Asymmetric rounds, action economy

[OgreBattle]

Was pondering phases and passes in tabletop and thought... how about a system where you have a full round, followed by a ‘half round’

So in round 1 everyone has their move standard Swift actions, but then there’s a round 1.5 where only a standard action is available (and swift if you didn’t use it round 1)

The idea being this round .5 is when the ‘reactions’ and ‘after actions’ occur.

This changes gown some mechanics work, like now an assassins “observe for a full round” flows into their snipe in round X.5

The goal is to introduce a different pacing and make reactive abilities a part of round x.5

[erik]

That sounds more complicated and slower to execute. Possible difficulty with people entering combat mid round or forgetting of Swift was used. Also in timing on when multi round effects end.

You might get a better benefit by giving more options for immediate reactions?

[brized]

What exactly do you want to accomplish with this system? What kinds of outputs do you want to see that the current system can't do? Could you accomplish that by using existing mechanics, or by using a simpler system?

[deaddmwalking]

If some characters don't have 'reactive abilities', I'm not sure that would work. If reactive abilities require preserving your swift action, but they're permitted to use it in the 'regular round', you actually create a place where people are LESS likely to use reactive abilities - they instead just get an extra standard action without any other options... That's a little like throwing in a random 'surprise round' in the middle of a fight.

If you're trying to change the pacing, you might try rolling initiative every round; that means the person that goes last in round 1 might go first in round 2 which definitely has tactical considerations. Or you might consider each player rolling a check on their turn to determine how many actions they have - that would inhibit their ability to plan their action in advance which would probably slow play, but it would certainly impact pacing.

[PrometheanVigil]

Shameless plug of S.I.T.R.E.P

My own system above handles this rather smoothly. A mix of dynamic initiative, action points and character limits. It avoids the usual murkiness of this subject by simply asking not what is an action but what isn't. Then puts that to work.

[erik]

Shameless plug of S.I.T.R.E.P

My own system above handles this rather smoothly. A mix of dynamic initiative, action points and character limits. It avoids the usual murkiness of this subject by simply asking not what is an action but what isn't. Then puts that to work.

That seems counterintuitive. Like you’re putting the infinite on the wrong side of the whitelist/blacklist.

[jt]

I'm using asymmetric rounds in my system. I think this is a good direction to explore - adding a global state (what kind of round is it) is less complicated than adding a per-character state, and you can get a lot of variety by branching off of it.

What I have is that people who succeeded their initiative roll get an action in the ambush round, then everyone gets an action in the ranged round, then the melee round, then the close round, and then we start repeating close if that's necessary. There are abilities that can let you repeat a round, but it's hard to repeat multiple times, so this is the general direction. And once you've set this up, it gives you a lot of levers. The ranger has a power spike in the ranged round, the rogue has the most tools in ambushes, the fighter's shtick is being good at melee and forcing the combat to stay in melee, the monk is a close combat monster. And there are some interesting strategic choices around whether or not you want to use abilities that cause rounds to repeat, since that depends on which party has the relative advantage in that round.

For your action / reaction round split, I'd suggest breaking up the action types between them. In action rounds you can have move/standard/swift, but in reaction the action type is reaction. Then if you actually want something to happen in either, make its action type "standard or reaction." Once you've done the legwork, it's important to make as much use of it as possible - I'd probably make spells begin on action rounds and fire on reaction, make sure your assassin example is core, and give the rogue something like the ability to swap their standard for their reaction so they can dodge then strike back. It's important to make the action/reaction rounds very different from each other so it doesn't feel like the world's time signature is changing like in ye old 2/1/2/1 attack sequences.

[OgreBattle]

Ah yes "global state" is the word, thanks for that comment jt. Part of this is just to see what can be done with this design space.

Like say MtG, you've got main 1, combat, main 2, it frames the action in a certain way that makes the game more understandable as well as immersive. Like the prowl mechanic happening after combat, a crossbowman tapping to hit someone during combat vs a magic staff that taps to deal damage any time, the phases created by mechanic also support storytelling.

Offloading certain elements of the combat round to 'round X.5' comes to mind which is why I mentioned reactive/interrupt stuff, but just as a vague concept with no forged out ideas.

After Sundown's "movement, then actions play out in initiative order to intercept" also really fascinates me and there's some part of that in this discussion.

S'more applications that come to mind are...

-A caster needs to use a standard action to charge a spell, then another standard action to cast it. So in round 1 he charges, then round 1.5 he can unleash. So everyone has time to react to "the wizard is about to cast something!"

- A soldier primes and tosses a grenade in round 1, it will detonate in round 1.5.

- Two warriors charge each other in round 1 and become locked in a grapple, their buddies then complete their round 1 actions. Round 1.5 is a chance either could attempt to break off, or attempt to throw the other, but if one of them's buddies came over in round 1 then they've got an advantage.

