Should Waiting permanently change your place in the turn sequence?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Thinking about it a little more, one possible solution to the problem is to change the combat system in a major way.

Wanting to have Interrupts and the like was honestly a big part of me designing a few Initiative systems, but they... really didn't work out very well. Your suggestion is more workable, but would certainly need playtesting (and may overstate the advantage of higher Basic Speed, at least when two characters are close together).

[Lovewyrm]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Thinking about it a little more, one possible solution to the problem is to change the combat system in a major way. Instead of initiative going from the highest Speed (best reflexes) to the lowest Speed for initiative, run initiative from the lowest Speed (worst reflexes) to the highest Speed.

Some games employ this ordering, suggesting that it better mimics the ability of those with better reflexes to react more quickly to the actions of those less gifted with reflexes. In essence, the slower reacting are locked into their responses, allowing those faster to factor those actions into their choice of response.

Such a re-ordering would do away with Wait altogether, instead replacing it with an Interrupt, whereby a faster reacting character can chose to react to the slower character's declared action's now rather than waiting to see what else develops before he would normally have his go at it.

If you don't particularly like the idea of Interrupts, you could do away with them, but declare that events resolve on the following turn, thus the slower character attacked and successfully got by the quicker character's defenses, but the injury and any penalties for shock don't apply until the sequence starts again. In this scheme, there actually is a common second that is shared for everyone's turn. This would be a major change-up, and I definitely have not playtested the idea to see how completely the entire combat system would need to be re-written, but it would potentially be a fairer solution to the problem posed.

I like the premise, but could it not run the risk to become a case like the problem of rolling defense only if threatened by a hit that some describe as "psi premonition for the everyman" (paraphrased)?

Also, would interrupts reset? If this is meant to be fair...wouldn't the faster characters interrupt every time?

slowpoke moves, fastpoke interrupts and gives slowpoke a good whack
slowpokes move goes on, but fastpoke being faster also probably has the better defenses (at least dodge wise) and has an edge there.

Then fastpoke gets to attack, and slowpoke perhaps to defend, already possibly on a backleg.
And then on a new turn fastpoke interrupts slowpoke again, with the perfect counter to whatever slowpoke is doing.

That said, I like this system in tactical games like jagged alliance...but that's also controlled by an AI and is more opaque.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Lovewyrm

I like the premise, but could it not run the risk to become a case like the problem of rolling defense only if threatened by a hit that some describe as "psi premonition for the everyman" (paraphrased)?

Maybe, although under the premise of the rule change, I'd be more inclined to call it having "very good situational analysis skills."

Also, would interrupts reset? If this is meant to be fair...wouldn't the faster characters interrupt every time?

Interrupts only reset at the end of the common turn. They replace the interrupting character's non-defense actions for the remainder of the turn, i.e., "I want to attack C, now that he's become a threat." "Too bad, you've already had your turn when you attacked A. Go ahead, C."

Faster characters are always able to interrupt, they are after all faster, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they always will interrupt. As in the example above, there's something to be said for letting events unfold naturally, so that the character really is reacting to the greatest/most immediate threat for this turn.

slowpoke moves, fastpoke interrupts and gives slowpoke a good whack
slowpokes move goes on, but fastpoke being faster also probably has the better defenses (at least dodge wise) and has an edge there.

Probably, but the intent was to make initiative fairer, not to equalize slowpoke and fastpoke otherwise. No matter what the initiative system, fastpoke is faster than slowpoke and, in the interests of versimilitude, something very like this ought to be able to happen regardless of the system being used. If fastpoke can't preempt slowpoke, that's more likely to start a "Hey! What's going on here. That's not realistic. I ought to be able to..." argument than an occasional back-to-back turn is, in my opinion.

Then fastpoke gets to attack, and slowpoke perhaps to defend, already possibly on a backleg.

No, fastpoke had his attack, for better or worse, when he interrupted. Unless he All-Out Attacks (Double), thereby forfeiting his defenses, he's had his turn, he doesn't get to go again until his next turn.

It wasn't clear, but the Interrupt is just that, an Interrupt. As soon as fastpoke makes his attack, if that's the response he chooses, slowpoke picks up from where he was interrupted. A DX roll, or perhaps a (DX+HT)/2 or even (DX+Per)/2 roll, might permit slowpoke to react quickly enough to changed circumstances to alter his declared action, for example, moving to close the distance between him and fastpoke that opened when fastpoke sidestepped to the rear in anticipation of slowpoke's attack, or trying to parry fastpoke's feint rather than ignoring it to All-Out Attack as originally planned.

And then on a new turn fastpoke interrupts slowpoke again, with the perfect counter to whatever slowpoke is doing.

Yes, but that, or something very like it, is always going to be a problem when one character goes first and the other character's player gets to see/hear what that character is doing. (One idea for reducing player information was to have declaration cards, which would have a generic action on the front and the actual action chosen on the front. Thus, from the front you could tell that a character was attacking, but not whether he was Attacking or All-Out Attacking; that he was using a ranged weapon, but not whether he was going to Attack this turn or was still Aiming; that the character was standing there, but not whether he was Doing Nothing or Waiting). Of course some things were unmistakable, such as Long Action or Readying a Weapon.) Short of hidden declarations, or reducing information available to players, I don't see a way around that.

That said, I like this system in tactical games like jagged alliance...but that's also controlled by an AI and is more opaque.

