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 05-14-2011, 09:14 AM   #41
Figleaf23
Banned
 
Figleaf23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Personally, I favour allowing the character to choose a place in sequence anywhere up to his earliest possible time to act.

I find some support for this in the rules, though interpretation is involved.

Page B363 says rather plainly, under Turn Sequence, that you go in order of speed, period.

However, under "Your Turn" it notes that your turn:

Quote:
"overlaps the turns of other characters".
Further, on page B17 it says:

Quote:
"Basic Speed ... helps determine ... the order in which you act in combat (a high Basic Speed will let you "out-react" your foes)."
Help determine, not determine.
Let, not make.
Out-react, not move before.

So that's the textual analysis. But also my personal practicality analysis tells me it doesn't make much sense to insist that a quick warrior can't wait on the actions of a slower ally, especially in a structure where their 'turns overlap'.
Figleaf23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2011, 09:17 AM   #42
Figleaf23
Banned
 
Figleaf23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ View Post
I'm sure there has to be some way to get this effect using the rules as-is.
Well, if you think it's necessary (I don't), you could buy Speed with Switchable and Reflexive.
Figleaf23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2011, 09:22 AM   #43
seasong
 
seasong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?p=223057

That's the closest thing to an official statement on these forums that I am aware of, regarding the rules as written. In it, Kromm argues against re-ordering the sequence (although that doesn't mean anything as regards to deciding on a different sequence at the very beginning of the combat).

Personally, I allow players to re-order themselves in the turn sequence, but this requires skipping one turn (Do Nothing).

For example:

Knight 7
Wizard 6
Grog the Mighty Orc 5

Turn 1: Knight attacks Grog; Wizard spins Grog to face the other way; Grog turns back around.

Turn 2: Knight does nothing (move to 5.5 in turn sequence); Wizard spins Grog to face the other way; Grog turns back around.

Turn 3: Wizard spins Grog to face the other way; Knight hits Grog from behind; Grog howls, then turns back around.
__________________
Thomas Weigel
Gamer, Coder, Geek
seasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2011, 09:58 AM   #44
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by seasong View Post
That's the closest thing to an official statement on these forums that I am aware of, regarding the rules as written. In it, Kromm argues against re-ordering the sequence (although that doesn't mean anything as regards to deciding on a different sequence at the very beginning of the combat).
That's mostly about changing the order in the middle of a fight, which is disastrous for the combat system. A house rule that allows you to act, for the entire combat, in a different order does not cause those problems. Allowing a character to skip a turn and come back in later is probably going to be fine, too. I would just be sure to require a full turn skipped, so that it doesn't render Wait redundant.
__________________
RyanW
The goal of a mentor should be to run out of answers before the pupil runs out of questions
Check out my GURPS (et al) wiki, Sweetcandle. Latest addition: Avatar style bending in Fate Core
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2011, 12:00 PM   #45
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Burnsville, MN
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by obatron View Post
Why couldn't the knight at least move in this situation? Is it just unclear or do the rules actually not allow you an action?

In thinking about it, in a one second round, it sort of would make sense not being able to change your action because the situation changes so fast. Coming from other systems with longer rounds, you sort of expect that you have time to change your action in a round.

It will be interesting to see how this works out in discussion, it may have me altering the way I run combats...
Id allow an evaluate or AoD, that kind of thing. Id also allow a basic attack vs an immediate theat. The Waiting character was looking for a certain result, which didnt happen.

I MIGHT allow a character with Combat Reflexes more leeway here; CR is a lite version of ETS in many ways.
__________________
The Deadly Spring "...probably the most infamous Pyramid article of all time."-Jeffro's Car Wars Blog
Gaming Ballistic: Home of Gaming Ballistic, LLC and my blog.
DouglasCole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2011, 12:12 PM   #46
malloyd
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald387 View Post
As stated previously, problems occur when the situation turns out like this:

Speed 7.25 Knight: "I Wait until the wizard casts Roundabout, and then hit the monster in the back."
Speed 7 Scout: "I shoot the monster in the eye. It dies."
Speed 6 Wizard: "Well, the thing I was planning to cast Roundabout on is dead... I'll cast a Missile spell and get ready to throw it at the enemy over there next turn."
Knight: "...well, now my turn is wasted. Thanks, Scout."

Bad teamwork? Sure. But should it really result in the Knight losing his turn (instead of being allowed to Move, or take some other useful maneuver since he no longer has an enemy in front of him)?
I'd certainly consider "I Wait until after Wizard acts or get's knocked out of the fight" to meet the specific requirement well enough. Admittedly if Wizard then takes Do Nothing or something, you'd still lose an action, but really holding your turn to later with Wait isn't going to break anything, and in some ways never resolving a Wait *does* - Act, parry, Wait (never triggers), get attacked by guy just before you in the action sequence, can you parry without a multiple parry penalty? Does it depend on the action you *would* have taken if the Wait triggered?
__________________
--
MA Lloyd
malloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2011, 03:19 PM   #47
Lord Carnifex
 
Lord Carnifex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald387 View Post
As stated previously, problems occur when the situation turns out like this:

Speed 7.25 Knight: "I Wait until the wizard casts Roundabout, and then hit the monster in the back."
Speed 7 Scout: "I shoot the monster in the eye. It dies."
Speed 6 Wizard: "Well, the thing I was planning to cast Roundabout on is dead... I'll cast a Missile spell and get ready to throw it at the enemy over there next turn."
Knight: "...well, now my turn is wasted. Thanks, Scout."

