The Big Six

As I look towards writing a "new" Fantasy Heartbreaker (or, more accurately, converting a conversion of a conversion), I find myself looking back at D&D editions over the years to see how ability scores were handled. Of course, I always start with OD&D (the Little Brown Books) because, well, that's where it all originates, yeah?

So in looking at the Big Six ability scores I notice something that I have (of course) noted in the past: namely that the Great Three Prime Requisites have absolutely zero effect on characters other than "rate of advancement" (i.e. XP gain). Which, just for the record, is no MINOR mechanical effect, BUT is really small potatoes compared to the mechanical effects of later editions and the incredible importance and weight these attributes carry. Things like attack and damage bonuses, number of spells known, and potential power limits of spell-casters.

I hate all that.

I especially hate the whole Strength bonus thang, not the least-wise because it got me into stupid trouble in the past. Nope, I hate it because The Game is soooo combat-oriented that it is just a matter of time before one's character gets embroiled in a melee and the importance of being able to hit and inflict damage gains life-and-death importance and thus becomes a paramount mechanical adjustment for ALL characters. When really, the only thing I want to use to model attacking ability is: A) character's training (class), and B) experience (level).

[there's also the issue of the resentment I've seen at the table due to the random strength roll. The fighter with the 13-15 STR, for instance, who looks at the cleric with the 16 STR and sees that healer is a better melee fighter for three levels of play, despite the focus of their careers. In reality, there have been plenty of small statured warriors who were better at inflicting damage with a single blow than incompetent, larger individuals. Ask any U.S. marine about that sometime!]

SO...since I wasn't planning on using Prime Requisites in the FHB, I thought I might simply DROP the whole stat from the character sheet. Just ix-nay the issue all together in a Gordion Knot kind of way. If there's no mechanical bonus to be derived from the attribute, why bother rolling the 3D6? Issue resolved.

Likewise, I figured I could do the same, axe-wise, with Intelligence and Wisdom. After all, I've decided to take a hint from folks like Alexis (and 3rd Edition Pendragon) and just realize that the whole "challenge" of not being able to speak another sentient's language isn't all that fun. Or rather, it detracts from an aspect of what IS fun: namely, being able to negotiate and bargain with potential allies and adversaries encountered. If a creature is sentient, it's going to speak the language of the region, not some weird "other tongue." Besides, do creatures with a split-tongue and a mouthful of fangs or tentacles really have the ability to form words like a "foreign human" would? It's all just fantasy, yo...let 'em talk "real people speak." Give 'em an accent, if it suits you.

So...axe, axe. The Lesser Three attributes were a different story. Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma have ALWAYS carried in-game mechanical bonuses: Dex adjusted missile attack rolls, Con adjusted rolled HPs (and "surviving adversity"), and Cha adjusted maximum number of hirelings and said hirelings loyalty base. Since I was trying to move away from ability scores adjusting combat rolls, I was pretty certain I wanted to cut Dexterity from the game.

IN ADDITION, I had to consider the "new" ability scores I'd dreamed up back in my last go around with this project: Agility (which had replaced DEX), Learning (which had replaced INT), Spirit (which is really its own thing), and Wit (which had...more or less...replaced WIS). Of these, I really only considered Spirit a "must have"...it really represents something new that I want. And Agility and Learning were tied to classes (and class abilities) that I've kind of decided to do away with. Oh...and I find myself hating Dex/Agility bonuses to Armor Class (whatever you call it in your game) these days. Just armor, folks. Just armor. Axe.

SO, I found that I only really had three ability scores I wanted to use in the new FHB:

Charisma
Constitution
Spirit

But was I getting too far away from the roots of this fantasy adventure game?

The designer in me would say that such is an irrelevant question. BUT...even if I don't like the mechanical benefits derived from most of these ability scores, as simple NUMBERS, they still provide a ready, short-hand description of one's character. Something that could quickly identify (as in "create an identity") the words on the paper into an image in a player's mind. And those three by themselves, really aren't enough.

