Thinking about Intiative

[Adm.Lee]

So, last night I was thinking about initiative in both v1 and v2.0. I can't recall either ever causing major problems in play, but I have found reasons to dislike each. Have any of you dropped them for something else



- I have vague memories of referee me having to track everyone's hesitations for them in v1. I could be wrong on that.

- I have stronger memories of v2 groups using the initiative XP system to jack up their scores, so that they could wipe out platoons without a scratch on themselves. That, of course, won't be an issue in a con game, but any PCs with really high initiatives could become combat monsters that will overshadow the others at the table.

I'm planning a convention game someday, and fearing that players might get stuck on these more-complex-than-usual systems.

- At the last few convention games I've played at, the ref has simply ignored the RAW initiative rules and gone around the table. It worked, but it seemed too simplistic to my internal rules-lawyer.

Just reverting to Agility order, or rolling for it seems easy. I also like the Savage Worlds rule of dealing from a deck of cards, high cards go first.

Opinions, thoughts, concerns

[Legbreaker]

V1.0 is clunky with it's CUF and hesitations, but it can work if the players help out.
V2.0 tends to fall down only when low Initiative characters fail to take advantage of repetative actions - the ability to lay down cover fire over an area for long periods of time without stopping for example. Low initiative characters in my opinion are best utilised by being assigned belt fed or other high capacity weapons. Note also that a low initiative character conducting repetative actions actually goes before high initiative characters which, providing it's a sensible action (such as covering a doorway with fire) can really restrict the high initiative characters options.
V2.2 evens things out significiantly by allowing everyone to act every turn but giving high Initiative an extra action. In my opinion it levels the playing field a bit too much.

Another issue which in my experience seems to be ingnored almost constantly is the effect of injuries. If a character, any character is injured by anything nastier than a sharp stick, chances are they're doing NOTHING for at LEAST the next round and probably much longer. During this time, the enemy has free reign to do anything they want completely unopposed, including hitting them again, and again, and again, and again. Grenades and other area effect weapons are great for knocking down and opponent and keeping them there without having to be too accurate. Three barely skilled NPCs with a handful of hand grenades each are going to take apart even a highly skilled and high initiative group of PCs if they bunch up too much (as most seem to do) while taking virtually no casulaties themselves.

Naturally, switched on PCs can do exactly the same - take out everyone with explosives.

An Australian infantryman in the Korean War was renown for acutally putting this game rule into practise even before roleplaying was a pipedream. He rarely fired his rifle but relied instead on the sandbag of handgrenades he carried everywhere. Apparently you always knew where he was - just had to listen for the explosion every few moments...

[leonpoi]

Adm.Lee, I don't think you're alone thinking about initiative, and Legbreaker's summary pretty much echoes my thoughts.

There is one thing Ill say about the v2.2 system; that it takes all of the accounting out of the system and therefore speeds things up. A while back I ran a session with 5 PCs (who had not played 2.2 before) in a firefight with about 10 marauders. There were explosions, automatic fire, vehicles, all kinds of things and the combat went so smoothly and felt very intense because the initiative system didnt get in the way of the action.

Having said that, its got its problems these are the big ones that I see.
1) Everyone pretty much gets one action per turn (the level playing field)
2) We had one PC with Init 7 = 2 actions, and he clearly dominated it just didnt feel right that he got to do twice as many things the step change is just too sharp from 1 action to 2 actions.

To get around this Id proposed a hybrid between v1 and v2.2 where characters got 1 action per 6 turns (phase) plus an extra action for every Init 4 or greater. i.e. a Init 5 character would get 8 actions in 6 turns. This would step up the granularity of actions. I never got to test this though because I moved country and havent played since. It would require book keeping though over a phase (which I would have handled with chips/counters), but at least you wouldnt need to keep track of whats been repeated. Most NPCs would have Inits <4, so it would only need book keeping for harder NPC fights.

[Legbreaker]

I quite like that idea actually. The way 2.2 gives an additional acton in every 5 second round just doesn't sit well with me - can a person really run two lots of 30 metres in the same five seconds everyone else only gets half the distance
Although a little cumbersome, I've always prefered the 2.0 method, BUT players and GM must use repetative actions to make it work properly AND be aware and implement (can't stress enough) injury restrictions. Only really penalises a character in the initial stages of combat, where you'd expect to see low initiative characters hesitating. Once they get into their groove and training takes over, they're still at a bit of a disadvantage (they can't change actions other than stop until their next scheduled action), but they can still be effective.
Although the rules say it should be the same action from five second phase to five second phase, I would expand it to the same general action such as fish out grenade, pull pin and throw, repeat, or aim, fire, aim, fire. Both these examples should by the rules take two actions of five seconds duration to complete.

