Altering the Initiative Order

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Of course you're free to have whatever views you like, but what you said was that you didn't know what post we were talking about.

I never did. I said I don't see anything that actually says what you people claim is the RAW.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Denial is not just a river in Egypt, I guess.

That's not especially helpful is it?

[Lord Carnifex]

I'd like to add to some of the things Douglas Cole said.

Originally Posted by Hohenstadt

If this is an example of what goes on in a game session over just this one issue, what else have I to face?

Isn't this supposed to be fun to play?

It's important to bear in mind that what gets discussed here in the forums is not indicative of what happens in actual GURPS games around the world. To indulge in a sports analogy, we here on the forums are like Monday morning referees reviewing film of games played over the weekend. We like to sit and natter over odd plays and questionable referee calls that don't come up in 99% of games. We're the guys who say, "Okay, so the wide reciever did a handstand and caught the ball with his feet. And one of his hands was in bounds, while the other was out of bounds. Was it a legal catch?" We look over slow motion footage from three different angles, read over the rules, and offer opinions. Sometimes, Kromm or RPK will offer a ruling.

But these are edge cases and unusual situations. Sometimes, it's players trying to pull something clever. And built in to the way GURPS works is the GM. It's up to him or her to say, "Sure, that's neat. Go woth it," or "No effen' way. Are you kidding me?" GURPS, unlike some other games, encourages a non-adversarial relationship between GM and players. The GM is encouraged to make rulings where the rules are less than clear, or where the rules as written are getting in the way of the cooperative fun of everyone involved.

Remember there are no GURPS police who will break into your house and haul you off for playing the game wrong. We here at the forums have no way to enforce our opinions; even Kromm and RPK can't take away your GURPS books because you aren't playing the game the way they might intend you to. We just offer opinions and have arguments over rules because it interests us, and because sometimes players and GMs like to seek guidance from their peers and from the games creators about extending the rules to cover situations that crop up. If you're having fun reading, playing, and GMing GURPS, you're doing it right.

Am I missing something? Is it so important in GURPS as to when one takes their action? Does it break the system if you don't?

Changing turn order too much can cause certain problems. Douglas Cole mentioned a couple of them. Some others:

1) A character who takes an All-Out Attack loses all of their active defenses until the beginning of their next turn. With an invariant turn sequence, that means all of the character's opponents will have a turn in which they might be able to take advantage of the character's vulnerability. That's part of the trade-off for making an All-Out Attack. However, if the character is able to manipulate the turn sequence, they might set up a situation where the window of vulnerability is limited. The worst case would be one where a character takes two turns back to back: he could make an All Out Attack, lose all of their active defenses, then regain them again at the beginning of their next turn without having any window of vulnerability at all.

2) Spell durations run from when the caster finishes until the beginning of the caster's turn when the spell expires. So, if the spell duration is one second, that's measured from the end of the turn when the caster casts the spell to the caster's next turn. The intention is that the spell will affect or potentially affect other characters for only one of their turns and then end. If the turn sequence is rearranged, the caster might manipulate things so that he acts first and casts the spell, and then delays his next turn to the very end of the turn sequence so that everyone else winds up going twice before the spell ends, enjoying the benefits or consequences of the spell for twice as long as intended.

As I have read in the books and here on the GURPS forum you can use and/or change any rules you want. Use as few rules or as many as you want. But what I am seeing here (and few other discussions) this isn't the case?

That's exactly the case. But you might find as a player or GM, that you don't necessarily under how to implement a rule, or what it means, or what it was intended to do. Or you might want to do something, but not quite know how to use the rules to do it. Or you might want to understand a rule better, so if you decide to get rid of it or change it, you'll have a clearer idea to know what you're doing. Coming here can get you advice from other players and GM's abit how they have handled it or might handle it. If you're lucky, you may get advice from one of the authors of the system. Then it's up to you to decide if it makes sense for you and whether or not to listen or follow anyone's advice.

[BaHalus]

I think the lower basic speed perspective is awkward. I prefer a delayed action as a solution for the OP problem.

It is not problematic for 1 second spells, only wil need some intelligent handling of multi-second spells and of excessive use of delays.

As it does not seems to be the OP intention, then I don't see any problem in the fighter delaying his action to always act after the wizard. And I don't see a problem in delaying again if if decides to change the strategy.

So waiting you have limited option, that can be quite broad as Kromm said, and that keeps you in the same position in the sequence and lets you interrupt other characters acts.

Delaying would be like a do nothing maneuver that lasts less than 1 second. After that you take the action in your new turn sequence.

I think it is raw compatible and not unbalancing.

To avoid excessive use of delay (to keep things simple), maybe the GM should make some kind of test. If you fail you just done nothing for a whole turn.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

If characters can set their sequence at any number up to their Basic Speed only at the beginning of combat because they can choose to slow react slower, why can't they later decide to react faster? If a character punches at partial ST one turn, they can choose to use full ST next turn; if the situation with Basic Speed is analogous to the ST one, then it should allow you to return to full speed. It doesn't make any sense that a human being could really "dial down" their reaction speed or that they'd be trapped at the lower speed so long as interpersonal violence was occurring in the vicinity.

