Matt Miller
In Mayhem, in devising round-timing we started with a DnD based 10-count round, then expanded to a 12-count 'combat clock' (with 10+ combatants, players were 'tied' too often. But our actions take 5,6,7 or 8 ticks on the combat clock. Somewhat with the idea that people would not overlap too often. But it happened often, as initial position on the clock was set so that everyone started at a different number. But after several hours staring at number systems, I begin to wonder if was a good idea.
If starting position+action is the formula, 1+8,2+7,3+6 or 4+5 all wind up on the same tick on the combat clock. Yet starting all at 1 would not help: All 'fast' actions would wind up at the same tick-mark. Increasing the magnitude of numbers makes for more mental math, not using single digits, but the biggest problem seems to be the change-over, when 11+7=6
Actually, we started with a 100-point combat clock first. Then went down to 50, then 30, then 10, then 12, assuming my memory serves.
Matt Miller
That seems...not unreasonable. Why did we ditch 30? It was such a reasonable number. Divisible by 15,10,6,5,3,2,1...60 might actually have been even better.
Matt Miller
Given that the virtues of the Fibonacci sequence are that two numbers in it add up to a third number, I am thinking we'd have been better to use non-Fibbonacci numbers, viz: 4,6,7,9. Rounds take a long time, so I recall estimating HP on the basis that no battle should average longer than 10 rounds. I tried a number of combinations, and they all overlap to some degree. 56789 just happens to overlap a great deal (20%) in the first two moves, which always bothered me. But alternate numbers are as big a head-ache: Either ratio between the highest and the lowest becomes too big, or the numbers become too big to do mental arithmetic with. 6-10 or 7-11 both have better ratios, but both still have the same 'overlap' problem. (7+11=8+10=9+9). Adding gaps between the numbers (1,3,5,7,9) fixes the overlap problem, but either generates speed ratio problems (9:1) or (using 5,7,9,11,13) mental math problems. The speed ratio was a problem because...players get bored when they take a 9 speed action, and someone else takes 9 1-speed actions.
This was particularly true because there were a couple of effects in the game that adjusted speed slightly. Even a speed adjustment of 1 was HUGE at the lower ranges. An action at speed 3 becoming a speed of 2 is a massive boost across the combat wheel, where a 5 becoming a 4 was a little more reasonable and easier to plan effects around. Gave a boost without being a relative game-changer.
Keith J. Davies(?)
...given 7, 9, 11, 13, your fastest is not quite twice as fast as your slowest. I'd probably consider a 1-20 scale for this (which happily aligns with a commonly-available die... not that that's really important)(and is still about twice as big as you're looking for)
Matt Miller
Why is 12 better than 10, or 30? Even fractions of APR, I guess. 60,30, 20,15,10, 6,5,4,3,2,1. So why not 24 or 18? Both are still 'hex'.
Rob Hicks
Heuristics. Convenient Mental representations. People who do statistics for fun and profit tend to have no problem with number crunching, and don't understand why people who don't can't wrap their heads around them. 30 is as good as 24 or 18 for them. 10, however, is iconic in human math. Decimal counting system, fingers and toes, very easy. 12 only slightly less easy, but was a little kinder than 10 on the backend, and had the added parallel of the clock, both represented in the fact that it is a time-tracking system, and is something that people could reasonably count around. 18 and 24 have neither advantage.
Keith J. Davies
10 or 12 are good, 24 might be too big (but D&D 3.x-style initiative is d20+Dex mod+stuff and can easily reach that high).Perhaps use prime numbers for your speeds. Not 5, 6, 7, 8. 12-step scale, speeds 2 (really really super fast, probably not seen often), 3, 5, 7, 11 (really really slow, probably not seen often). If you start on phase 12 (*cough* HERO) you end up with everyone using the same speed actions hitting the same points and staying together. If you randomize, even slightly, then you might find that people at the same 'speeds' never overlap (if they didn't in the first place), while those acting at different speeds who overlap do so _once_ before they need to lap the field. That is, speed 3 and speed 11, once they sync, will need to go 33 phases before they sync again (11 actions and 3 actions respectively). These might be too far apart; being able to act so many more times than an opponent is pretty brutal. 30-phase rounds with actions 5*, 7, 9**, 11, 13, 17*** might be a better fit.
* aligns with round, will always be on the same phases each round. Perhaps not desirable.
** not prime, but _relatively_ prime
*** maybe too big, less than two actions per round
Rob Hicks
Makes sense. Didn't think of primes, which is very interesting mathematically. Part of the reason actions varied from 5-9, (very fast, fast, average, slow, very slow,) was because the lower numeric end of the scale was trickier to balance for weapon damage. A weapon with a speed of 3 would be 3x faster than one with a speed of 9, where 5:9, was a little less than half as effective. Made the numbers easier to balance on weapon damage and such, when we were trying to get relative efficacy.
