Hey /tg/ I'm playtesting an initiative system that's been tried before in other systems and is detailed nicely on "Tabletop Curiosity Cabinet"The system uses Meyer (and Kieth Farrell's modern adaptation) of "Vor, Nach, Gleich, Indes" as steps in a fight.Basically, the player with the initiative chooses an action ("Vor"). The enemy chooses a reponse ("Nach"). The dice are rolled to determine an outcome ("Gleich") and the movement into the next state ("Indes").Practically it looks like: Player A chooses a bind. Player B chooses to parry. Both players resolve a dice roll. The resolution will determine who has initiative for the next system.Very fencing-like, and makes initiative more of a "push-pull" based on success rather than a "you-go, I-go" traditional style.I believe systems like TRoS and their derivatives (like Song of Swords) use a similar sort of initiative style.My questions for the thread:1. While this system works pretty well for individual combats, it struggles when there are multiple combatants. It also falls into the same trap of "you go, I go" which is; in a real fight, you're probably waiting for an opening (e.g. an enemy attacking an ally) to take advantage of in order to strike. I wonder if anyone has creative solutions to this problem?2. Are there initiative systems that you find work well? Anyone forego initiative entirely in favor of fully narrative initiative (e.g. Daggerheart)?
My one and only bump
Yea, I don't see it working with multiple combatants unless you sacrifice the simplicity and at that point the standard initiative queue's just as good plus it's familiar.
>>97197145> it struggles when there are multiple combatantsYou could remedy that by forgoing individual initiative for group initiative. One group attacks, the other defends. As a team. Think basketball.>you're probably waiting for an opening I think every system under the sun implements some form of prepare action."Narrative Initiative" is trash.
>>97197145Initiative as an oscillating variable allows for some interesting mechanics.>multiple combatantsAn easy fix, just have the initiative flip be ally-based instead of locked to a single individual. If you successfully defend and gain initiative, you don't need to take it directly but can hand it off to a friendly. That would also mimic the "waiting for an opening" thing, although you'd want to make sure there's incentive to diversify the initiative-taker. Maybe a stamina system?
>>97197646>"Narrative Initiative" is trashJustify this
>>97197703No.
>>97197703Games.
>>97197646>>97197696Thanks anons, I think that might be the answer. I’ll have to try it on our next playtest. Might open up for some interesting flexibility. Thinking ahead the only thing that might get finicky is a weird chain reaction that might end up silly. Let me describe it: Team A, B, C are lined up against Team X, Y, Z. Player A has initiative and so attacks player X. Player Y chooses to attack A, seeing an opening. Player B attacks player Y, seeing an opening. And so forth. The solution might be very discretely controlling which side has initiative so that this ONLY happens in the unusual circumstance where A loses initiative to Y, Player Y loses initiative to B, etc. Anyone have a favorite system?
