[Varyon]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Well, yes. Anything that requires computer support for the GM during a combat is too complex for face-to-face gaming, because the computer is a terrible distraction from keeping track of how the players are behaving and reacting.

If everyone was playing via computer, this kind of thing could easily be integrated into the software. But playing via computer means you don't have a very social game.

I don't think either of these assertions (computer is too much of a distraction, playing via computer means lack of socialization) are necessarily true. The GM should be using the computer as an aid only. There are a lot of advantages to doing so - Bruno has handled quite a few, but another that comes immediately to my mind is the vagaries of maps. Namely, there are often quite a few bits on the battle map that the players/characters are not aware of - the location of the switch to turn off the trap, where the ninja is hiding, the fact that floor tile there is actually invisible, and so forth. If you have a computer with something like MapTools running, you can easily have everything there, then only put the tokens the characters are aware of on the physical battle map.

As for not being very social, if everyone is using laptops or tablets you can easily still have things face-to-face with everyone just using their computers as aids.

Originally Posted by tbrock1031

Just skimmed it, but that was almost how it played out when I ran it on IRC, actually, except Tank's hands were chopped off and Sith fled when she saw the fight not go her way.

Using IRC with a dicebot for rolls, we took about 2 hours to play it out. Face to face would probably have taken less time.

Cool. Taking 1.5x as much time with minimal familiarity with the characters sounds like it's not too bad of an increase.

Also, thank you for having me play that out. It's revealed quite a few holes I wasn't aware of, which I'll be getting into in a bit.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Defences have gone from being functionally free unless AoA or trading against attack effect to having a delaying cost.

Thanks to the example, it occurs to me that I'm rather overcharging for defenses. Using the penalties from Martial Arts as a guideline, a Parry with an extremely light (3xMinST) weapon shouldn't cost any more IP than a Dodge, while I have it costing over twice as much. Instead of -20, -35 IP compared to thrusting is likely appropriate. Block might be more like -30 IP or -25 IP. Unarmed Parries are arguably a bit hairier, but maintaining the "minimum 10 IP" guideline probably works alright.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

My issue with that is that dodge has more utility for defence (wider application, no worries about weapon size, don't need to carry shield, no issue with unwieldy weapons) normally this is counterbalanced by being harder to buy up. In your first example the knight can dodge for 20IP and parry for 40IP. Which means he could dodge at +4 as quickly as parry, and still suffer the unwieldy penalty.

Dodge for 10 IP, Parry for 40, actually. Also, defenses cannot go beyond double IP - you could Dodge at +2 for 20 IP, but can go no higher than that. He could technically Parry for +8 (!!!) if he wanted to burn pretty much all of his IP to do it.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

We also need to ST ratings for shield as weapons (but then we need them anyway unless they are hidden somewhere and i've never found them)

Indeed. I wrote up a [url=http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=130586]system[/quote] for calculating MinST (using Grip CP from TG) for weapons, and actually intend to tweak that a bit for armor, which would end up covering shields.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Ironically I think for it works well for multiple combatants as it blends them well, and the extra work for each subsequent combatant after the first 2 is less than it is for the first two.

This is indeed the intent.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

How would you fit in advantages like extra attack (I want to say half IP costs fo relevant things), ETS & ATR, the former was mentioned for the jedi but not sure if I saw an in game effect come in.

Extra Attack would be a "free" rapid strike - any time you take an Attack Maneuver, you get an extra attack for free. Fractional IP costs can, as I learned from the previous version, make things far too complicated and unplayable.

ETS is mentioned in the first post. It includes Combat Reflexes (+2 Init for determining starting IP) and Lightning Reflexes (+4 Init for same; total is +6), means that even if you somehow fail the Initiative roll you still start at 50 IP, and finally raises the "end of turn IP cap" from 90 IP to 100 IP.

ATR no longer exists, because Init is a finer-grained version of it (of note, +10 Init has the same functional effect as a level of ATR, and costs [100]). My previous version had the option of buying Init with an ATR option, causing you to gain IP to two (or more) separate pools at once, being able to pull from either for defenses and getting to act with one anytime it reached 100. This was abandoned for being overly complicated and narratively confusing - someone with ATR 1 should just grab Init 20 or so and be done with it.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I particularly don't like the random factor involved in rolling for initiative, automation or not. It smells of double-rewarding someone for having a high Initiative, and I've never been convinced of random initiative being fun.

It's easy to make some alternatives. If you dislike the random quality, then just say characters start with Init*50 IP - this functionally just assumes a roll of 10 for all characters. If you dislike the double-dipping (which hadn't occurred to me, but I see how it could be problematic), have everyone roll against 10, with +2 for CR and +4 for LR. If you dislike both, have everyone start at IP 50 - but CR gives +10 to starting IP, LR gives +20 (and thus ETS gives +30; actually, under this scheme, having ETS give +40 might not be inappropriate).

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Why is a tick 1/5 a second instead of 1/10? It seems like it should be 1/10th, so an average person that regains 10 per tick gains 100 in 1 second

I originally had it as 1/10th, but didn't like the results. First off, while allowing people to react to things that happened 1/5th of a second ago isn't completely ridiculous (average visual reaction time is closer to 1/4th of a second, so call it "heroic average"), reacting to things that happened 1/10th of a second ago almost certainly is. I also wanted it to be possible for people to do things that required more than a second to fully recover from without going into negative IP. Finally, I felt 1/5th would make combat flow a bit better overall.

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

That is a good point. Should I just use the median instead, and let ties go to the players?

I ignored the first post as a joke, but if you'd like to continue this discussion, I'd much prefer if you took it to its own thread. This one is meant to discuss my GURPS Overhaul, not to discuss any and all possible Initiative systems.