Altering the Initiative Order

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

I would also allow it for free with a successful tactic roll at the beginning of the fight.

I would suggest one of two optional rules:

1. You can adjust your turn sequence freely at the start of combat, and attempt a Tactics roll each turn to get the timing. Until you succeed, all of your attacks are at -2.
2. Failing the initial Tactics roll means you follow the normal turn sequence, but critically failing it throws off your timing so badly that you start the combat mentally stunned.

Either way, a perk could simply remove the need for a Tactics roll.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by KingJohn

Which is to say: The ENTIRE PLAN, which we all are ready and prepared for and want to enact, involves the wizard hindering people and the Knight stomping them. Why should this be a pain *solely* because the Knight has a better DX *and wants to give it up*?

If you're thinking you've found a flaw in GURPS, you're right. We've simply hand waved this issue for years and years. If you give up your initiative order, that's fine in our group. I'm sure my players all think it's RAW to do so.

But, this isn't a GURPS-specific flaw. It's a flaw with turn-based game play.

Here's another issue with the turn-based game play.

Imagine the adventure party is all walking down a narrow, three-foot-wide dungeon of death hallway. Knight's in front, then wizard with light spell, then thief-guy, then elven archer. (Of course, the problem with turn-based game play you've just discovered crops up here because the two highest Speed characters are in back.)

In most scenarios, in reality they'd all be walking together, never more than a few feet apart or so. But, if they're doing this with Move maneuvers, that's not the case. At all.

If the wizard's light only illuminates three hexes (hypothetically) and the Knight moves six, he's in darkness for some reason.

"But we're all walking together; the wizard should be right behind me."

In reality, that's the case, but not in turn-based game play.

Some might point out that walking means moving one hex at a time and that's fine. I'm just using this as an example and that doesn't negate it.

Imagine the group is jog/running at down the hall at their slowest member's Move. Maybe it's Move 5. Same thing.

Now, if the knight goes first and he steps on a five-hex-wide pit trap that opens beneath him, and he's at the far edge, realistically, all of the adventurers should fall into it -- they're all running together! But, not when using Move maneuvers to game it out. The knight went first and moved five hexes forward, triggered the trap, and fell into the pit. Because it wasn't his "turn," the wizard doesn't run off the edge and there are four empty hexes between the knight and him. In reality, they all would have been in adjacent hexes and thus all would have fallen when the floor dropped out from under them.

Another example. Good Guy halfling thief (Speed/Move 6.25) wants to throw a lever on the wall 6 hexes away. Bad Guy giant ogre (Speed/Move 6) is in an adjacent hex and knows Good Guy wants to pull the lever. He wants to capture Good Guy and gobble him up.

In reality, Good Guy would make it maybe one or two hexes before Bad Guy would reach him. But, in turn-based play, Good Guy will take a Move maneuver and make it all the way to the switch, then Bad Guy will move to him.

Imagine gaming out an American football game with miniatures on a hex battle mat. If someone on the defensive line had the highest Speed, he could just run right around the offensive line and sack the quarter back before anyone else moved. It's a little more complex than that, but you'll understand my point.

There are a number of problems with turn-based play. I don't have the solution to them and I guess no one else does either as the few other systems I've played are all the same in this regard...

[Harald387]

Originally Posted by Stripe

If the wizard's light only illuminates three hexes (hypothetically) and the Knight moves six, he's in darkness for some reason.

"But we're all walking together; the wizard should be right behind me."

In reality, that's the case, but not in turn-based game play.

Actually, in GURPS turn-based play explicitly does not begin until combat starts. Kromm mentioned this at one point himself (I believe it was a thread involving Enhanced Time Sense). Until combat begins, everything is narrative. I can't imagine exploring a dungeon using turn-based play the whole time, it'd be a nightmare.

So in your example, when combat begins all PCs are clustered together in the light. If the Knight then decides to go charging off into the darkness towards those half-seen orclike shapes, that's his problem.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Now, if the knight goes first and he steps on a five-hex-wide pit trap that opens beneath him, and he's at the far edge, realistically, all of the adventurers should fall into it -- they're all running together! But, not when using Move maneuvers to game it out. The knight went first and moved five hexes forward, triggered the trap, and fell into the pit. Because it wasn't his "turn," the wizard doesn't run off the edge and there are four empty hexes between the knight and him. In reality, they all would have been in adjacent hexes and thus all would have fallen when the floor dropped out from under them.

