Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: New Initiative idea.
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Nyxll
Good Day all,

I am an old gamer, I used to play shadodowrun 2.

I have been doing some reading, and noticed that in sr3 the initiative changed.
I know this is years down the road, but I really didn't like the initiative changes.

It is probably because I had a street sam with 4d6+27 reaction. But If I get moving I can really get a few actions. I think that it just is not plain fair that a slow moving mage can react, change tactics and pop me off, once they see I am a threat. I am not a munchkin by any means ,... I do think that the idea of my going first then giving the others a turn is great, but what I think is that if I have a roll of 35, I should be able to go at least 2 times before the mage that rolled a 9 and 2 times after. This does significantly reduce the domination of street sams, but also seem to keep things
fair.

initiative timeline Here is an example of the when I think things should happen in a firefight.

Anyone have any feedback?

Nyxll
blakkie
It is this >< close to being the wrong forum for that suggestion since totaling up all the dice pips to determine your Init is not how SR4 is going to work. You roll some group of dice against TN 5 and the number of hits somehow determines Init order, number of phases per turn, etc. A number of options on exactly how that was going to happen was still being playtested back in, what, early May/late April?
hobgoblin
there is a game out there that have now gone D20 compatible (using some D20 core mechanics but done some heavy mods and porting over their combat system) that have a interesting init system.

iirc you have a set number of action and a system where someone with higher initiative have a edge over those with lower initiative. actions are used up over time, run out of action and you are basicly out of luck.

and i think there was something about people that have better initiative can defend against people that attack them and then counterattack or something.

basicly the whole combat system became more involved as you where allways thinking "should i attack now or hold back in case i have to defend?".

but this was a fantasy game, not a sci-fi one. so i dont know if the system can handle gunfights...

oh and blakkie, is that insider info? or have i missed some faq or similar?
blakkie
It isn't in the FAQ, it is from a ways back in this forum. At least a month ago and maybe more. It is implied from an offhand comment made by a playtester, and likely was on or over the NDA line.

It is possible that the developers have since changed their minds about basing it on TN5. But at the time TN5 was the basis of all the multiple options being considered that the playtester, or at least that one, had seen.

edit: I'd be mildly surprised if the Origins demo didn't include an Init roll portion to it. So the final Init mechanic is likely determined by now.
Ellery
Nyxll, I've long wanted a system that progresses more-or-less the way that you show there, for the reasons that you state. It's hard to generate that graph using a simple mechanic, though, and harder still to figure out which order actions go in. Constructing a complex diagram for each combat turn is not something that I particularly enjoy, and I have a high tolerance for constructing complex diagrams.
Qillin
my home group has adopted a similar system because of the same line of thought.
but our is a little more favorable to the high initiative
basically what we use at home games is :

Jack init= 31
Joe= 24
Mike= 12
Sue = 8


so the turns would go like this :

Jack at 31
Joe at 24
Jack at 21
Joe at 14
Mike at 12
Jack at 11
Sue at 8
Joe at 4
Mike at 2
and Jack at 1

thought it favors the really high init, most of our pc only get in the teens most of the time as highs maybe 1 gets a 21 once per game. but at home we don't seem to make super characters much and if they get to that point they often retire. But we have all been playing for a long time and find the game alot more fun if we have to think and plan instead of just shoot a gun and kill someone.

your chart seems to be more balanced i might show it to our gm
blakkie
That is what SR2 used, isn't it?
hobgoblin
looks like it...
Nyxll
What Qillin posted was pretty much what sr2 used. Sr3 tried to make things a little mroe balanced. which it did a little. It took alot from a street sam. My sammy used to have 4d6+28 init. The idea of Firing once then getting gacked by everyone that goes, holy cow he went first kill him, would be frustrating. I have not played sr3 but it didn't seem fair. So I was thinking, if I have 4 actions ... I should get 2 before and 2 after joe slow, to make it a little more fair.

I have been in runs where my sammy cleaned up all of all the enemies. the mages were appreciative but a little sullen that they didn't get to try out their forcebolt. I can understand it ... I also had a char with 1d6 +3 so I understand both ends of it.

