Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-21-2011, 03:13 AM   #221
Hohenstadt
 
Join Date: May 2011
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Lord Carnifex, thanks for your comments as well. After re-reading the rules, conditions, terms, etc. on this topic and the discussion here I have a better understanding of this.

:)
Hohenstadt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 05:40 AM   #222
Captain Joy
 
Captain Joy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Heartland, U.S.A.
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by donal View Post
...if the fastest person in combat chooses to delay until last in the turn, then to be first in the turn again, the have to completely miss one turn?
Since being last on turns 1, 2, 3... is functionally equivalent to being first on turns 2, 3, 4... I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

While not RAW, I think what some folks have been advocating is that we'd always allow a player to choose to act at a lesser Basic Speed than their current effective Basic Speed. If at some point, that meant they were acting last, I would allow them to continue to choose to delay their turn order in the sequence. This would necessarily mean they missed a turn.

E.g. Basic Speeds are: A = 6.0, B = 5.75, C = 5.5, D = 5.25. Player A often wants to act at at lower Basic Speed. Their resulting turn sequences might look something like this:
  1. A B C D : A chose to act normally.
  2. A B C D : A chose to act normally. Notice A is acting before B and after D.
  3. B A C D : A chose to act as if their B.S. was 5.74
  4. B C D A : A chose to act as if their B.S. was 5.24
  5. B C D A : A doesn't change anything. Notice A acts before B and after D--no different than when A was acting first.
  6. B C D : A told the GM she wants to delay so she can act after B. The GM allows this, but since B already acted this turn, she'll have to wait until next turn.
  7. B A C D : A acts after B again, but has effectively sacrificed a turn to do so.

I'm not claiming the above is RAW.

Note, if A was spell caster, I wouldn't allow her spells to last extra time simply because her turns lasted longer because of her decisions to delay. If A had chosen All Out Defense, I would allow her defense bonus's to last over her extra long turns (but removing such bonuses after a second is not unreasonable either). In general, if you're going to allow PCs do this delay thing, you're going to need to decide how you're going to handle the extra bits at the end of their extra long turns. Of course, allowing them to set a lower Basic Speed only at the beginning of combat avoids the problem entirely.

Last edited by Captain Joy; 06-19-2014 at 04:43 PM. Reason: spelling
Captain Joy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 06:29 AM   #223
BaHalus
 
BaHalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Belém, Pará, Amazônia, Brasil.
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon View Post
Because they are reacting with their full reaction speed. They aren't reacting slower, they're acting [/i]later[/i]. They delay their first action to sync up with their buddies, but afterwards, their actions come one second after their previous action, every time. To bump their BS up higher again, they would have to be reacting faster than they otherwise were capable of.
Much better. Not awkward anymore.

Last edited by BaHalus; 05-21-2011 at 06:37 AM. Reason: Flood.
BaHalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 06:30 AM   #224
BaHalus
 
BaHalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Belém, Pará, Amazônia, Brasil.
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Joy View Post
Since being last on turns 1, 2, 3... is functionally equivalent to being first on turns 2, 3, 4... I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

While not RAW, I think what some folks have been advocating is that we'd always allow a player to choose to act at a lesser Basic Speed than their current effective Basic Speed. If as some point, that meant they were acting last, I would allow them to continue to choose to delay their turn order in the sequence. This would necessarily mean they missed a turn.

E.g. Basic Speeds are: A = 6.0, B = 5.75, C = 5.5, D = 5.25. Player A often wants to act at at lower Basic Speed. Their resulting turn sequences might look something like this:
  1. A B C D : A chose to act normally.
  2. A B C D : A chose to act normally. Notice A is acting before B and after D.
  3. B A C D : A chose to act as if their B.S. was 5.74
  4. B C D A : A chose to act as if their B.S. was 5.24
  5. B C D A : A doesn't change anything. Notice A acts before B and after D--no different than when A was acting first.
  6. B C D : A told the GM she wants to delay so she can act after B. The GM allows this, but since B already acted this turn, she'll have to wait until next turn.
  7. B A C D : A acts after B again, but has effectively sacrificed a turn to do so.

I'm not claiming the above is RAW.

Note, if A was spell caster, I wouldn't allow her spells to last extra time simply because her turns lasted longer because of her decisions to delay. If A had chosen All Out Defense, I would allow her defense bonus's to last over her extra long turns (but removing such bonuses after a second is not unreasonable either). In general, if you're going to allow PCs do this delay thing, you're going to need to decide how you're going to handle the extra bits at the end of their extra long turns. Of course, allowing them to set a lower Basic Speed only at the beginning of combat avoids the problem entirely.
Yes, if you delay more them once you will effectively lose one turn, but you are using that general round representation. It is not how Gurps handles turns. No universal rounds.