I don't expect to ever use it or playtest it, as it feels more bother than the rules as is are. There's also the fact that I can forget my intention to use alternate systems if my players don't constantly remind me initially. I still want to deploy John M. Ford's alternate healing system from I'm Not Dead Yet! in my games, with players only getting a rough idea of how badly wounded they are, but despite my repeated announcements that I'm going to use the system in this campaign, I always end up forgetting; giving the players exact damage numbers and my players never remind me, "Hey, I thought you were using Superficial, Light and Severe Wounds for damage!"

[VIVIT]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Of course, if you do opt to have Waits shift your place in the turn sequence, there's a hairy question about defense penalties to answer. If A has Basic Speed 8, he/she normally gets a turn at 8.00. If A instead opts to Wait a Basic Speed 8 (where any penalties from the prior turn expire), Parries an attack at 6.25, then interrupts an action at 5.5 (changing A's normal turn to occur at 5.51), at what point does that -4 to Parries with the same arm expire?

Have parry penalties in general expire on the turn of the character who made the attack that was parried, maybe? It would be a bit of bookkeeping, but it would remove another artifact of the turn order: defense penalties incurred right before your place in the turn order don't last as long as those incurred earlier.

Maybe an AOD could clear your defense penalties early as a side benefit.

*Having not dealt much with the default system for magic in GURPS, I'm not sure if this would actually work.

Yes, that is how Concentrate maneuvers in general are intended to work.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Stormcrow

Well, I mean... so what? You still get to act the same number of times as everyone else. What's the problem with it?

The problem is that in some cases it lets A stab C in the back with no chance for defense.

A: I'll wait for C to step within 1 yard of me, and then I'll do a Committed Attack, which gives me an extra step (4 yards total because I have Move 11), to step directly behind him, and then stab him between the shoulder blades in a runaround attack.

C: I Step and Attack A.

GM: he steps around you and stabs you. [Die rolls] A's runaround attack hits but you Dodge it.

C: Can I turn around and stab A?

GM: no, you've already used your step. But you can attack D.

C: [rolls] 3 points of damage. That's the end of my turn.

A: since I'm starting in C's rear, I do a Telegraphic Attack to his skull and it's a true rear attack--he cannot defend without Peripheral Vision or Double Jointed.

C: [sigh] I guess I'm dead, but go ahead and roll the dice. Maybe there will be a miracle...

[TGLS]

Couldn't C retreat after A's first attack to adjust facing and/or get space?

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by TGLS

Couldn't C retreat after A's first attack to adjust facing and/or get space?

Hmmm, good point. Adjust the example appropriately--maybe A attacks E while maneuvering behind C. Or A misses C. Or D is waiting to move in front of C to block retreat "forward".

The point is that getting to act twice in a row lets A bypass C's defenses in a way that is fixed by adjusting initiative order after the Wait. C should have a turn before A gets another turn.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

The problem is that in some cases it lets A stab C in the back with no chance for defense.

I'm not 100% sure that the problem with the described course of events is the skipping of the turn, as opposed to some other issue with waits and run-around attacks.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I'm not 100% sure that the problem with the described course of events is the skipping of the turn, as opposed to some other issue with waits and run-around attacks.

Can you think of a way to break rear/runaround attacks via Wait, if the target gets another turn between your Wait and your next turn?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

The problem is that in some cases it lets A stab C in the back with no chance for defense.

A: I'll wait for C to step within 1 yard of me, and then I'll do a Committed Attack, which gives me an extra step (4 yards total because I have Move 11), to step directly behind him, and then stab him between the shoulder blades in a runaround attack.

C: I Step and Attack A.

GM: he steps around you and stabs you. [Die rolls] A's runaround attack hits but you Dodge it.

C: Can I turn around and stab A?

GM: no, you've already used your step. But you can attack D.

C: [rolls] 3 points of damage. That's the end of my turn.

A: since I'm starting in C's rear, I do a Telegraphic Attack to his skull and it's a true rear attack--he cannot defend without Peripheral Vision or Double Jointed.

C: [sigh] I guess I'm dead, but go ahead and roll the dice. Maybe there will be a miracle...

I'd consider C's step as still in effect after that Wait triggered, and thus would allow them to turn and face A - particularly considering A was their original target. If I'm focusing on someone to attack them, and while I'm stepping into the attack (I typically interpret "step and attack" as the two occurring more-or-less simultaneously), I'm not going to just keep staring in front of me when they suddenly run past me!

But I think this is a wider issue with movement from a Wait (which should really make it harder to pull off the Wait if you have to move significantly before you can act, but I think that discussion was in another thread) and its interaction with GURPS' Facing rules. The GURPS rules assume that typically you'll have a chance to turn and face a foe who gets into your back hex (unless you're unable due to having Decreased Time Rate, being bound such that you can't turn around, etc, but then someone being able to take advantage of that makes sense), so exploiting Wait to get around that is certainly going to cause issues. You could also have a weird situation where someone gets hit with a knockback effect just before their turn and winds up in your back hex, where no amount of changes to the rules for Wait is going to prevent them from getting a free backstab on you. I'd say in a situation where someone gets to start their turn in someone's back hex due to such oddities of the turn sequence rather than the typical backstab situations, treat the attack as a Runaround Attack. So your example of someone using Wait->Committed Attack instead means the attacker does a Runaround Attack when their Wait triggers, and then when their turn comes up they get to do another Runaround Attack. That's still advantageous for them, but it's not the automatic "I win" button it would be otherwise.