[Torg] Reboot: 3 New Initiative Systems Part I: The Simple System (LONG)

[Benjamin Grant]

>Benn writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> Another Torg Note:  The Haste card is **not** included as part of this
>> system.  What does that mean?  Either:
>
>What about other elements of the game that can affect initiative? For
>example, the Fanaticism miracle lets the character Flurry for a number
>of rounds and the MA discipline Spring Attack lets you go first during
>the initial round of a fight regardless of the actual initiative.

Off the cuff, how about Flurry = +10 Base Initiative this turn only, plus an
extra dramatic, simple, and move action?

Spring Attack would (like Haste) simply trump this - the GM would have to
rule the intent of Spring attack - start action before everyone else only,
or start and resolve?

>
>[...]
>
>> Also, you guys may be thinking, "This 47 page post is the simple
>> system?!  WTF?" - at least those of you who read this far.
>
>> This **is** the simple system.  There are five reasons that it
>probably
>> seems more complex than it is:
>
>There's a sixth possible reason - your definition of "simple" isn't
>the one everyone else is using!
>
>What you've outlined may be simpler than what you'll do with Standard
>and Perfect but it's hardly what I would call a simple initiative
>system. Simple initiative systems aren't going to account for
>interrupts, changing actions and the other complexities you're aiming
>to include because they're, well, simple.
>
>I think something like Basic or Plain might be a less confusing name to
>use than Simple.

I think it's my presentation more than anything.  Let me try really hard to
present this as simply as possible:

Roll BN, add 20.  This is your initiative count for the rest of combat.  The
GM assigns your action a resolution speed of +0/Instant, +3/Very Fast(simple
actions), +6/Normal, +9/Slow, +12 Very Slow.  The GM counts down from the
highest base initiative.  One's action begins at one's base initiative and
resolves when it's speed has passed.

That's it.

Everything else is just guidelines, interpretation, and advanced or
sophisticated use of the above.

Also, I should mention that, as I noted in a previous post, I think it's
vital that a system have some way to do five things with timing and
initiative:

1) How do we figure out which actions happen first?
2) How do I hold my action until later in the round?
3) How do I interrupt someone else's action?
4) How do I act faster, or improve my initiative?
5) How do I abort or change my action, once it's already begun?

I am not saying the answers to all of the above have to be exhaustively
answered in excruciating detail, but what I think is uncool is the answer to
any of the above being "you can't".  Also, while all of us experienced GMs
can come up with on-the-fly rules, I would like to provide a *little*
guidance.

Given the goal is to have *some* kind of reasonable answer to the above 5
questions, I think this system is about as simple as you can get and still
have a good, flexible, reasonable system that does those things. 


>[...]
>
>> Normally in Torg one gets to do several things in a single round: a
>> simple action, a full move action, a dramatic action, and (if that
>> dramatic action was not an active defense) a passive defense.  Under
>> this system that remains true.
>
>Normally you can do as many simple actions as seems reasonable within
>a ten second time frame, there is no rule limiting it to just one. It
>also sounds like you're limiting the character to a single passive
>defense per round?

Where does it say (or strongly imply) that one can do multiple simple
actions per round in Torg original?  I have always played that usually you
get one.

As far as passive defense, I always understood that you get your passive
defense as many times as you need it - that it's an "always-on" ability that
takes no time - it's just your natural reactive dodging ability, not so much
an action as a quality.  Of course, the GM is free to rule that in certain
circumstances it may reasonable - such as when one is bound, etc.

>
>[...]
>
>> .         Finally, (my favorite) you can permit simultaneous movement,
>> but only as a multi-action using the one-on-many chart.  Normally one
>> doesn't have to roll for a movement or simple action, but this changes
>> when one or both occurs as a multi-action.  Now the difficulty for
>> either roll is 8, and of course, you also have to factor in the
>> multi-action penalty:
>
>This completely fails my rationality test. Take a normal person with
>DEX 8. You're saying that to move across a room and pull something out
>of his pocket will require making a multi-action made against DN 10 and
>12. In other words, an average person can only do that 20-30% of the
>time. Boy, I must have an awesome DEX since that's pretty easy for me
>to pull off!
>
>If you're going to require it as a multi-action, at least reduce the
>difficulty down to Very Easy (3) or Easy (5) so that the results will
>bear some semblance to reality.

Well I did say it hadn't been playtested.  Perhaps the better option would
be to only force one-on-many with simultaneous dramatic actions, not simple.
On the other hand, there's a chance, because of complications, that movement
as a whole will be taken out of this system and go back to being governed by
the more general rules already being used.

In addition I would like to note two other things:  nothing is set in stone,
so using difficulty 3 or 5 in place of 8 is possible, and secondly, for what
it's worth, moving across the room while pulling something out of your
pocket is easy to do *until* you are under the intense pressure that combat
brings - that was why I chose 8, I figured more fumbles in more dramatic
situations made sense.  Still, as you can see, I am open to considering many
options.

>
>> o   On his Base Initiative count of 18, Andy tell the GM that he wants
>> rush Brad (who is Andy's full movement value away) while pulling out
>his
>> dagger and attacking him.
>
>Hopefully the GM doesn't mistake that use of "rush" as meaning that Andy
>is going to make Brad's action take less time to do. ;)

Poor choice of words on my part - my examples need help.

>
>[...]
>
>> *Improving One's Initiative: Surging*
>[...]
>> *Improving One's Action Speed: Rushing*
>
>These two things are perfect examples of why this isn't a simple
>initiative system IMO, they're layers of complexity that are going to
>have players constantly juggling numbers in their head as they plan out
>their actions, balancing speed versus chance of success. Personally
>I'd say that these would be better off left out of this part and saved
>for the Standard system.
>
>--
>Kansas Jim, Torg guru (ksjim (at) sdc (dot) org)
>Torg website: http://www.sdc.org/~ksjim/index.html

In my opinion, if you have a system that can't answer well the five
questions I posed at the top, it may be simple, but it isn't really an
initiative system.

Now, if anyone has an ideas for a simpler system that still has good answers
for those questions, or ways to simplify the system I am talking about that
does not leave one of those questions largely unanswered, I am excited and
all ears.  However, those 5 questions are the minimum design goals for any
such system.

Thanks for much food for thought and the opportunity to explain a few
points.

-Benn Grant
eFix Computer Consulting
benn at 4eFix.com
603.283.6601