Again, this isn't a situation where move maneuvers should be gaming it out. Assuming everyone failed Per-based Traps, and assuming the Knight isn't using a 10' pole to test the floor ahead, I'd be asking the entire party for DX, Acrobatics, or Jumping checks (likely at a moderate penalty) to leap clear as the pit begins to open. People who fail fall.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Another example. Good Guy halfling thief (Speed/Move 6.25) wants to throw a lever on the wall 6 hexes away. Bad Guy giant ogre (Speed/Move 6) is in an adjacent hex and knows Good Guy wants to pull the lever. He wants to capture Good Guy and gobble him up.

In reality, Good Guy would make it maybe one or two hexes before Bad Guy would reach him. But, in turn-based play, Good Guy will take a Move maneuver and make it all the way to the switch, then Bad Guy will move to him.

If the ogre knows ahead of time that the Halfling is about to dash off and go for the lever, he should be using a Wait maneuver to attempt a grapple when the Halfling starts moving. 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.

Originally Posted by Stripe

Imagine gaming out an American football game with miniatures on a hex battle mat. If someone on the defensive line had the highest Speed, he could just run right around the offensive line and sack the quarter back before anyone else moved. It's a little more complex than that, but you'll understand my point.

Again, the offensive line is using a whole lot of Wait maneuvers to prevent this.

Wait solves MOST of the problems with turn-based combat. In fact, I've been playing GURPS since the release of 4th, and I can count on one hand the number of situations in which 'Use Wait with a trigger' hasn't been an adequate solution. Our group just happens to have found one of those times.

[Rendu]

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.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by KingJohn

No. The SITUATION is Knight/Wizard/Monster.
The goal is Wizard/Knight/Monster.

If that has to happen Monster/Wizard/Knight, that's acceptible. The GOAL is to let the Knight act between the Wizard and the Monster, instead of letting the monster act after the Wizard and before the Knight.

The Knight and the Wizard in our hypothetical have BOTH won initiative. They both are acting before the Monster. They just want to swap places, and the Knight's Basic Speed is way up over the Wizard's.



No, because a Turnabout spell is countered by the monster turning around. So Wizard (Turnabout), Knight (SMASHY IN THE BACK HAHAHAHAHA), then Monster (I can't turn around, I am dead) becomes Wizard (Turnabout), Monster (I turn around) then Knight (awwwwwww).

This is simple:

Knight: "I wait until the Wizards casts Turnabout, and then I attack the Monster in the back."

That's precisely the sort of thing Wait is for. Yes, you must be specific about what you do, but I have done so. If the idea is to pull off that move, then Wait is a perfect fit.

[Gudiomen]

There's numerous ways to do this, the simplest is to simply state that anyone can lower their initiative, no catch.

If you want to make it interesting, when the character's turn comes up, you can postpone it by rolling against tactics:
-If you critically succeed you can specify your exact order in that round, provided it's after your normal initiative.
-If you have a regular success, you can set your speed for initiative purposes, but ties are settled the normal way.
- If you fail, you postpone too much, reduce 0.25 your target speed by point of failure.
- If you critically fail, you loose your turn.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Rendu

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.

Boom! That one connected.

I would add that when you specify the trigger and your action, you have the added bonus of being able to "interrupt" your foe. E.g. You could perform your declared action after a foe takes step, but before he attacks. When you simply choose to act later in the sequence, you do not have this option.

[Harald387]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

This is simple:

Knight: "I wait until the Wizards casts Turnabout, and then I attack the Monster in the back."

That's precisely the sort of thing Wait is for. Yes, you must be specific about what you do, but I have done so. If the idea is to pull off that move, then Wait is a perfect fit.

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)?

Originally Posted by Rendu

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.

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.

[Comedian]

Originally Posted by Harald387

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)?

The knight didn't lose his turn. He spent his turn readying himself for a particular event that didn't occur, why should he get "backsies" because the plan didn't play out as expected?

[rlbeaver]

Originally Posted by Harald387

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)?

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? I don't have my books, but I never thought of it that way. Then again, I ask for everyone's action and then resolve the combat sequence rather than ask and resolve each person's action in turn order. This more adequately got them thinking in one second rounds versus the 6 or 10 second rounds from other games (and it sped up combat for everyone.)

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...