Rob Hicks
In the final release, we left it at 5-9, because ultimately the "tied" locations didn't affect things as much as they were initially thought to do. Everyone started on the same spot, and we broke the initial tie by going in order of Agility scores. When two characters tied, we broke the ties in the same way. When those ties were allies, it didn't usually matter. If one wanted to go first strategically, they lost nothing by letting one go before the other.
Matt Miller
We were also trying to keep it to keep the actions speeds to 'counting numbers' under ten.
Andy Klosky
What is the purpose of having such a convoluted initiative system? Does it make the game more fun? More realistic? Simpler for player or GM? Emphasize a type of combat, such as ranged or melee? Balance other game mechanics?
Matt Miller
Mayhem was designed pre-4E DnD, so we made a lot of the same mistakes as 4E. So it has a very crunchy war-game style of mass combat, focused on melee. It also had a very extensive weapons list, with something like 60+ weapons, all of which had unique stats, yet all of which had to be roughly comparable in the amount of damage they did.
Rob Hicks
The combat clock allowed an initiative system that was actually very easy to track and intuitive for players to run, but allowed for faster and slower actions in the game that had tactical meaning. That in turn let us adjust the damage for various weapons, so that daggers fought like daggers. Less damage per hit, but faster attacks and more strategic maneuverability. A maul, by contrast, took ages to swing, but hit like a truck. It really, really improves the cinematics and style of combat, giving different play styles that highlighted different character concepts. In addition, working on a timing-based system, rather than a bonus-based system, meant that where you were on the map and when you were going to act next was strategically important. It gave a great deal of depth in combat for those that like the wargamey tactics style of play, but kept the mechanics still relatively simple and smooth for the people that were more interested in the style and cinematics of the game.
Rob Hicks
Ultimately, people were very aware of who had the better agility as combat went by, so ties on the combat clock didn't end up slowing things down at all, and it gave Agility a particularly nice perk for stat balance. Additionally, characters acting at the same spot on the combat clock often had other advantages. Team attacks, for example, getting an extra bonus for simultaneous whelm attacks, or for big cinematic clashes where two characters struck simultaneously, like a classic samurai duel.
Matt Miller
Any thoughts on how to deal with weapon range in terms of initiative? Or weapon speed? In Mayhem, weapons had speed, that determined who went next, but it became more of an APR (attacks per round) thing than a 'swinging my hammer leaves me vulnerable' sort of thing. It's a knotty problem, as issues of range, timing, and and counter-attack are all bundled together.
Rob Hicks
The reality of a concept and the concept of the reality are very rarely the same thing....The reality of the spear is a super cheap and very effective way to arm cheap infantry with minimal training. The archetype is of a ranged attack for flashy wushu spins and thrusts. The latter is way more interesting, especially from a roleplaying perspective.... From that perspective, the relationship between range and speed is ... thematically irrelevant. The audience is much bigger for flashy maneuvers than hard realism.
Keith J Davies
...there is remarkably little difference between "weapon speeds" outside certain specific circumstances. You run into physiological limitations before weapon mass limitations.
Matt Miller
That's part of what I want to get at--that a lunge takes longer and leaves you more vulnerable. That and the physiological limitations of using a great axe, vs. using a hand axe. To me, this suggests a system where an action takes time (with the attack speed difference for most weapons being small), an initiative system where you character is 'off their guard' until their initiative count, and ties on initiative counts broken by a weapon reach. And perhaps a 2-weapon rule that says "You can't parry with a weapon you attacked with on your last action". ...I'm designing a simulation that treats every attack swing as a role of the dice. People often treat a DnD attack as a single swing, so working with that metaphor.
Keith J Davies
....whoever has won initiative controls the distance. [W]hen closing, bigger weapons get a bonus). If both fighters have the same reach they have no weapon-based modifier, otherwise for each step of reach difference you take a penalty. Dagger vs longsword, advantage is to the longsword initially because of longer reach. Dagger takes a penalty until he wins initiative, at which point he controls distance and stabstabstab... until longsword wins again. (This is part of why two weapon fighters use mismatched weapons, you have advantage in two reach categories)
Paul Goldstone
Runequest dealt with this utilising the Strike Rank system. This was based on the persons Size and Dexterity (character stats) and then modified by the weapon.
Longer weapons having a lower Strike Rank, so a tall and nimble person using a longsword would go before a short and nimble person. In situation of confined space or really close combat the weapons would have a Strike Rank modifier... For missile/thrown weapons, the Size aspect of the Strike Rank was dismissed. This system allowed ...diversity in weapons
Keith Gatchalian
...speed of the weapon is less an issue than reach.....from the time the two fighters engage, they are trading blows, parrying, making ripostes etc. The dice roll represents whether any of those blows or counterattacks make it through to cause damage.