Then I came across GusL's abstract encumbrance mechanic based on Strength that I mentioned in my earlier post, and I realized that maybe there was a way to make a descriptive number of the stat useful without being mechanically overwhelming (i.e. by not being of benefit in combat, but of retaining a mechanical advantage for exploration, as described in the follow-up post). Strength added back. It also turns out that Wit, then, still proves useful for abstract accounting of items brought along (previously, I had thought I'd need to go back to old school, granular, encumbrance and resource accumulation to model the treasure acquisition that would be the focus of the new FHB iteration). All of a sudden, I was back up to five ability scores...and if I was going to get all "traditional" like that, why not just find a sixth to complete the batch.

GusL's "skill tree" system (my term not his)...which I have yet to blog about...convinced me to add back Learning, and develop my own similar system (it's not a super-original take...see both 1st edition Empire of the Petal Throne and World of Warcraft, but in a simplified way it adds a nice little variety). I haven't yet talked about "classes" (that's another post), but the return to "roguish" roots has meant that the heroic "everyone-gets-magic" idea has been dropped by the wayside. Acquired skills ("dabbling") puts a little bit of this back, and having a LRN stat models the characters who benefited from early education (its availability and/or their level of focus) over those who did not. Which I like.

OKAY: we've got Strength (for representing that strong back). We've got Learning (instead of "Intelligence"). We've got Wit (instead of "Wisdom"). We've got Spirit (my own, personal deal...but one that I really like). And we've got Constitution and Charisma, largely unchanged...

Wait a sec...Constitution? No, no...we can fold its traits (and mechanical bonus of +1 HP per level) into Strength. Back down to five.

So...still looking for that sixth trait apparently. And there's ol' Dexterity staring me in the face. I don't want Agility because (again) the game has moved away from the heroic swashbuckling I once envisioned (and the help of uber-AC bonuses I was...previously...going to provide).

[sorry Boris Vallejo hero-types...y'all need real armor in this version]

What the hell exactly was "dexterity" back in the days before it became the second most preferred combat stat (after strength)? Well, Gygax's description in Men & Magic states simply:

Dexterity applies to both manual speed and conjuration. It will indicate the character's missile ability and speed with actions such as firing first, getting off a spell, etc.

No chainmail bikins. DEX is speed only.

This is all very nice, but with the exception of missile fire (+1 to attack rolls for DEX >13, -1 for DEX <9) absolutely none of this is mechanically modeled within the OD&D books. Chainmail (the default combat system for OD&D) has no such "speed" rules in it; first attack in combat goes to the dude with the longer weapon or that is behind cover (like a castle wall), or else (if neither of those apply) then whoever attacked first (i.e. whose turn was it that decided to move into melee). It isn't till Holmes Basic, that DEX really starts to see the mechanical benefit as applied to "speed of action." In addition to the aforementioned missile fire adjustment (which remains the same in Holmes), melee combat is determined in order of descending DEX.

This inclusion of "melee speed" as part of dexterity's purview is a Holmesian addition, and not a terrible one. What I think is especially interesting is the part in Holmes where

if dexterities are within 1 or 2 points of each other a 6-sided die is rolled for each opponent and the higher score gains initiative - first blow.

Which is actually different from what is portrayed in Holmse's combat example (where Mogo the Mighty with DEX 9 simply strikes after the giant spider with DEX 10). I like the idea that two folks, close in natural "speed" ability have a more-or-less chance of getting their "go" before the other. Of course, I also like Arrowflight's spot rule that in cases of ties (with regard to speed) the guy with the lighter armor gets first go (wow...an Arrowflight reference. That might be a first for this blog!). Yeah, probably some combination of all these is what I'm going for...

Aaand...I suppose that means dexterity is back in the game.

So there you have it...I went from "my own" five, up to six (with Charisma), down to three, back up six, almost all of which are the same as the original "Big Six" of D&D:

Strength
Learning (in place of Intelligence)
Wit (in place of Wisdom)
Dexterity
Charisma
Spirit

I'm not sure they'll appear in exactly that order (alphabetical makes a lot more sense, don't you think?) but that's where I am at the moment. Cue snickers and usual jibes about "reinventing wheels."

Just wait till I get to my post on the classes that are going to make an appearance.

