have 2. Getting your 3rd IP is a bigger deal, costing more than just double, probably closer to triple, what the 2nd costs.

Seriously: screw GymDodge in the face.

I agree with this.



I didn't really make the Phase System more complicated than before, I just specified how movement works within it, whereas that was assumed before.

Functionally, I wanted all movement to be handled during the Normal Phase because that's nice and simple, but I wanted speedy characters to be able to take a step to make an attack without penalty.

This is like that in any system? You finish your movement in the next IP. Where you are in a given moment, if it should ever be important, is up to the GM.
The only difference would be, that due to the fact I am counting down INI this is easyer to do.

With dividing by 4 how is a guy with 3 passes supposed to move at all?
Lets say he has movement of 12. This means he is able to move 4 per Pass.
If he moves in his first pass, where is he in his second pass?


Oh and one additional thing:
Zone-system for armor and hits. I guess it is even easier than always wonder how this special armor mod is now to apply and if you are able to bypass armor etc. etc.

Easy, he is 4 meters further along than in the 1st Pass.

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
So he would move 16 at the end of turn?
Maybe I got Seerow wrong, but thought he wanted to handle movement always in 4 turns...

Right, movement should always happen each pass so you always know where the character is.


So if you have 12 movement, you go 3 meters every pass, whether you have an IP that turn or not. If you have 1 IP, you go 3 meters each pass, even passes you don't have an action on most of them. If you have 4 IPs, you go 3 meters every pass.



What was proposed with the 3 pass system is to make the full turn's movement always happen on the second phase (the normal phase), with an extra 1m of movement for people with the extra passes. I could agree with that as well.



The problem with something as flexible as divide your init by 2 until you run out of passes is that one person can be taking a second pass before somone else has had their first, so how do you handle movement in a scenario like that? With things being standardized it is much easier to handle.

If you got more than twice the ini of someone else, you should get the edge, as fas as I am concerned.

It is not hard to handle, because every player can handle his own movement. So you always know exactly when and where the movment started and when and where it ends.
So if it really should become important where the person is standing exactly, I just take the differance in INI and possition and can calculate where the player is at each given INI-value.
(I just can't think of any situation where it would be important to do so.)

"Did the guy make it before cover before his enemy started shooting him?" "Did you manage to make it out of the building before that bomb detonated?" "Can you get to that grenade to scoop it up and throw it before it goes off?"


There's a lot of situations where knowing exactly where you are does mean something. Personally I'm inclined towards a system where handling that is simple and easy to figure out, as opposed to one where you have to go out of your way to calculate where you are.

No, he would move 12. He had three passes. If there were 4 passses, he would move 3 meters per pass, again for 12.

But to really make that work, you need battle mats and maps with distance . This intrudes upon the story that is being told.

You don't need a battle mat. Hell my group frequently has a hastilly sketched drawing on a piece of paper with letters identifying where we are.

But yes, to deal with combat you typically need to know where you are and where other people are, if it's possible to move to negate their cover, if you're in range of that stunball being targeted on your teammate, etc. These things do matter, and are assumed to matter by the rules. Sure you can handwave it, but the core system should not be assuming that you do so.

Aside from it being awesome if it goes right, do people really try this in the real world, and does it ever end well?

I have no idea if people do it in real life, but it is incredibly awesome and cinematic, and there are rules for scooping up a grenade for throwing it back, so it is a scenario I'd expect to come up in a game.

In fact it DID come up in one of our games fairly recently. (Sadly I was not close enough to do so. Alas)



That said, even if you don't like that example "Can I run away from the grenade before it goes off" actually is a pretty important question, because every meter you get away from the grenade reduces its effectiveness. So exactly how far you can get before the detonation really matters.

@Seerow

I do not see your problem with "personal IP".

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
Alright. You lost me.
Lets say we have one G4 (guy with for passes) and G3 both have the same INI and are running side by side.
If I get you right it would be:
First pass:
G4: 3m
G3: 4m
2. Pass:
G4: 6m
G3: 8m
3. Pass
G4 9m
G3 12m
4. Pass
G4 12m
G3 12m

@Battle maps
Maps are quite helpfull, because it cuts the discussion of "where am I and how did I get there". So even a fast drawing is helpful.
Of course it depends on how many player you handle. The more, the better you are off with a little map...

There are stories of Military personnel who jump the grenade to save their buddies. Not sure about throwing it back though.

Because it runs into the problem that your example has, where the lower IP guy runs faster then suddenly stops:



This has the problem of the lower IP guy getting places sooner. For example a guy with 1 IP would have gotten all 12M on pass 1, which is silly. Which is why I'm saying divorce how far you move entirely from how many IPs you have, and each IP you get a movement, even if you lack an action.