I think of it this way. I high Basic Speed means you have the option of initially taking a maneuver first, i.e. making your combat maneuver before lower Basic Speed friends and foes. Of course, you may "choose to operate at lower Basic Speed'' [Kromm, post 111]. But, after several combat turns you can't decide to react faster, i.e. making your combat maneuver earlier than already established. Jumping up sooner in the order is not analogous to simply falling back into your natural state; it would require something remarkable.

A ST 12 character can choose to punch with ST 10, but can't later justify a punch with ST 14 because that will get them back up to an average punch ST of 12. A Move 5 character can choose to move at move 3, but can't later decide to move 7 because that moves them 10 yards in two turns--consistent with a Move of 5.

A Basic Speed 8 person does not act twice as often as a Basic Speed 4 person.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I said before, I am aware of that post but I am not reading what you guys are into it. Nowhere does he say you can change your sequence at any time and nowhere does he say anything about being able to set Basic Speed at the beginning of combat but not later. AFAICT the paragraph about operating at lower Basic Speed is the explanation as to why you can use Waits to go later without the same rigor that other Waits require in triggering conditions. If a character wants to delay his reactions he needs to take a Wait.

I think most of us are reading: "There's no reason at all why you couldn't choose to operate at lower Basic Speed."[Kromm, post 111] as not requiring a Wait Maneuver. You would simply inform the GM what Basic Speed you prefer to operate at. Given this interpretation, I think that it makes sense that you "set Basic Speed at the beginning of combat but not later" and not be allowed to "change your sequence at any time". However, you are correct, Kromm has not specifically address this.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The problem is there is no logical reason why a character who chooses to slow his reactions couldn't choose react at full speed at any time if he wanted to; when little Johnny toddles toward the street, Mommy doesn't have to wait helplessly, she can just scoop him up.

Well, there are two separate issues here.

a) "I want to delay the start of my turn until after Johnny's, so that I get first right to react to his actions." - That can't really be done using a restrictive reading of the rules, but there are lots of times that it makes sense that can't be done with RAW Wait (moving in formation, for example).
b) "I stand on the sidewalk and will AOA (Determined) to grapple the first child that approaches the street." - That's a classic Wait.

If you don't allow (a), it can introduce a situation where having excessive Basic Speed is actually disadvantageous, which except in a few specific examples is normally avoided for things that cost points. Even if you allow (a), you can't "speed back up" because you aren't actually going any slower, you're just timing things differently. The problem is that we are modeling something distinctly analog with a digital model for playability, and occasionally you must choose which inelegance you will accept.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

So why should you be allowed to use a lower Basic Speed at all, ever, instead of taking Waits?

" ... you certainly can elect to use less than your full resources. You're allowed to strike at lower ST, move at less than full Move, etc. There's no reason at all why you couldn't choose to operate at lower Basic Speed."

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...&postcount=111

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnifex

That's exactly the case. But you might find as a player or GM, that you don't necessarily under how to implement a rule, or what it means, or what it was intended to do. Or you might want to do something, but not quite know how to use the rules to do it. Or you might want to understand a rule better, so if you decide to get rid of it or change it, you'll have a clearer idea to know what you're doing. Coming here can get you advice from other players and GM's abit how they have handled it or might handle it. If you're lucky, you may get advice from one of the authors of the system. Then it's up to you to decide if it makes sense for you and whether or not to listen or follow anyone's advice.

To add to this - many of us are, basically, amateur game designers. We like GURPS because it is very much a collection of rules that we can use or discard as needed. But further, because it's a collection of rules that we can use or discard, it means it comes with lots of "hooks" to hang our own experiments in game-rule-creation or game-rule-modification off of.

One of my reasons to run ideas and suggestions and questions by the forum here is that I value the feedback other amateur game designers can give me on these ideas. I can probably throw together a "functional" ruling, wave my hands a little, and my players will be happy enough, but because I LIKE game design, I am not happy with functional. I want aesthetically pleasing. I want elegant. I want to smooth off the rough edges so players don't catch their fingers on them, I want it to be in a "colour scheme" that matches the "interior decorating" of my campaign (fit the tone and style of my game), I want it to be a nice shape with easy to use controls (easy to understand, not so much dice rolling that my players get bored, enough dice rolling that they get excited), etc.

And of course another reason is that sometimes I think I have a brilliant idea and I want other people to tell me its' brilliant (or not, so I don't make a fool of myself too much).

I've had bad experiences with houserules tinkering with turn sequence in other game systems (and frankly, with other systems "official" turn sequence) - I'm not confident in my ability to tinker with this part of the game system without other people being able to watch me do it and warn me before I stick my finger somewhere I shouldn't.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The problem I have with that is why can't a character who is voluntarily reacting slower than they have to ever switch back to their full reaction speed if they need to? It doesn't make any sense. If you make a punch at less than full ST in one attack are you fixed at that reduced ST for rest of the combat?

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.

[donal]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

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.

Great explanation. And so, 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?

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...&postcount=111

Your link is broken.