Holmes and OLD School Initiative

You know, I thought I was done with the whole initiative discussion (or, at least ready to move on to other combat issues using it as a context)…but then I was reading through my copy of Holmes Basic and realized – holy moly! – Holmes completely drops initiative from his edition of D&D.

I mean, he has SOME order of combat…when opponents come into melee range (within 10’ of each other) melee attacks are resolved in descending order of dexterity (with monsters’ dexterity being randomly determined). A six-sided die is rolled for “first strike” (I don’t believe the term initiative is used at all) only when the two combatants have the same dexterity scores.

Otherwise, things would appear to occur in their order as determined by action…a character with a readied arrow can shoot it before the opponent can engage the archer (though would do archers attack each other simultaneously? So it would appear…).

Now looking through my copy of OD&D I find…nothing? No initiative rules at all?

Oh, boy.

[*read*read*scan*scan*]

Okay...so I went through my LBBs. And there's NO initiative. Greyhawk? Nothing. Blackmoor? Nothing.

Finally, we get to Eldritch Wizardry where there are notes very similar to Holmes basic (order of the round being determined by actions - missile, magic, melee - followed by DEX sequence)...but the dexterity determination is crazy complex, including modification for armor worn and...

Oh, boy.

I read through Chainmail, just to see what the "original" version of man-to-man combat was and wow, here's where the size of one's weapon really DOES matter, since Lo and Behold first strike is solely determined by length of one's pole (*ahem*) or strategic location (defending from cover or elevated). Oh, wow...once again we see the original concepts were far more realistic, even in the abstract, than the later evolutions of the game rules.

[*sigh*]

Wow...I'm going to have to digest my thoughts and reflections on the issue before I say anything more. Initiative. Apparently an ugly, bandaid add-on.

Ugh.

Hating Initiative (Part 2)

Now where was I? Oh, right...hating on initiative.

Specifically INDIVIDUAL initiative, which has definitely come to the forefront in the last 20 years. Just in case anyone misunderstands what I mean by the term, I'm talking about the initiative system that has every individual player at the table roll dice (or use some other mechanism) specifically with the sole purpose of determining their order of action in combat. I've written before that my actual in-play experience with this (on both sides of the GM screen) has been nothing less than unsatisfactory...and sometimes downright maddening. Even when all the players involved are "veteran gamers," well-heeled in the rules and tactics of a particular system.

ALWAYS unsatisfactory...and that's just from a "play" perspective. Let's go ahead and examine the idea of individual initiative from the point of view of everyone's favorite old school punching bag: that elusive chimera we call "realism."

Who in the hell ever thought individual initiative was more realistic?

If a party of adventures meets up with a gaggle of owl bears in some deep, dark dungeon, the result is NOT going to look like some carefully choreographed dance-fight between the Sharks and the Jets. No, all f'ing hell is going to break loose, rest assured. Sure, there might be some Charismatic (or blow-hardy) leader-type shouting out orders, but people are going to panic, people are going to have adrenaline bursts, people are going to act and react and generally do what they think is the best course of action...lunge forward and attack, ready a spell or arrow, or just cower in a corner wetting themselves. I mean, THAT's "realism:" a chaotic slugfest in the dark, all by the flickering light of dropped torches.

So who the F came up with the idea that Individual Initiative was somehow more realistic in the first place? We did. People like ME and my friends.

See, you've got this OPTIONAL rule in your B/X set or whatnot that says characters with a high dexterity score can get a bonus to their initiative when in individual (dueling-style) combats. And then you start thinking, "well, shoot, my character Mr. Quick with a 17 dexterity should be faster than a pack of goblins, even when NOT dueling...I should get a bonus to my initiative roll to see if I can strike before this bandy-legged numbskull."

Ah...but THEN you say, hey! What about Olaf the Slow with his heavy armor and measly dexterity of 9. Sure, he's "average" in reaction speed (barely), but he shouldn't get any special bonus...but how can you resolve old Olaf and Mr. Quick when they're both on the same side of a group initiative roll? Does Mr. Quick get slowed down by Olaf's rusty reflexes? Does Olaf's reaction time miraculously speed up due to Mr. Quick being part of the party?