So instead you have:
First pass:
G4: 3m, take an action
G3: 3m, take an action
2. Pass:
G4: 6m, take an action
G3: 6m, take an action
3. Pass
G4 9m, take an action
G3 9m, take an action
4. Pass
G4 12m, take an action
G3 12m, no action

No Irion.
If there are 4 passes in the Turn (because someone has 4 passes or it has been established that that will be the default), and everyone moves at 12 Meters per turn. Then EVERYONE MOVES 3 METERS per Pass, regardless of their normal passes. The characters will stay even with each other. Now, if the Running Skill is used, those speeds will not be equal if one guy gets no hits, and the other gets 5 hits. Now, you have a guy moving at 12 meters/Turn (3 meters/Pass) and the other guy moving at 22 meters/Turn (5.5 meters/Pass).

By default, this does not matter much, as everything is assumed to happen fairly quickly. When it matters, you divide the movement by the number of passes in the turn (the Character that has the most passes sets this number). If, for whatever reason you have 4 people with 2 passes and a Hacker/Dronomancer with 5 Passes due to drone use, you divide everyone's movement by 5. It really is not all that difficult.

I believe that Seerow was implying that he would set either 3 or 4 passes (dependant upon the mecahnic chosen) as the divisor for movement, and assign movement based upon that, regardless of how many actual passes a character had, since that would set the maximum possible number of passes. Essentially, you would have a number of meters/second you could move, and passes would be second based.



Edit: Ninja'd by Seerow.

This is correct. And I want this simply because this discussion is a prime example of how confusing the current way it is handled can seem, even though it is supposed to functionally work the same as what I want.

The only real change would be making running tests add +1 meter per pass, rather than +2 meters per turn, which can make a high athletics person move pretty quick. Then again, standard running rate is 6 meters per pass for an average person in shadowrun. Give that person 6 strength, 7 skill, 2 specialization, that's an average of 5 hits for 11 meters per second.... okay that's a bit higher than the world record, and is possible with unaugmented attributes, but it's actually surprisingly close to the world record of 10.35 m/s [found with a quick google search may not be wholly accurate[[Edit: Found a more recent article pegging the sprinting record at 12.4 m/s, so I'd say that athletics being handled this way is wholly reasonable]]].

@Seerow

So if I just use my last IP, I get twice the distance than with regular IPs?

Thats why I think my methode is quite superior. There are no inconsistancies, as far as I can tell. It is in no way unfair and you can determin where someone is. (Yes, not exactly but that is not possible with any system...)

No. You ONLY get the 3 meters of movement each IP. If you forgoe movement one IP, you don't get that movement. Period. Every pass you can move up to 3 meters regardless. I'm not sure why exactly it's so hard to wrap your head around this concept.



It's because you do not have passes happening at the same time. The passes in your system are far more fluid, which is a benefit in being interesting, but has the problem that you can't have everyone's movement standardized in the way you can with the current system, or the 3 phase system. Add on top of that it's a bit more complex, and the benefits are honestly pretty marginal and you're left wondering what's the point.

@Seerow

But if have a movementrate of 12 and only 3 IPs, moving in two IPs I only get 6. If I shoot in the last one I used 2/3 of my IPs for movement but only got 1/2 of my movement.


Would you please give an example for the drawbacks, because I do not think they really exist.
And I go down from two dimentions to one. I consider that easier.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

Yes, you only got half of your movement because you chose not to keep moving. You ALWAYS have movement available in addition to your other actions. You even get movement on a pass you have no actions.


So if on the first two IPs you choose to move you can still do something else while moving. If on the third IP you choose not to move so you can shoot more accurately, that was your decision. You could still have kept moving while shooting if you wanted to. And on the 4th pass, when you have no action you could still keep moving even though you don't have an action, because you always get a move action


I'm really really not getting what your confusion on this is, and don't know how I could possibly make it any clearer.





I've given examples and gone over it with you for the last fucking 3 pages of this discussion. At this point I'm starting to think I'm just being trolled.



What does this even mean? Your characters can't move in two dimensions to make things easier for you?

How could they? Apparently they cannot even move in 3 dimensions, let alone 2. Why Standing still makes things all better (One Dimension) I have no idea.

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein

Did I say movement is a one dimensional problem? No I did not. Initiative is now a one dimentional problem (as time in the real world).
@Seerow

Easy: A guy with 3 IPs has a movementrate of 12. How far does he get if he uses 2 IPs to move and shoots a guy in the last IP.


