New System Design: Iniative System

[TheOOB]

I am currently working on a new RPG system, it's still a ways from completion, but I have many of the core ideas and mechanics set up, and lots of lots of design notes. I'll share what I have in total when it's a little more polished and not so chaotically organized.

Some basics, the system involves humans who are the spiritual reincarnation of past heroes, and gain enhanced abilities and supernatural powers loosely based on the mythos of their Heroic Spirit. The system is a standard dice pool system using d10s when players get successes on their rolled dice based on the number rolled.

Anyways, right now I'm working on the combat initiative system, and I want to know what people think about what I have so far. To start, everyone has a Initiative Score equal to their Finesse+Wits. At the beginning of combat that roll their Finesse+Wits, and add their successes to their Initative score, which determines turn order(Similar to Shadowrun 4e), pretty basic so far.

I decided to include a tactical element however. Before each turn each player must declare what stance they are using, preferably all at once(possibly using the aid of cards). Your stance will determine what actions you can take when your turn comes up, forcing you to think ahead and try to predict what others will do, and also emulating the chaos of combat(especially during the first round when stances are selected before initiative is rolled.) The stances I have planed are as follows(Note that you will be able to make a short move and take "free" actions in every stance):

Attack - The character can make an attack on their turn
Defense - The character gains a bonus to their Evasion, but can take no primary action
Power - The character can use an activated power or cast a spell
Focus - The character improves his initiative and gains a bonus on attacks next round.
Movement - The character can move extra on their turn
Utility - The character can take an action not covered by the other stances

Note that in response to being targeted with an attack before your turn you can switch to the defense stance, which effectively makes you lose your action.

So opinions, thoughts, ideas? If there is interest I'll post other design elements here as I work on them.

[CET]

I think the initiative stat you have will work just fine.

The stances and cards are an interesting idea. I'm a little worried that they will slow combat down without adding anything though . . . I guess the real question is "What do you want the stances to accomplish?"

I'm guessing that you're looking to force the players (and GM) to make a choice that involves some tactical trade-offs. But, as it stands now, I don't know that the stances would materially affect gameplay at all.

One way to make the choice more meaningful would to be nix the 'change to defense' option. If someone has decided to attack for the round, they have to live with that choice.

But, even then I'm still not sure what the stances thing would accomplish, mechanically or tactically, that is different from just having players declare their actions.

[Xechon]

Actually, this isn't half bad. Or even 1\4 bad. What I mean to say is I like this idea.

Specifically the cards to synchronize actions. I've been trying to find a method for doing just that for a while, but I could never find anything. I never even thought of using cards.

Finesse (Body reaction time) and Wits (Mind reaction time) is good, and it should all balance out fine because everyone is using the same system, and for only that one use. If you should choose to use initiative for something else, make sure the opposing roll is always governed by two stats.

However, I suggest the following:

Allow them to play 2 cards each turn.

Attack- Used for making weapon or unarmed maneuvers in close combat, such as trip and bull-rush.
Two attack cards allow for a full attack, powerful but reckless (inaccurate). one plus defend is a counter-attack, one plus focus is hurrying a spell or a shot, one plus utility is skirmishing.

Defend- Used for attempting to protect yourself or others from bodily harm. Includes using a shield, dodging, parrying, and any combination of these.
Two defense cards allow two (additive) defensive maneuvers, one plus attack is a counter attack, one plus utility is retreat, and one plus focus is casting/shooting defensively.

Focus- Used for casting spells, targeting with a ranged weapon, or recalling information.
Using two focus cards allows for no penalty to these actions. one plus attack is hurrying a spell or a shot, one plus defend is casting/shooting defensivly, one plus utility is simply moving while preparing a spell/shot.

Utility- Used for movement or operating items, such as retrieving an item from a backpack/sheath, or opening a door.
Using two utility cards allows for full movement, such as a full out sprint. one plus attack is skirmishing, one plus defend is retreating, one plus focus is just a combination of the two stances.