The answer is as elementary as it is dumb: give everyone their own individual "go" in the combat round. Have everyone roll a D20 and chalk themselves into the order.

[and then there's the even dumber bandage to the slow clunky-ness: to speed up combat we'll force everyone to KEEP their "initiative number" every round, without re-rolling. Because OF COURSE there's no back-and-forth, shift of fortunes during the battle, right? Once you blow your roll, it's blown, baby...]

Look, a round of combat should appear (in the eye of one's imagination) akin to a round of Slap Jack. That is, when one imagines what is going on in the imaginary game world (that's what we do when we play these RPGs, right? or am I missing something?)...WHEN we imagine what is going on, we should be able to see something that resembles, well, a battle...people trying to kill each other for cripes sakes. Not a back-and-forth chess match.

In B/X you've got 10 seconds to do something: what's it going to be? Attack, run, chug a potion, cast a spell...look, there's a lot that you can do in 10 seconds. And at the same time, there's a lot you CANNOT do...because in the pressure of the situation, once you commit to a decision, you do NOT have a chance to change your mind, man. This idea of multiple actions, simple versus complex, and 5' steps to boot is just nutty. You DO something and that is what you are doing, period.

"I'm charging to attack!" "No, wait! Don't do that! Let me cast this spell first!" What do you think's going to happen in this situation? Only a complete jackass would actually try to pull up short after steeling himself (or herself) for mortal confrontation and throwing himself bodily at the foe. Remember what happens when you try to break from melee? Your foe gets to cut you down from behind (i.e. the opponent gets a free attack with a +2 to hit). That's one of the best and most realistic rules in B/X, in my opinion.

"I'm casting a spell...yadda-yadda-hocus-pocus..." "Wait, no! I'm going to --" "Arg! You bastard! You ruined my concentration and now I've lost the spell!"

Whoops.

No one's telling anyone what to do. No one's getting together and brain-storming the best course of action (that kind of thing should be considered before battle is ever joined, not in the thick of combat). Roll one initiative die for the mob, roll one initiative die for the other mob, and then resolve. If both dice come up the same number, there's a chance for simultaneous stabbing to occur.

In my earlier post on the subject, I said that my reflections were leading me to consider re-vamping the initiative mechanics in all the games I've currently got in the hopper (all of which included some version of the ubiquitous individual initiative rules). Well, I'll admit the only thing that was really causing hesitation on my part is the re-writing that such sweeping changes would make.

Since that post, I have shredded and reconstructed the initiative rules on all of them, including my personal version of D&D and the mythic-cyberpunk game. Some of the other games, in fact, have done away with an initiative sequence entirely (the current version of my space opera game, for example). But D&D and CDF (the Shadowrun-y game), are closer to the wargaming archetype...close enough and "traditional" enough that I don't terribly mind having a "roll for initiative" phase.

But it's group initiative only. None of this slow and clunky "okay Fred you got the high roll, what do you want to do?" while Tim and Larry are seething and impatient with their low die rolls. Nope, that kind of think is a thing of the past. I ain't NEVER doing individual initiative again. Ever.

With one possible exception. There is ONE game...and only ONE game...that actually does a great job giving each individual player their own initiative roll, their own spot in the turn sequence...and yet the flow of combat remains quick, efficient, and downright realistic for the scope of the game.

That's Boot Hill, folks. But as I've gushed before, Boot Hill is an exceptionally well-designed RPG.

All the other RPGs with individual initiative can go suck it...and that includes my own games, if you ever catch be doing something so stupid again. Hopefully you won't.

The Downside of Initiative

One of the things I had to clean up when I went back to the design board on the new game was the initiative rules, which previous play-testing revealed to be fairly flawed. I’ve posted my “evolved feelings” on initiative previously and if anything, those feelings have just grown STRONGER over time.

After skill systems, “initiative rules” may be THE worst system to infest role-playing games.

Now before I start my rant proper, let’s talk about the idea of the “turn” in general gaming. In many, many games…not just RPGs…including almost any game involving cognitive strategy, the play of the game is divided into turns or “go’s” which alternate between players. This element of “taking turns” not only helps organize the flow of the game, it ALSO acts a theoretical equalizer between players of differing physical ability.