You did not. You just stated that it is impossible to see where sombody is with the rules I suggested. And that is just not true. But since you seem not to believe me, I will show it. If you still have a problem understanding I would ask you again to elaborate it with an example.

So wie have G3/12 and G4/22 (GPasses/Initative) both have a movementrate of 12
Situation: Guy4/22 is running down a line and G3/12 is shooting at him.
INI:22 G4 starts running.
INI:12 G3 shoots for the first time. Since the second IP of G4 is approaching he has moved around 2.6 m, when he is hit
INI:11 G4 keeps running.
INI:6 G4 keeps running and is hit by G3, he has moved 6m since the start
INI:3(to0) G4 runns his last 3m and takes cover behind a crate.

I fail to see a problem here...

And now: What did I mean with dimensions
You may have realised, that I did not need to write anything about passes. They do not matter anymore in the execution of a fight. They only determin on how many Initative numbers you may act.
So now one number is describing where you are in the combat round, opposed to two before. Thus reducing a two dimensional problem to a one dimensional problem.
And since time in the (percieved) real world is also one dimensional this is easier for most of the people.

This is where you lost me. But trying to disect this, it seems like what you want is you move a portion of your move speed, which is recalculated at any time that it matters. So in this case, you started moving at 22, and finish at 11, it is now 12, so you are 10/11th of the way there. So to take (10*3)/11 = 2.7.

You fail to see how this makes it more complicated and slower to actually use in practice?

Mind you I can see where this CAN be simplified, so that at 22, you simply move the 3 meters. At 11, you can move another 3. At 6 you can move another 3. At 3 you can move another 3. Even if you don't have the IPs to do that.

It is also worth noting that initiative scores generally don't get as high as you use in your examples. The examples with these vastly different initiative counts moving at different times caught my eye at first, but when you think about it-you don't have one guy at 22 and one guy at 12. You're more likely to have one guy at 15 and one guy at 12. And really even with the 22/12, they just alternate. (22/11/6/3 vs 12/6/3/2).

Now let's look at your explanation:



You didn't need to write anything about passes, but they would still need to be tracked. If anything it makes tracking harder. "Okay you have 3 IPs and you are acting on count 5. Shit is this your 2nd or 3rd pass?".

For example you need to track in your example that G4 has gone on 22, 11, 6, and 3. Meanwhile G3 started at 12, so goes again on 6 and 3. But does he go again at 2? Nope, but you need to check if he has a pass available anyway. And is he still moving between 3 and 2?

What you have is an extra layer of calculation and complication that doesn't add anything unless one person more than doubles the initiative of another person. So why include it? You say you don't need to worry about initiative passes, I'm saying that yes, you are. Just because a pass is no longer a defined set of time does not mean you are not including it in your rule. You still need to track how many passes have gone by, only now you have to track it individually for each person as opposed to saying "Okay we're now in pass 2 for the group, start at the top". You need to be aware that your guy with 16 initiative is getting his 3rd pass at the same time that the guy with 8 is getting his second, and if the guy with 8 has 4 IPs that is important to remember because it can be really easy to say 'Okay that person's done with all their passes, everyone else got a turn, that's it".

So no, the more I think about it and the more we argue, the more I really don't like it.

Throwing it back happens in movies all the time. It doesn't happen at the squad level in the real-world often because the guy throwing him/herself has no way of knowing how close the grenade is to going off. So they can pick it up and risk having it detonate in their hands (killing their squadmates), or they can throw themself on it to almost certainly save their squadmates. It's a particularly lethal form of a Type I vs. Type II problem.

Conversely, if you're by yourself when the grenade comes through the window, you totally try to throw it back, because it's a loss-less situation. If you can't run, and you can't seek cover, you have nothing to lose. Unfortunately, even if you manage to pull it off, there is no one around to appreciate how awesome you were.

In Shadowrun, everyone appreciates how spectacular airburst grenades are to timed grenades. What no one realizes is that you don't have to default to timed grenades, because the description says you can totally detonate it wirelessly. So unless you can't do that, or there's heavy jamming, using timed grenades is a bit of a mug's game. They certainly have their niche, but you're the one throwing the grenades, wireless detonation is a nice way to ensure that it doesn't get thrown back.

That, and you also have the option of impact triggering as well. Grenades are very stupid in SR4.

Fixed that for you. *grins*

Well, I actually meant 'rules writers' are stupid. It's lame for all grenades to—for free, out of the box, and only mentioned in 'fluff'—have impact+timed+wireless triggers.