[kcdusk]

"Initiative" is one of those polorising topics.

I think most people agree it needs to be quick, give some advantage to "battle tested" characters and be realistic, if possible.

We have to remember though that initiative isnt just "who can draw" first or fastest, western style. Its who "acts" first. Taking action under fire is as much "courage" as it is "fast twitch fibers". It can be compared to sportsman where they test well (benchpress, 40 yard dash, vertical leap) but simply dont "play the game very well".

I think initiative also represents "dumb luck" to some degree. Even the best operators get surprised or caught off guard from time to time. In my own system i tried to callibrate "initiative" so that a novice PC who rolled a "6" would win a "draw" verse a high level character who rolled a "1" on a D6 (effectively a 1/36 chance for the novice to win).

I like weapon choice to have an impact on characters. So i try to use weapon "bulk" in determining initiative (rifles at a disadvantage to pistals).

I like each combat round to be different, so i am OK with player die rolls to go towards who acts first in each combat round.

Coolness under fire and hesitation V1.0 style was a good idea, that doesnt work in practice.

I agree that injuries are under sold.

I think everyone has their own homebrew initiative to reflect how they view it. All you can do is take other peoples ideas into consideration when weighting your own system.

[B.T.]

The idea to take the bulk-rating and subtract it from the Initiative seems to be a good way, to ballance things out a bit. To my mind, it works.

But there is a point, where I'm not sure, if I understand the rules properly: PCs get rewarded special points to increase the Initiative (In v2.2, that is). But what is the highest possible value for Initiative Can a PC build up Initiative-values that exceed 7

[Adm.Lee]

I had forgotten/didn't realize that v2.2 had tweaked Initiative. I think it's the static nature of Initiative that rankles me most-- an Init 5 PC will always have the drop on all Init 4 NPCs. Maybe I play too many other games, but that rubs me wrong.

Repetitive actions are very useful, but when the high-initiative PCs are staging an ambush, mid- to lower-initiative NPCs not covering areas get hosed.

I agree the injury penalties are key. I remember using them in my later games of v.2, but I wonder how much the players played along

I was thinking about 2 different things, one for each system.
1. For v1, I was thinking of giving each PC a set of 6 counters (I play wargames, I have lots of two-sided counters), one side labelled "hesitate" on one side, and "action" on the other. They could lay them or stack them on the table, and arrange them how they liked, as long as the proper number of hesitations were showing. Each action round, they move down the line, hesitating or acting as needed. If they got hit, or some other thig came along to change things, they could flip the necessary changes.

2. For v2, I clicked on the idea of the deck of playing cards, as in Savage Worlds. Deal each PC a hand of cards equal to their initiative. The GM gets a hand for each batch of NPCs (like, one hand for a leader, another hand for the followers). Then, go down through the cards in descending order (Aces high). If someone gets hit and has to take an initiative penalty, they give up their next 1 or 3 cards, and won't get so many next hand.
- This would scramble the order of actions all over the place, so it's not always the 6's going first. They'll get more actions (or, more decision points), but not always first.
- Repetitive actions (and other conditions) would still apply, that character would act as usual, discarding cards as they came up, unless they change action, of course.
- Jokers could be ignored. They could also be wild, allowing someone a lucky break, allowing them to interrupt someone else's action if they pleased. That might be too random
- Tied cards (i.e. I have an 8, you have an 8) could be resolved in suit order, or Agility or weapon Bulk. Maybe the GM could waffle on that, as he desires.

This was one of those things that came to me in the middle of the night. Could be a good idea, could suck.

[simonmark6]

I think that high Initiative PCs or NPCs do have the advantage in most senses. In ambush situations those being ambushed usually do end up getting hosed. This would happen even if a group of low initiative NPCs ambush a bunch of PCs, the NPCs would have been conducting continuous "overwatch" actions and thus it would be they that initiated the combat.

After that, lots of the PCs are going to be injured and dropping in initiative or able to fight back in the hail of beaten fire and repeated actions. People get creamed in ambushes, that's why they are so popular. The rules work fine, you just have to apply them.

If you want a little variety, add the odd high initiative novice NPC to the mix to represent the up and coming young gun or guy with hair trigger reflexes, the BYB even suggests this to explain Monk's high initiative for a relatively inexperienced combatant.

If you are going to the bother of tracking things minutely, you might want to just roll for initiative for NPCs instead of using the book numbers. Military NPCs would get a straight d6, Elites get a 5 or a 6+1. Non-military would get d6/2 or whatever you deem correct.