Here’re a couple simple examples: in the card game Slap Jack, there is no alternation of turns. The game “turn” is a round (nice term) of play in which all the players flip over a card. If a Jack turns up, the first player to SLAP it takes all the cards in the round. Cognitive strategy has little to do with it…card counting doesn’t matter much when everyone is focused on the play…instead the observant eye and quick hand is what carries the day. Physical attributes, in other words, which gives ME a distinct advantage over, say, a 6 year old child or a 90 year old invalid.

Compare that to the game of Chess: physical attributes count for nothing in the game. I may have no trouble arm wrestling Stephen Hawking, but if he cared to set his mind to it, I’m sure he could take me apart over the chess board. On the other hand, if we played a “speed game” and made no accommodation for his disability I might be able to run the clock out on him.

But most strategy games from Go to Checkers to Backgammon to Scrabble (yes, Scrabble) have no time limits to their alternating turns save that imposed or agreed upon by the players. Fortunately, these games are simple enough…and the possible actions LIMITED enough…that they can still be finished in a reasonable amount of time, regardless of the relative “slowness” of a player’s cognitive strategizing.

[can you see where I’m going with this discussion?]

War games…of the type from which D&D is descended…is akin to these board games. They require thinking and strategy, not physical ability. If I’m playing Warhammer 40K with a short kid, we get him a stool to reach the table and help him move his pieces when they get to the center of the table. It’s not a matter of who rolls the dice faster or harder; placement of cannon on the miniature battlefield takes little effort, just thought. Aside from reading and learning the rules, the most challenging part is painting all the damn minis (or coming up with the money to purchase all the damn minis, if you’re in to the GW games).

They also require alternating turns. Well, perhaps they don’t require it, but it would be pretty tough to track the flow of the game if everyone was rolling dice willy-nilly and removing pieces simultaneously (or as quickly as they could manage it). It would be CHAOS…kind of like actual battlefield conditions probably (depending on what era of war we’re talking about). But war games are not about the REAL chaos of war…they’re strategy games A LA chess…or perhaps reenactments of famous engagements (for Civil War and Napoleonic buffs). And as with those other alternating-turn strategy board games the play of the game is still SIMPLE and the possible actions LIMITED in scope, allowing turns to be accomplished relatively quickly, only slowing down when scores or hundreds of miniatures are involved.

D&D is descended from these games, by way of the Chainmail (medieval miniatures) wargame; is it any wonder that the designers (avid wargamers) used wargaming conventions in the form of alternating turns? Not to my mind…not with the original design of the game: its discussion of “sides” and “referees” and “campaigns;” not to mention the ability to hire and field mercenary soldiers of all stripes (archers and heavy foot and horsemen of various types). The initiative system presented in D&D helps to organize the game turns in a D&D combat because, like those war games, it is a cognitive (thinking) game, not one in which the physical attributes of the players/referee has impact on the outcome (thank goodness, as many of my fellow players outweigh and out-muscle Yours Truly!).

However, despite being a game of “imagination” and wide open to player action, D&D provides specific rules of engagement which are (at least originally) very SIMPLE and LIMITED in scope. You want to attack your opponent? Okay…given the “forces” (i.e. characters) on your side, what do you want them to do: melee, missile, or cast spells? Period. Done. And look how easy it is to resolve those actions in OD&D:

Melee: roll D20 to determine if attack successful (chance of success determined by character level versus opponent armor class). Only adjustments are from magic weapons and armor. If successful, attack does D6 damage (some monsters do more).

Missile: roll D20 to determine if attack successful, possibly with +1 or -1 for DEX. Otherwise, procedure is same as melee.

Magic: does caster have spell? Cast it. Resolve effect. Possibly roll saving throw. Done.

And that’s it: simple and limited and then the other team gets their “go,” and if combat isn’t resolved we play another round until one side breaks morale or is destroyed, falling to the crushing blows of their opponent.

Now as many critics of D&D’s combat system have pointed out, real combat isn’t anything like the civilized, alternating turns of the initiative sequence. I know this from my own experience with very civilized “sparring bouts” (martial arts, fencing, and a little casual brawling). Even in the sport of fencing, where one has issues of “right of way” and first action, things go pretty quick (and degenerate into body-on-body fairly readily)…and in epee it’s perfectly acceptable for two fencers to score simultaneously.

