Changing turn sequence

[geppo_68]

Dear sirs,
I received some proposals from my players about introducing a random element (like basic speed + 1d6) in order to add some uncertainty in the turn sequence.

In other words the turn sequence can change from turn to turn.

I am strongly convinced that this will lead to a break up of the combat system, as everything is designed around a fixed turn sequence.

Is there any official position of the designers (Kromm??) on this issue?

Thanks!
Giuseppe

[sir_pudding]

Back to back turns can result in some weirdness. If you really want random sequence, I'd suggest you should just roll once at the start of combat.

[Varyon]

You could playtest it - try it out in a few no-stakes battles and see how it works. My assumption is that it will result in battles slowing down quite a bit, as whenever the round resets, you have to have everyone roll and redetermine turn order. You'll also invariably end up with oddities, like one character acting twice in a row (last action on one round, first on the next) or having to wait for everyone else to act twice between actions (first action on one round, last on the next). I can see justification for having initiative order be a bit different from battle to battle, so you don't always have every PC acting in the same order (although there is a benefit to that - I always know my turn is after Hank's, and Mary always knows her turn is after mine), but I think redetermining it every round would be problematic.

But, ultimately, the only way to know if it will work for your group is to try it out.

[Fred Brackin]

If you randomly roll every Turn on a single die then about half the time a Player could choose All Out Attack and his opponents will be unable to exploit that period when he has forgone Active Defenses.

<shrug>Maybe this is what your players want.

[mlangsdorf]

See Combat Turn Sequence and Turn Sequence on B 362 and B 363, respectively. Specifically, "[The turn sequence] is set at the start of the fight and does not change during combat."

There aren't any optional rules for Turn Sequence. There aren't any expansions of the Turn Sequence in Martial Arts, or any of the other books that deal with combat in more detail.

The designers don't support changing the Turn Sequence from round to round. That is their official position.

Aside from that, people are providing reasons why changing the turn sequence from round to round is most likely going to make your play experience worse.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by geppo_68

I received some proposals from my players about introducing a random element (like basic speed + 1d6) in order to add some uncertainty in the turn sequence.

You've gotten answers about the official word. My question is, why would you want this?

I guess I've never understood the almost fetishistic interest people have with determining who goes first in other games. Sure, ambushes and quicker reactions are a thing, but beyond that, I don't see the need or the appeal. "Who goes first?" is fairly low on the list of interesting things to be concerned about in combat.

Besides, GURPS isn't set up in distinct blocks of time at which point you can say things like "everyone has taken their turn." The GURPS combat sequence is a circular affair, where you can just as easily say that the combatant with the slowest Basic Speed goes before the combatant with the highest Basic Speed. After the start of combat, there is no moment at which it makes sense to randomize the sequence.

[geppo_68]

Well, they speak about a random turn sequence being more realistic, more "thrilling" for the randomness factor, less dull , etc...

But apart from that I am worried about breaking the combat system, as this house rule hits the core of the system.

I understand that the official rules don't include this option, but is there an official Kromm quote in which he discourages this house rule?
Pointing to that would solve the issue definitely.

[JulianLW]

Originally Posted by geppo_68

Well, they speak about a random turn sequence being more realistic, more "thrilling" for the randomness factor, less dull , etc...

But apart from that I am worried about breaking the combat system, as this house rule hits the core of the system.

I understand that the official rules don't include this option, but is there an official Kromm quote in which he discourages this house rule?
Pointing to that would solve the issue definitely.

Reordering initiative is not the same as randomizing initiative. The first could work, but the second will definitely mess up how GURPS combat works and lead to a lot of extra pointless die rolling that doesn't improve play but will definitely lead to really disappointing results.

Here are two GURPS authors discussing this. First Christopher Rice:

https://www.ravensnpennies.com/melee...ng-initiative/

Second, Douglas Cole:

https://gamingballistic.com/2015/11/...ed-gurps-turn/

I think that if your players want some added drama, you could try reordering initiative at the start of combat, following one of the methods outlined here. But probably what they're really interested in could be accomplished by taking advantage of "Surprise Attacks and Initiative" on B393.

[mlangsdorf]

googling against "site:forums.sjgames.com kromm turn sequence" gives the following best answers after looking at the most likely results on all pages:

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...&postcount=120

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...01&postcount=6

There's this one, from Rev PK, but sadly before he was assistant line editor:
http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...1&postcount=16

I'm pretty sure this came up on the old pyramid forums, but I don't have eidetic recall of ancient online arguments about RPGs and you wouldn't find my recollection useful if I did, anyway.

[JulianLW]

Here's a relevant Krommpost:

Originally Posted by Kromm

It's pretty clear that at least some confusion comes from the perception that there's a universal "turn" and that everyone acts during this "turn" in order of some "initiative number." Basically, that's wrong. Combat is a series of turns taken in order of Basic Speed, and each person's turn is unique to him. When a person gets his next turn . . . it simply means that a second has passed since he last acted. Effects that started on one of his previous turns mark another second, but there's no "universal turn clock" to which such things answer. If he did an All-Out Attack on his turn, then he's defenseless until his next turn, not until the slowest guy has his turn and the sequence starts over again with the fastest guy. If he casts a spell that lasts 10 seconds on another guy, it ends ten turns down the road for for him, the caster -- not ten seconds from now on some "turn clock."

Turns flow in a continuous cycle: 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, . . .. The time from 1 to 1, from 2 to 2, from 3 to 3, or from 4 to 4 is always one second. All other pairs -- from 1 to 2, from 1 to 3, etc. -- have indeterminate lengths less than one second. Nothing special happens between 4 and 1, either; {1, 2, 3, 4} is no more or less important than {2, 3, 4, 1}, {3, 4, 1, 2}, or {4, 1, 2, 3}.

When people do assume that there's a universal turn during which each person acts, and that each cycle {1, 2, 3, 4} has a definite beginning and end for everyone, all at the same time, misconceptions arise. One misconception is that it's possible to reorder actions within the sequence. It isn't. If you decide via some house rule that next turn, {1, 2, 3, 4} will become {4, 2, 3, 1}, then you'll end up with 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 2, 3, 1, and fighter 4 will get two actions without interruption while poor fighter 1 has to wait for all of his enemies pound on him twice before he can do a darn thing. Maneuvers such as All-Out Attack assume that all of your foes will get a turn during which they may attack you; defenses are set up so that foes won't get two turns in which to saturate your defenses before you can act again. Reordering is also unwise because it plays hob with effect durations. To use my reordering example, the time from 1 to 1 clearly isn't the same as the time from 4 to 4. In short, things break -- badly.

Another misconception is that because there's a universal turn, fighters are required to declare their actions before it begins, and then perform their actions in some order. Then a new turn begins. This, too, is broken. Fighter 2 is acting a little bit after 1, and responding to him; 3 is acting a little bit after 2, and responding to 1 and 2; and so on. Fighters can't declare because they're in mid-action until their next turn. Only fighter 1 has fully resolved his action and started a new one when 1 comes up again. Fighter 2 is still doing something else.