This will allow for more strategic and more realistic stance methods, and also reduce the card number needed to 4 so you only have to use face cards. That can free up the rest of the deck for whatever else you want, or just keep it easy to track. NOTE: There should be maneuvers for attempting to force, or at least make it the most beneficial action for the opponent, to use a specific stance. That way, a monster in a one-on-one match cannot just spam full attack.

[TheOOB]

However, I suggest the following:

Allow them to play 2 cards each turn.

Hmm, I actually like the idea a lot, it would make action selection a lot more tactical, and makes peoples decisions a little more meaningful. I may have to weaken attacks a little to make it so two attacks a round doesn't get too deadly, but there is defiantly some merit to your idea.

I agree there should be some way to force people into certain stances, there is a lot of room for player special abilities.

While this is getting a bit ahead of things, when and if this ever gets published, I'd include a page of cards that could be photocopied, I don't like it when games obviously need something like cards or something, and either a) don't provide them, or b)make you pay extra.

[Xechon]

Be careful when you say 2 attacks per round. Depending on your round length (with the above I recommend about 3-5 sec., as one is too short, but you could do the above about twice in 6 sec.) it might be possible to attack more than once, but DR applies differently to more attacks and the chances of success change, and probably 500 other things are effected by weather in the same amount of time you attack once or twice, dealing the same amount of damage. I specifically said "powerful attack" to try and step around all of this.

Of course, this is an entirely different system and all of the problems may not be so in this system. But assuming similar concepts, be careful. Be very careful.

Also, glad you like my idea:smallbiggrin:.

[TheOOB]

I may make people who double up on attack get a sizable bonus on their action instead of a second attack, I have some playtesting and number crunching.

Attacks are going to be fairly standard for a dice pool system. You Roll Finesse+Skill, and need to get successes greater than their Evasion(Which is half of Finesse+Defense Skill) in order to hit, with extra successes adding to damage. Average number of successes on a single die is 50%.

[Glimbur]

The Street Fighter RPG does initiative based on cards. Each maneuver you know gets it own card. The speed of the maneuver is determined by your base... Agility, I think, plus a modifier for the specific maneuver. Everyone picks a maneuver at the start of each round. Then the slowest card (speed 0) goes first. If there is no speed 0, go to speed 1, and so on. Faster cards can interrupt slower ones.

There are a few conditional modifiers (if you blocked, you get +2 speed next round), but that's the core of it. It also doesn't include rolling to hit, just damage, which speeds things up. The archetype of the agile character that avoids damage through not being there is handled by not being there. Some attacks (backflip kick, forward roll) let you both move and attack. Time them correctly and your opponent will swing at air.

It plays pretty quickly, even with four players, as long as the Referee doesn't have four distinctive characters to control also.

[Xechon]

That actually works pretty nicely in my opinion, especially if you want to stick with the HP abstraction. Now you don't have (or need) AC, and armor and shields can add temporary HP, that is restored by crafting checks, and when the armor's HP in damage has been dealt, it is destroyed. Of course, this doesn't account for hits to unarmoured locations, but that could probably be worked out pretty easily.

Armour would also apply a penalty to finesse so you have to choose between possible avoidance or definite plot armour.

Sorry, not my thread, I like to ramble. Do I have permission to steal this concept?

[TheOOB]

That actually works pretty nicely in my opinion, especially if you want to stick with the HP abstraction. Now you don't have (or need) AC, and armor and shields can add temporary HP, that is restored by crafting checks, and when the armor's HP in damage has been dealt, it is destroyed. Of course, this doesn't account for hits to unarmoured locations, but that could probably be worked out pretty easily.

Armour would also apply a penalty to finesse so you have to choose between possible avoidance or definite plot armour.

Sorry, not my thread, I like to ramble. Do I have permission to steal this concept?

Go ahead, while I'm designing many elements of this system, I've taken parts from other systems(so far there are bits of D&D, nWoD, L5R, Exalted/Scion).

I have a hit point system worked out, basically after you get hit you get a chance to reduce your damage, and having a tougher character or wearing more armor will decrease the amount of damage you take. Wound penalties will be minor, this is a Hero setting after all, I'm thinking if your character is wounded, you'll only be able to play one "stance" card a turn.