I remember as a kid absolutely hating the Battle Tech turn sequence, because while it resolved actions in initiative order, all combat was considered to occur simultaneously and it was possible to mecha would head-shot each other in the same turn, resulting in a draw. Now…well, I think the argument could be made that Battle Tech combat is far more “realistic” than that of D&D: the use of initiative rolls simply to order the declaration of actions and organize the players is about as good a use of the system as there is.

But that’s not really what I’m railing about. While I like the idea of simultaneous combat (especially in warfare) there ARE times when one side will act before the other…when one side gets the jump on the other or the other side hesitates, for example. Even without THAT “realistic” consideration, I’m fine with resolving combat (not just declarations) in “initiative order.” It’s an easy, straightforward (if arbitrary) procedure for resolving a cognitive game like D&D.

But oh boy do I HATE “individual initiative.”

The more I experience it in any form, the more I am absolutely certain that the whole premise blows chunks. Whether it’s D&D or Shadowrun or just about any other game you care to name, the resolving of combat actions based on individual initiative rolls (as opposed to group initiative rolls) is terrible from just about every perspective one can examine:

- Speed of play
- Ease of play
- “Realism”

Hmm…I’m a little short on time right now, so I’ll be revisiting this theme in a future post. However, suffice is to say I think there’s a sea change that would be a welcome occurrence in the way RPG designers (and players) think about the initiative sequence in combat…and I’m talking about the granular gamist types (like me) not just the narratavist proponents who want combat-as-a-whole to be “about something.” In my games, combat is about kicking someone’s ass. And I want to do it in the most efficient way possible.

Okay…To Be Continued.

Taking the Initiative

I will be somewhere in Yakima at the time this is being posted. Hopefully…if not, it means we got to our hotel Friday evening and there’s no internet access. That’s not very likely, but, hey, it’s Yakima (Washingtonians know what I mean).

As I write this, though, I am still in Seattle, taking a break from my regular work day and munching on beef jerky (just getting ready for Yakima, I guess…) and I realized something today:

I HATE individual intitiative.

Is “hate” too strong a word? Maybe…Lord knows I’m given to hyperbole at times, but I was mulling things over today and had a frigging epiphany regarding this, and if “hate” is NOT the right word…well, it’s pretty close. For me, individual initiative is a bunch of garbage.

I’ll walk you through my train of thought.

For the last couple years, I’ve been playing B/X and loving it for the most part. One think about it that I like a LOT is the fantastic, speedy, abstract combat system. No, it doesn’t have the bells and whistles of some RPGs, but it WORKS and it’s quick even when working with large numbers of players.

And shouldn’t combat be quick? I think so. It’s an exciting part of the game and demands a quick pacing to keep folks engaged and the game itself moving.

For most RPGs, though, combat is where “imaginary gameplay” often grinds to an f’ing halt. Even when all the players on the ball, for MOST RPGs as soon as the game enters “combat phase” everyone is buckling down for a long, tactical exercise, often lasting close to an hour (or longer) for even a small encounter.

Many games skew their systems towards a “Ninja Turtle” style of encounter because of this. The classic set-piece combat of the TMNT comics features four ninja turtles facing a single, powerful adversary (Shredder, for example). Each turtle gets to show off a few moves, working as a team to take down a single, tough “boss” who is too strong for any single character.

But in non-comic book mediums (like film and novels), this is the most boring thing to watch or read about. In film, it’s cool to see bunches of guys flying around against bunches of adversaries. Even reading allows you to "see" this in your mind’s eye. But facing handfuls of NPC opponents in an RPG gets tougher to run/manage the more specialized their abilities and the more chunkiness to the rules. Trying to run a game where each character (or antagonist “type”) receives their own “initiative rank” just grinds the speed down to a crawl.

