INITIATIVE doubt ...

[rsitalyct]

In this forum I have found several INITIATIVE rules ... but it is not clear one thing for me (please remember that I'm just learning CT!):

- if the character that will act first (thanks to his/her initiative) fires at another character killing him, this one can't fire back or the action is considered simultaneous so the "death" one can still fire?
If this is true the initiative concept fails.

I'd like to implement a sort of INITIATIVE system in AZHANTI simply calculating INITIATIVE = MORALE so the one with the higher morale will act first.
For example in the AIMED FIRE PHASE, if he/her will score a KILL, the other character won't fire back (as for the original rules where all fires are simultaneous).
In the real life one shooter can be faster than another ...

What do you think?

Roberto

 

[weasel fierce]

the game is far easier if things happen when they happen. Whoever goes first can indeed injure or kill an opponent, before they get a chance to go

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm a big proponent of Initiative as well. You're probably referring to my rules above as I think I was the first (or, at least the first I've ever seen in Classic Traveller) to use Morale as Initiative.

As you've seen, I calculate Initiaive by using the advanced Morale rule described in Book 4 and Striker (basic Morale rule is in Book 1). I've made two small tweaks to it: (1) Morale can never be higher than a character's INT score, and (2) the Initiative roll is modified if the character is wounded.

My Initiative process is this:

1. Roll 2D for MORALE or less. Your Initiative is what you roll. A lower total means you go earlier in the round. If you roll higher than your morale, then add +10 to total. If you have one stat wounded, use a +1 DM penalty. If you have two stats wounded, use a +2 DM. If all three stats are wounded, use a +4 DM.

2. Characters who wish to go later in the round then their Initiative roll indicates can Hold their action by adding +20 to the total.

3. Lowest Initiative acts first, followed by the next lowest, and the next, etc. Combat is not simultaneous. It's instanteous. So, going early is advantageous in that you can act before others and possible kill or incapacitate your enemies (my House Rule combat is fairly deadly too). If you go later in the round, either by Holding your action or a high Initiative throw, there is an advantage in that you are allowed to see what others are doing before you move at the expense of being exposed to deadly fire and allowing others to move first and take control of the combat.




I'm not so sure using Initiative with AHL is a good idea, though. It's been a while since I've read AHL, but I remember it to be a system where combat is simultaneous and better Initiative goes last in the round--benefitting from seeing what everyone else does without the exposure to immediate damage like my system uses.

 

[rsitalyct]

One of the best system to play a turn is the one that appears in the great Old West game GUNSLINGER.
A turn is divided in 5 segments and every player has cards that states the actions and the number of segments needed to complete them.
Of course you can do every action you want ... move, run, shoot, kick, bear hug, etc ... these cards normally are equal for all players but every player have some special cards due to their abilities; for example in order to DRAW AND COCK a gun a normal character needs 3 segments but if you are like BILLY THE KID you have a special DRAW AND COCK that needs only 2 segments.
If both characters will play SHOOT card as a next action, the second will fire in segment 3 maybe killing or incapacitating the first that will fire in segment 4.
The system is more detailed than this ... if you score an ARM wound the gun will drop on the ground ; due the wounds the characters being hit receives an amount of DELAY POINTS that will postpone his future actions for a number of segments = delay points.
If the wounds are serious, the character will leak blood and every turn it have to take a WOUND cards and the amounts of wounds of the card will be subtracted to the ENDURANCE simulating that the character is bleeding loosing its endurance every turn until the death will occurs.
If you are around a corned there is an HEAD counter that specify that you are watching around the corner with the body safely covered by the wall; in the result card (when you shoot) if someone score a BODY hit to you it is treated as null but if the result is an HEAD hit, you will be in trouble!
BTW, this game has also an RPG side ... a character will gain FEAR, RESPECT, etc ...
A very super detailed game ... the best for resolving a fight (also the smoke generated by the weapons are taken in account!).
If someone is interested this the BGG url for the rules manual:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=7379

In my opinion an RPG no needs to be so sophisticated like this game ... but some concepts could be adopted in TRAVELLER I think (I have no CT experience for this).

Roberto

 

[Supplement Four]

Some people like tactical point systems where everything is regimented. Snapshot. Azhanti High Lightning. At Close Quarters.

I like more of a traditional, free-form game. "It's YOUR turn. What do you want to do?"

I find the keeping track of action points and pre-planning moves for the entire round takes players "out of the moment". It's like a movie where some fancy camera move reminds you you're watching a movie and not living with the characters on the screen. Tactical point systems, imo, do that same thing--they focus on points and game mechanics rather than focusing a player on living in his character's shoes. Being there.

I play standard 15 second CT combat rounds. Yes, there are limits to what a character can perform during the round. You can view my entire combat system HERE. But, pretty much, it's a system where I look at a player and say, "You're up. It's your initiative. What do you want to do?"

 

[rsitalyct]

I agree with you ... an RPG doesn't need deep rules only for the combat, the story must flow smoothly.
I don't think a master can stop the game section in order to lay out a boardgame (for example SNAPSHOT) in order to resolve a combat ... you have to put the game on the table, to sort out the counters, to setup the pieces ... to explain some rules; all of this will ruin the RPG experiences in my opinion.
The same is true for the space combat ... if you use a game like BRILLIANT LANCES ( I know that it is NEW ERA ... I used it only in order to explain my point of view) it is more complicated than the rules in BK2 or in HG and not all the players will like it.

Being a bordagamer I use the TRAVELLER boardgames for what they are ... boardgames, but I don't think I'll use them in a RPG session.

Roberto

 

[Supplement Four]

I typically run space combat with a focus on roleplaying too.

I'll lay out the deckplans on the game table. I'll use Book 2 space combat with range band movement (described in Starter Traveller). And, I'll focus all the action on the players.

You're in THIS ship. The sensor readings says THIS. Oh, goodness! Was the ship hit? Better have the engineer go check it out. On the bridge--you've got a dummy light flashing, and you're venting fuel out into space. Want to adjust the baffles in the tank to slow the fuel loss?

That type of thing. I'll only describe what the players see inside the ship and on their scanners. What I don't do (typically) is lay out a plot on a hex board showing the two vessels.

I'll do that if more than one ship is involved in the conflict (because it's easier to keep track of position that way), but whenever I can, I run space combat only from the PC's point of view.

Many times, they don't even know what the other ship looks like--it depends on what their sensors tell them.