Ellery, I think the chart would only be something that you consult once in a while, just to see which initiative blocks go at what time. It is something that would fit easily on a gm screen.
blakkie
QUOTE (Nyxll)
My sammy used to have 4d6+28 init. The idea of Firing once then getting gacked by everyone that goes, holy cow he went first kill him, would be frustrating. I have not played sr3 but it didn't seem fair.

What is 'fair' would seem to depend on who you asked, your tricked out sammy, or someone not so tricked out. wink.gif
Ellery
How would you not consult it every time you rolled initiative? It'd take a good long while to memorize such a chart. I think it can be summarized by saying that you get actions every 20 passes, instead of 10, but you can act every 20 passes between +(your init score) and -(your init score). If everyone were happy calculating, say, 12-20, it'd work just as easily as the current system.
Qillin
hehe is that how sr2 was? i started playing with 3. and the chart doesn't seem that hard to memorise but that could just be me
Nyxll
Read the rest of the post, if I get 4 actions, and have a 28 reaction, you are telling me that someone with a 9 initiative (and a 3 reaction in the case of someone rolling a 6) is going to be able to react and fire that quickly, is fair or even reasonable? Then what is the point of reflexes after all then? Why not let everyone just have 1 action per round like dnd? I would just spend all my energy and money on my attack skill, knowing that I will get my chance quickly.

with this scenario, I would spend my first action covering, waiting for everyone to go, then clean up. I would let the mage fend for himself which really defeats the purpose of a team.

I think by allowing them to split my actions and react in the middle is fair to everyone. There could be some avenue I have not explored of course.

I am not trying to be inflammatory at all ... I am just trying to flush out all logic surrounding the issue.
Nyxll
QUOTE (Ellery)
How would you not consult it every time you rolled initiative? It'd take a good long while to memorize such a chart. I think it can be summarized by saying that you get actions every 20 passes, instead of 10, but you can act every 20 passes between +(your init score) and -(your init score). If everyone were happy calculating, say, 12-20, it'd work just as easily as the current system.

I would have it memorized quickly. I still have thaco tables from dnd that I played back in 94 memorized. I have a good memory for this stuff.
Qillin
QUOTE (Nyxll)
Read the rest of the post, if I get 4 actions, and have a 28 reaction, you are telling me that someone with a 9 initiative (and a 3 reaction in the case of someone rolling a 6) is going to be able to react and fire that quickly, is fair or even reasonable? Then what is the point of reflexes after all then? Why not let everyone just have 1 action per round like dnd? I would just spend all my energy and money on my attack skill, knowing that I will get my chance quickly.

with this scenario, I would spend my first action covering, waiting for everyone to go, then clean up. I would let the mage fend for himself which really defeats the purpose of a team.

I think by allowing them to split my actions and react in the middle is fair to everyone. There could be some avenue I have not explored of course.

I am not trying to be inflammatory at all ... I am just trying to flush out all logic surrounding the issue.

i think will that high an initiative is going to let you have alot of turns but whats to say you are going to get all your turns before the slowing guys. that what i like about your chart . yes the fast guys going to go first and maybe even 2nd if he is really that fast but the slower guys do get a chance to go and not last. the fast guys will get there turns just will get some after other people go, thou that isn't much seeing the next round the same guys gets his turns again first and he had the last 2 turns last round so he just went 4 times without anyone else going but atleast his last 2 round the first pass he most likely was out of his pools so maybe didn't make as much of as impacked as his first 2 turns.

hope this is making sense i'm just typing to past the time
blakkie
The chart is a bit confusing without some directions on it. So i just want to be clear that the order of occurance is line by line, right to left, from the top to bottom?

If that is correct you might consider flipping the chart so it goes left to right. Much more natural for people with language backgrounds that follow that flow of text pattern.

The second question is about the triangles, is there a reason for using them and not rectangles? What are you trying to show with that?