And, choosing in one step to in from first to last is actually doing a do nothing maneuver. The player won't have two actions in a row. Use wait for that.
BaHalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 07:21 AM   #225
Captain Joy
 
Captain Joy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Heartland, U.S.A.
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaHalus View Post
Yes, if you delay more them once you will effectively lose one turn, but you are using that general round representation. It is not how Gurps handles turns. No universal rounds.
Quite right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaHalus View Post
And, choosing in one step to in from first to last is actually doing a do nothing maneuver.
Ha! Good point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaHalus View Post
The player won't have two actions in a row. Use wait for that.
Agreed, the only way to manage two actions in a row is with a Wait maneuver. And by the RAW, the first of those two maneuvers must necessarily be Attack, Feint, All-Out Attack, or Ready.
Captain Joy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 07:45 AM   #226
donal
 
donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Joy View Post
Since being last on turns 1, 2, 3... is functionally equivalent to being first on turns 2, 3, 4... I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

While not RAW, I think what some folks have been advocating is that we'd always allow a player to choose to act at a lesser Basic Speed than their current effective Basic Speed. If as some point, that meant they were acting last, I would allow them to continue to choose to delay their turn order in the sequence. This would necessarily mean they missed a turn.

E.g. Basic Speeds are: A = 6.0, B = 5.75, C = 5.5, D = 5.25. Player A often wants to act at at lower Basic Speed. Their resulting turn sequences might look something like this:
  1. A B C D : A chose to act normally.
  2. A B C D : A chose to act normally. Notice A is acting before B and after D.
  3. B A C D : A chose to act as if their B.S. was 5.74
  4. B C D A : A chose to act as if their B.S. was 5.24
  5. B C D A : A doesn't change anything. Notice A acts before B and after D--no different than when A was acting first.
  6. B C D : A told the GM she wants to delay so she can act after B. The GM allows this, but since B already acted this turn, she'll have to wait until next turn.
  7. B A C D : A acts after B again, but has effectively sacrificed a turn to do so.

I'm not claiming the above is RAW.

Note, if A was spell caster, I wouldn't allow her spells to last extra time simply because her turns lasted longer because of her decisions to delay. If A had chosen All Out Defense, I would allow her defense bonus's to last over her extra long turns (but removing such bonuses after a second is not unreasonable either). In general, if you're going to allow PCs do this delay thing, you're going to need to decide how you're going to handle the extra bits at the end of their extra long turns. Of course, allowing them to set a lower Basic Speed only at the beginning of combat avoids the problem entirely.
Yes, that's what I meant, sorry I wasn't clear – thanks for the detailed description <thumbs up>
donal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 07:55 AM   #227
Figleaf23
Banned
 
Figleaf23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by NineDaysDead View Post
Your link is broken.
That's odd. I cut and pasted it directly. It's to post 111 on this thread.

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...&postcount=111
Figleaf23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 07:58 AM   #228
Bruno
 
Bruno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Joy View Post
Note, if A was spell caster, I wouldn't allow her spells to last extra time simply because her turns lasted longer because of her decisions to delay. If A had chosen All Out Defense, I would allow her defense bonus's to last over her extra long turns (but removing such bonuses after a second is not unreasonable either).
The REALLY interesting thing is "What happens to spells with per/second maintenance" when a spell caster moves away from the spells initative?"

your turn 1, 6.00: you cast Flame Jet
your turn 2, 6.00: you maintain Flame Jet, then Do Nothing (Delay) so that on your next turn you act at 5.25
your turn 3, 6.00: Flame jet comes up for maintenance?
your turn 3, 5.25: ???
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Unified Hit Location Table
A Wiki for my F2F Group
A neglected GURPS blog
Bruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 09:21 AM   #229
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hohenstadt View Post
Lord Carnifex, thanks for your comments as well. After re-reading the rules, conditions, terms, etc. on this topic and the discussion here I have a better understanding of this.

:)
It's like a car. A good car will get you from point A to point B in comfort. There is absolutely no point in worrying about compression ratios or how a synchromesh transmission works, but a gearhead likes to know those things.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 10:57 AM   #230
BaHalus
 
BaHalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Belém, Pará, Amazônia, Brasil.
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
The REALLY interesting thing is "What happens to spells with per/second maintenance" when a spell caster moves away from the spells initative?"

your turn 1, 6.00: you cast Flame Jet
your turn 2, 6.00: you maintain Flame Jet, then Do Nothing (Delay) so that on your next turn you act at 5.25
your turn 3, 6.00: Flame jet comes up for maintenance?
your turn 3, 5.25: ???
I would charge full cost for that second fraction. Round up, not down is the general rule in Gurps. So if he pays 1fp for second and maintaining is a free action I would charge 1fp in the delaying moment and 1fp in the new turn too.

Or I would just forbidden this during mantaining spells or other long actions.
BaHalus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
kromm answer, kromm explanation, wait

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.