As for bulk, I generally use it either as a penalty in CQB situations or as a tie-breaker between equal initiatives. To refine it I might assign an initiative penalty to characters who are using a weapon whose bulk is higher than their Strength and Constitution averaged to represent that it is too big and awkward for the person carrying it. Even that seems necessarily complicated.

In conclusion, I believe that the initiative system is fine as long as you make your NPCs fight sensibly and use the wound rules strictly.

[Legbreaker]

In conclusion, I believe that the initiative system is fine as long as you make your NPCs fight sensibly and use the wound rules strictly.

Exactly right. An Initative 6 character isn't going to stay that fast very long in a proper combat. The first "scratch" wound will cause them to loose an action. The second "scratch" or first decent injury (more than half the hit location's capacity) is going to drop a whole point of initiative as well as make them sit out the rest of the turn (30 seconds). Meanwhile the enemy has free reign to plug away at them.

Add on top of that a "serious" (more than capacity) injury and the character has lost 3 points of Initiative AND the use of the limb. If that's a leg, they're not walking. If an arm, they're not using it to steady their weapon. If it's abdomen or chest, they're not doing ANYTHING and if it's the head, they're probably already unconscious.
A serious wound also cuts Strength in half. This means the character is rather unlikely to be able to move at all, even if it's an arm injury, due to their suddenly reduced load carrying capacity. They're also MUCH less able to control their weapon - they may have been able to fire off say 3 single shots before injury without recoil penalty, now they might manage just one.

And then there's "critical" wounds (x2 capacity). Cut intiative again and if yourre lucky enough to still have an effective 1, EVERY action requires a roll to stay conscious as well as all the previous penalties. A critical head wound means you're dead and given the average head hit capacity is around 10, a single bullet could well put you down for good.

Armour helps, but the wearer still suffers some injury even if the bullet doesn't penetrate. The first round will inflict a "scratch", and the second a "slight" even if both rounds are nothing more than a .22LR. What armour will do is allow you to be injured more times before decending further down the one way slide into combat ineffectiveness.

[leonpoi]

As for bulk, I generally use it either as a penalty in CQB situations or as a tie-breaker between equal initiatives. To refine it I might assign an initiative penalty to characters who are using a weapon whose bulk is higher than their Strength and Constitution averaged to represent that it is too big and awkward for the person carrying it. Even that seems necessarily complicated.

This is basically the approach that I use.

And just curious; we have a growing consensus that the Init system is fine but which version to you use, 1, 2 or 2.2

[Legbreaker]

Any system isn't perfect and all of them work to some degree - could be a simple coin toss to see who goes first right up to the complex calculations and player decision making required in the Phoenix Command system.
For pure fast paced action, 2.2 is probably the better of the three, but for gritty detail, 1.0 is the way to go (especially the realistic healing times compared to 2.x). 2.0 appears to be a decent balance of the two, provided the rules are used in full.

[Adm.Lee]

Thread necromancy... using chips

I had another thought about this as I prep for a v1 game at Origins this year. I just wrapped up a pair of Savage Worlds games last weekend, where we use poker chips (red=wound, white=shaken, blue=benny) a lot.

My thought is to hand each player 6 chips, white ones for their hesitations, blue ones for actions. Say, someone with a CUF 2 has 1 hesitation, so he gets 5 blues and 1 white. Each round, as I the GM call it, each player advances a chip to show whether he's hesitating or acting, and can name the action. When they get hit, I substitute red chips for additional hesitations caused by wounds.

Opinions

My apologies if I'm not clear, I'm short on sleep this week, and long on red wine tonight.

[Legbreaker]

I had a V1 character once with CUF of 8. How's that going to work with 6 chips

[James Langham]

I like that as a method but a bit complex for larger fights for the poor GM.

I had another thought about this as I prep for a v1 game at Origins this year. I just wrapped up a pair of Savage Worlds games last weekend, where we use poker chips (red=wound, white=shaken, blue=benny) a lot.

My thought is to hand each player 6 chips, white ones for their hesitations, blue ones for actions. Say, someone with a CUF 2 has 1 hesitation, so he gets 5 blues and 1 white. Each round, as I the GM call it, each player advances a chip to show whether he's hesitating or acting, and can name the action. When they get hit, I substitute red chips for additional hesitations caused by wounds.

Opinions

My apologies if I'm not clear, I'm short on sleep this week, and long on red wine tonight.

[Adm.Lee]

I had a V1 character once with CUF of 8. How's that going to work with 6 chips

Don't have my rules in front of me, but IIRC, hesitations = 1/2 of CUF.