The third question might be answered by the answer to the second question. Going right to left, top to bottom i reach a second 10-20 triangle before i reach the first 0-10 triangle. Does that mean someone that rolls a 12 goes twice before a 9, or are you trying to show with the triangles that it is the 12, then 9, then 12?

Forth, if the later in the third is true, then a 19 goes twice before an 8, correct? That seems a bit heavily weighted to towards the 19?
Ellery
The chart is less easy to memorize when it's numbers instead of pictures, and you need the numbers.

For example--quick, now!--people A, B, C and D roll initiatives of 11, 26, 15, and 6. What order do they go in?
Nyxll
I am sorry I did not explain it more.

the numbers along the bottom are the initiative values.

I used triangles to represent who would go in a top down approach. Picture sliding down the graph with a ruler.

an example: people A, B, C and D roll initiatives of 11, 26, 15, and 6. What order do they go in?

combat order would be

B with 26, then
C on 15,
then A on 11,
then B and D on 6 (B would go at the same time as D unless you wanted them to compare reaction)

--I think simultaneous actions could be something that is really cool, not sure if you have rules for that yet.

D if you do not have simultaneous on 6
Then C on 5
A on 1
then D to finish.


I will be back in a few hours to clarify any other ideas or questions that pop up
blakkie
QUOTE (Nyxll @ Jun 25 2005, 05:25 AM)
then D to finish.

Ya had me till here. But i think that is just a typo, should be 'B' not 'D' for their third action?

Anyway, rule and chart and lines and bringing up lines from the bottom. Hrm.

I still do think a 19 going twice before 8 (which would happen) feels a bit excessive. See, you actually broke a pattern for that to happen. The first 10-20 is touching the second 10-20 triangle, none of the 20-30 and 30-40 triangles do that. Why did you break that pattern? And you need an extra two columns i think, 40-50 and 50-60. Your own character could roll as high as 52.

Anyway, as i said in my first response pretty much moot. Especially if you can't figure out an easier method for implementing it. Although if you moved that triangle you might be able to come up with an doable algorithm.

P.S. No simultaneous actions. Interestingly there is at least one system out that i know of that handles that, but they don't have an initiative roll at all. Everyone acts at once.
Nyxll
You are right ... the D should have been B ... I needed to leave and rushed.

I broke the pattern with the 10-19 range. I was trying to adhere to some of the sr3 thinking, but now that you mention it .. moving it down would make alot more sense.

I was also concerned about resistance to the idea ... but it seems that people like premise. So I think you are right about moving that one triangle down.

I will add the additional blocks, I was just at work and needed to quickly develop the chart.

Is there any merit in this structure? or does anyone think I am on crack? I am going to adopt this model because it seems to be much fairer.

I am going to sit down and think about some simultanous rules and modifiers, since this model would benefit from something like that.
blakkie
QUOTE (Nyxll @ Jun 25 2005, 10:39 AM)
Is there any merit in this structure? or does anyone think I am on crack?  I am going to adopt this model because it seems to be much fairer.

Crack? Nah. But i do having to run a ruler down a chart to figure out who's turn it is would likely not fly with a lot of people. *shrug* You'd need an implementation a little less, i don't know, cumbersome?

QUOTE
I am going to sit down and think about some simultanous rules and modifiers, since this model would benefit from something like that.


I wouldn't worry too much about simultaneous rules just for this. Just go with right to left (or swing the chart around like i suggested and left to right) to break ties that are on the same line. Good support for simultaneous action rules reach pretty far into a system.
Ellery
If you move the lower 11-20 triangle to drop down where it should be by symmetry, the chart is exactly equivalent to:

Act every 20 initiative phases, starting at +init, and stopping at -init

I've used this in a trial game and it went well, but the trial games were composed of people who didn't blink when you threw an integral at them, much less subtraction to negative values, so I don't think it was a representative test.
Fortune
QUOTE (Ellery)
I've used this in a trial game and it went well, but the trial games were composed of people who didn't blink when you threw an integral at them, much less subtraction to negative values, so I don't think it was a representative test.

That definitely wouldn't go over well here, where 10 - Essence is too complex for some people.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012