Bad teamwork? Sure. But should it really result in the Knight losing his turn (instead of being allowed to Move, or take some other useful maneuver since he no longer has an enemy in front of him)?
I'm afraid that's just the way the biscuit breaks, at least under RAW. Time to get the Scout involved in your plans and co-ordinate group-wide tactics.

Quote:
My reading (and that of the rest of my group) of this doesn't say that it negates the requirements outlined previously for a Wait (that you declare your maneuver ahead of time), but rather that this is just a suggestion for 'other situations in which Wait is useful'. I could be wrong!

At the end of the day, it really makes sense to me that you can simply delay your turn until an ally acts, then take your maneuver. I don't have a problem with it, fundamentally - it's probably what we're going to do in our group. It just seems to me like it's an odd hole in the rules.
I'm neither Kromm nor SJ, so I can't speak to the intent of the rules as written, but here's my interpretation. In melee combat, it's not always a question of sheer speed and who goes first. Fencing recognizes the idea of tempo, of acting when the time is right or the window of opportunity presents itself. I think this is what the Wait manuver represents: intending a certain course of action, and holding back for the split second for the opportunity to manifest. This may be waiting for the opponent to do something, or for an ally to set up your next attack.

Tempo does require you to have in mind vaguely what you want to do. You set yourself up for a lunge, (an AoA), for instance, and wait for your ally to draw the opponents blade away. Once the moment comes, you act quickly. Because you've waited, you only get a split second to act, which is why you don't get full-second maneuvers like Move or Concentrate.

So, this is probably not a hole in the rules. This is Wait working like it ought to. It's a feature, not a bug :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanW View Post
A house rule that allows you to act, for the entire combat, in a different order does not cause those problems.
I can't see a problem with this. It's not RAW, but as a GM, I'd buy it. About the only problem I can forsee is if more than one character wants to pick a different place in the turn order, but won't declare it until or unless other characters declare theirs. In the worst case, you might have multiple characters stubbornly waiting for someone else to pick move order first. In which case, the simple answer would be to make everybody roll it off - lowest roll on 3D waits until everyone else decides. Alternately, if it's PCs being stubborn, the GM has carte blanche to run a round of combat where uncoperative PCs choose the Do Nothing maneuver with no active defenses. Survivors might be more co-operative.

Making it a Perk might help with that. Or finding less combative, adversarial players.
__________________
An ongoing narrative of philosophy, psychology, and semiotics: Et in Arcadia Ego

"To an Irishman, a serious matter is a joke, and a joke is a serious matter."
Lord Carnifex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2011, 04:05 PM   #48
Stripe
 
Stripe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Midwest, USA
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald387 View Post
Actually, in GURPS turn-based play explicitly does not begin until combat starts.
You missed my point entirely, but to counter your disagreement with everything I just said, add to my examples that the party is moving down the hallway with a monster chasing them.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald387 View Post
If the ogre has NO IDEA that the halfling is about to do what he's about to do, then yes, the halfling is going to scurry out of reach before the ogre reacts, and remain out of reach until he stops moving. They move at the same speed, after all. This is pretty much how it should work.
Not so. The switch is six hexes north of the halfling. The ogre is three hexes north and one hex west of the halfling.

It's the beginning of combat. Halfling has initiative. Halfling makes it all the way past ogre, who has combat reflexes. It's not the ogre's turn, so he doesn't get to react.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald387 View Post
Again, the offensive line is using a whole lot of Wait maneuvers to prevent this.
No, it isn't. It's taking the Do Nothing maneuver. It's the start of combat.

Defensive back took Wait ('till ball is snapped). His turn, he runs around the end and sacks the QB.
__________________
.
"How the heck am I supposed to justify that whatever I
feel like doing at any particular moment is 'in character'
if I can't say 'I'm chaotic evil!'"? óJeff Freeman
Stripe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2011, 09:09 PM   #49
Ze'Manel Cunha
 
Ze'Manel Cunha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Antilles, it's hot...
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rendu View Post
P.B366, Under "Wait":
"Finally, you can use Wait to coordinate actions with slower friends."

That's the entire paragraph. No qualifiers about specifying what you are waiting for, or what you will do. Nice, simple, common-sensical, even.
This is how I always run things, you can always wait until after X, this changes your sequence until you wait again.
Afaik that's RAW...
Ze'Manel Cunha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2011, 11:17 PM   #50
sir_pudding
Wielder of Smart Pants
 
sir_pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
Default Re: Altering the Initiative Order

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha View Post
This is how I always run things, you can always wait until after X, this changes your sequence until you wait again.
Afaik that's RAW...
Waiting doesn't change your sequence ever, AFAICT.
sir_pudding 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 02:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.