3 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
- I like the thought and detail that you have put into this. I have been working on revising or clarifying the order of play for Bulletproof Blues, which by default uses something very similar to this, but which a lot of people have had trouble grasping. Is there any chance you'd be interested in taking a look at what we have now, and what we are contemplating for second edition, and give us your input? It's a topic near the top of "Kalos Comics Community".Apr 16, 2014
- If you send me a link or the text I'll try to read it over and give you my thoughts. (I have a lot going on right now or I'd look for it in the "Kalos Comics Community")Apr 16, 2014
- It's hard, but I really love the results when you commit to doing "declare up, resolve down" initiative. Back in the day, I'd run SWD6 that way and reinit the combat every round. The crazy things you do as a teenager.Apr 16, 2014
- Here is what we currently have for order of play:
Summarized, it says that characters act in the order that they have an opportunity to act. I think this is very similar in essence to your Cinematic Initiative.
Here is what we are currently contemplating for second edition:
"Normally, characters take their actions in the same order that they have an opportunity to act. However, if you would prefer to roll dice to see who goes first, the players and the GM should each make a Perception task roll at the beginning of the scene. Turns proceed each round from the highest roller to lowest. If a character (or one of the non-player characters) has the Super-speed power, the player (or GM) gets a bonus to the Perception task roll equal to the rank in Super-speed (for example, rank 4 Super-speed would provide a +4 bonus)."
However, I am not happy with this. I would much prefer to better explain how order of play is supposed to work, which is that it depends on what the characters are doing. One of the fundamental concepts of Bulletproof Blues is that player choice is what drives the game, not dice rolls. But there is a sizeable portion of the gaming public that just can't seem to grasp that (and a somewhat smaller portion that do grasp it and simply don't like it, which is perfectly okay, and not what I am trying to overcome).Apr 16, 2014
- On a flip side, I have a half-finished system (and I will finish it!) that abandons initiative in favor of advantage.
In a conflict between two characters, one character has the advantage, which gives them license to act upon the other character. "I'm going to punch you in the face." The character without the advantage may only react- "I'm going to block the punch." If they're willing to take a risk, they can attempt to wrest the advantage. "I'm going to catch your fist."
There are all sorts of complexities in how we balance out holding the advantage versus taking the advantage. The goal is to imitate the action-movie trope of having one character be the punching bag for a few seconds, and then they find some way to change the terms of the fight, "I'm not really left handed either."
Hopefully it'll work out. I need to do a lot of testing and tuning and simply haven't had time or sufficient victims.Apr 16, 2014
- I'm curious to see it once you have it in a place to share. I can see it working for 1:1 games but I'm not sure how it would scale for groups of characters acting.Apr 16, 2014
- The trick to making it work for groups is that a character can only have the advantage over one other character. This makes ganging up a huge threat.Apr 16, 2014
- Ignore me, I'm just watching…consider me Angel to this thread's Buffy.Apr 16, 2014
Add a comment...