This is one of the weaknesses of the DnD system, that you only get to swing on your turn, even though you may have been fighting the whole turn. ...In a DnD combat, a fighter can engage someone, attack, then take a 5 foot step and then <have> someone else fill the space..... the defender never gets to "swing" back, even though as I point out, the combat is a series of blows, parrys and counterattacks.
It does make sense for there to be a reach system, because a longer weapon, even if it is slower, will enable the fighter to strike first, as the other combatant maneuvers to get close enough to hit. ....there's no way a daggerman would ever strike before the two handed swordsman got a swing.......as a gamer, even in a fantasy game, you still have to ground the game in real world ...or the game becomes silly).
Paul Goldstone
In game terms a Size 18 Dexterity 20 warrior with a dagger would be quicker than a Size 10, Dexterity 10 warrior with a 2 handed sword .....The only conceivable way that the <dagger-user> went first was if...the wielder was significantly bigger, and exceedingly dexterous.
Rob Hicks
On a hexmap or a grid, how far would you...granulate reach? [C]ategorize it as some kind of initiative stat on the weapon? With Mayhem, we had effectively 3 ranges. 1, 2, and 3.... Is that enough to break ties? Is <granulated reach> worth creating an additional initiative stat? Could the <weapon stat> be used as tie-breakers for matched initiative? Are you comfortable with bows always going first?
Matt Miller
I'd actually give bows initiative proportional to their range, for simplicity in breaking ties. If you can't gack the archer before the start of the next tick, you get an arrow to the face. Readied attack goes first, then resolve by weapon range/reach. No 'attacks of opportunity', although the greater reach of weapons provides an opportunity to get the before they get you.
Rob Hicks
...it just doesn't jive with my mental heuristics of how speed and range work....I don't see being worth the application of range as initiative.
Matt Miller
I'll presume that you mental heuristic is that larger weapons are slower to swing, and so should not have as good an initiative as smaller ones. That seems...reasonable for clubs and whatnot, but not for spears. 2 handed weapons in general are kind of ticklish, as are pole-arms, which are both spear/axe and staff.
Keith J Davies
I have to disagree that bigger means slower, and blunt means slower. _Imbalanced_ weapons are awkward, I could see making exceptions for mauls and the like, but that's because of the imbalance, not the size or bluntness. Quarterstaves go _fast_, man. As do greatswords when properly applied. The mechanical advantage from two hands properly placed makes up for a _lot_ of mass differences.....ith greatswords it wasn't uncommon to hold the blade and beat someone about the head with the 'handle'. The weapon is as much a steel spear as it as a 'sword'
Multi-mode weapon, still two-handed (hits hard) and in proficient hands 'speed' is largely limited by muscular speed. Life becomes so much easier when you base initiative advantages on who has the advantage of reach. Sometimes daggers are faster, sometimes halberds. If I have a polearm you don't even get to attack me with a dagger unless you ....close with me
For melee I based it on immediate range (small weapons like daggers, you have to close with your opponent; in a square- or hex-based map like D&D 3.x you're "in the same square"). 'Normal melee weapons' are melee range, which covers everything that isn't immediate range or reach. Long weapons like pikes (and greatswords and other polearms if you know how) have 'reach' and go one unit farther. Whips...consider them 'double reach' and usable only at reach and double reach, useless in melee.
(and yes, I have 'weapon tricks' -- something like D&D feats -- that let someone overcome these difficulties. I was convinced by a martial artist I know who demonstrated he could hit my body with a (practice) sword while I had a grip on his <shirt>, without moving us apart. "Okay, a 'close combat style' will let you do this", said I).
Robert J. Grady
I know, with simulated weapons, the spear usually gets one get shot against a greatsword fighter. But then the greatsword fighter is inside, and gets a good shot. After that, it comes down to footwork. Dagger vs. sword is more straightforward because they are often used in similar ways; usually reach is an advantage, to a (ahem) point. The epee was designed to optimize reach, but then smallswords came along and changed the game by going smaller and faster again. One thing RPGs often mess up is that, other things being equal, a two-handed weapon is less nimble than a one-handed one, but is FASTER and MORE ACCURATE. Rapier v. katana, the rapier guy is going to look for a vulnerable angle of attack, while the katana is going to look for the right opening and hit fast and hard.
Keith J Davies
Note that the 'less nimble' is _not_ because of _weight_, it's because you keep both hands on the weapon. This greatly limits the weapon's 'nimbleness'.