Last night we played DCC again (no, there was no clamor to try my dinosaur game…more on that in a future post) and we ended up in three monster encounters. And things were sloooow, or felt slow to me…I often felt like I was constantly waiting for my turn to come up, even when I did not have the lowest number in the initiative order. You see, despite being produced by an “old school” company, DCC has some decidedly “new school” sensibilities, including with regard to combat, and one of its D20 hold-overs is the initiative system: each individual rolls D20 then adds (or subtracts) modifiers to determine the order of battle.

I can see why this is appealing, especially to designers:

1. The opportunity to provide distinction between characters (class bonuses to initiative, or feat bonuses or similar, rewarding player choice with a “better initiative” value).
2. Ways of modeling extra attacks (like when you see…in a movie, say…some character strike two or three times before anyone can touch him).
3. Placing “power” in the hands of ALL players (no one can complain that one person rolled low; you are responsible/accountable for your own die roll, and sometimes allowed a “yippee!” moment because of it).
4. A method of “heightening drama” as characters have to wait for their turn to come around.
5. Potential for additional gamist tactical play (should you “hold your action” or “reset/refocus” at a higher initiative order level, etc.?).

In all three of the game designs I’ve been working recently (well, except the dinosaur one), I include individual initiative myself for one or more of these reasons. In my fantasy heartbreaker, it gives me the ability to model the effects of class, level, and equipment. In my space game it makes Jedis and Han Solo types “faster.” In my Shadowrun knock-off, it gives me a way to use wired reflexes and magically boosted reaction times. All things I thought were features that added to game play.

See? I’m just as dumb as everyone else.

In practice…i.e. in ACTUAL PLAY…it doesn’t add that much to the game compared to what it costs. My FHB would be somewhat similar to DCC (with less bonuses/adjustments over-all) and I can tell you from experience that it is a total pain in the ass. When playing the Shadowrun game, the wonky individual initiative led to quite a few complaints (especially from the players whose characters were less “wired up” than others).

And it SLOWS things down. You call someone’s number, they hem and haw and dither a bit about what to do...NOT because they’re a simpleton or ignorant of the rules, but because THEY HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR EVERY INDIVIDUAL ACTION THAT HAS OCCURRED. For example:

Player A goes
Player B goes (reacting to the result of player A)
Player C goes (reacting to the result of players A and B)
Monsters go (reacting to players A-C and anticipating players D-F)
Player D goes (see above)
Etc.

Even in B/X…a very SIMPLIFIED game…an individual character has several options in combat: moving, attacking (melee? missile?), retreating, withdrawing, sometimes casting a spell…and of course, attacking or spell casting requires a choice of target as well. That’s a lot of decision making one needs to do each round, just for B/X.

However in B/X all characters act at the same point in time; that cuts down on a lot of dithering. The DM asks everyone what they’re doing. Folks give answers. Actions are resolved. Done.

The only time PCs aren't acting at the same time is when characters with two-handed weapons are forced to strike last...but even so you never have more than three ranks of "go:" Party-Monster-2Handers or Monster-Party-2Handers.

[okay, sure, you have FOUR ranks if a mixed monster group includes zombies. Zombies ALWAYS strike last, after everyone]

Today, I spent a bit of time reflecting on last night's DCC game...what worked for me and what didn't. Not because I want to tinker with the game rules (I'm not running the game) or because I have an on-going interest in critiquing the system (Goodman's not paying me for that), but because I'm interested in game design for my own purposes and I readily steal from anything and everything, mixing and matching and trying to add my own stuff, too.

And the game (i.e. DCC) just isn't all that good. I mean...I've already written about some of the things it does VERY right in my book. But then it still drags at times. Even when we have a smaller, more manageable group at the table (last night was 1 GM and 5 players, as opposed to the usual nine). It's not the GM's fault: Luke is brisk about calling for initiative rolls and counting down the order. It's the system itself, individual initiative, that slows the shit down. It's what made my Shadowrun combats suck unless I separated characters from the rest of the party so that 1 player faced 1 monster group. I can see this now in hindsight...and it makes me want to shred and retool from scratch all three combat systems I've been writing.

I can see now why Moldvay made the whole "individual initiative" thing OPTIONAL in the Basic game; he was one sharp dude, ol' Tommy.

[edit: yes, we made it to Yakima just fine]