- Disarming a trap goes awry and the thief is sprayed with flaming oil in round 1, he could tear his cloak off in round 1.5 before it gets to his skin

- The oni girl knocks a sea serpent towards the samurai, who is spending round 1 Observing. Round 1.5 his Observation increases his critical range and he decapitates the stunned sea serpent

- A "Parting shot" type action. You've skewered the minotaur fatally in 1 but with a mighty last burst of strength it takes a big ol' chomp at you in .5


So the feel is a full round is a large 'moment defining' action, and then round .5 is the reaction to it, or follow up for a combo, or counter-measures to avoid the enemy combo from happening.

These things can still be done in a turn 1 turn 2 system, but the tempo is different. In 'normal rounds' the pacing is "jeez it took two whole rounds to get this one effect", but if it's 1 then 1.5 that becomes "Just As Planned"

[deaddmwalking]

That sounds sort of like you've got a resolution phase. Rather than requiring a caster to spend another standard action in 'round 1.5' you could have a resolution that occurs at the end of the round where people could use reactions if they have them.

Essentially, every spell (and potentially other effects) happen after all actions have taken over. Having a spot where 'Evard's Black Tentacles' resolves its effects outside of normal initiative order has benefits; if most people use reactions when nobody is actually taking a turn you avoid some of the difficulties of 'rewinding' time when someone realizes they had a relevant ability that they forgot to use/etc.

[brized]

-A caster needs to use a standard action to charge a spell, then another standard action to cast it.

This could be done in 3.X with a "1 Round" casting time, where the spell takes effect just before your next turn, or at the start of your next turn, and between that and when you started casting, you can be interrupted.

- A soldier primes and tosses a grenade in round 1, it will detonate in round 1.5.

This could be an item you prime and it detonates at a time you choose during your next turn (or end of your turn if you don't choose).

- Two warriors charge each other in round 1 and become locked in a grapple, their buddies then complete their round 1 actions. Round 1.5 is a chance either could attempt to break off, or attempt to throw the other, but if one of them's buddies came over in round 1 then they've got an advantage.

Isn't this already covered by the Aid Other/Help action?

- Disarming a trap goes awry and the thief is sprayed with flaming oil in round 1, he could tear his cloak off in round 1.5 before it gets to his skin

This can be abstracted with a well-defined Ignited condition, and burning oil being defined to cause the target to be Ignited, and deal extra damage on targets that have been Ignited for 1 Round for each flammable equipment (cloak, clothing, Papier-mâché etc.) equipped or attached to it.

- The oni girl knocks a sea serpent towards the samurai, who is spending round 1 Observing. Round 1.5 his Observation increases his critical range and he decapitates the stunned sea serpent

This can be done by having the Observe power take effect at the start of your next turn, which can include a free attack.

- A "Parting shot" type action. You've skewered the minotaur fatally in 1 but with a mighty last burst of strength it takes a big ol' chomp at you in .5

This can be done with an interrupt power whose condition is "you're reduced to 0 HP or fewer".

[PrometheanVigil]

Why the need for D&D style resolution in the first place? Why not try different approaches?

On the grenade point specifically, I've implemented that in S.I.T.R.E.P as "Grenades detonate in the character‘s next Action[...]after they‘ve been thrown". It works really well -- I first implemented that as a custom sub-mechanic in NWOD, caused a third of the table to start considering (and using) grenades for their loadout so was received well.

[brized]

My first response in this thread related to switching costs. Any given audience won't switch to a new system/product/etc. unless it offers valuable benefits that existing systems can't offer, or it significantly (like 10x) outperforms existing systems at fulfilling the audience's needs.

Is "Grenades detonate in the character‘s next Action[...]after they‘ve been thrown" not functionally the same as "Grenades detonate after they've been thrown on the character's next Turn" in D&D?

When proposing a new system, if I can present ways to do the same thing in a system that the majority of TTRPG players are already familiar with (D&D), why would anyone go to the effort to learn the new system?

[Username17]

Why the need for D&D style resolution in the first place? Why not try different approaches?

Lots of approaches to actions, initiative, declarations have been tried. There isn't any particular need for actions to be declared in any particular way.

But let's be honest: every layer you add or piece you separate to become its own moving part increases resolution time. It's not that there isn't value to declaring your actions and then resolving them later after all actions have been declared - it's that this takes more time than declaring actions and resolving them immediately.

On the grenade point specifically, I've implemented that in S.I.T.R.E.P as "Grenades detonate in the character‘s next Action[...]after they‘ve been thrown". It works really well -- I first implemented that as a custom sub-mechanic in NWOD, caused a third of the table to start considering (and using) grenades for their loadout so was received well.

I legitimately have no idea how that's supposed to be better, or even meaningfully different, from the way grenades already work in NWOD.

-Username17

[PrometheanVigil]

My first response in this thread related to switching costs. Any given audience won't switch to a new system/product/etc. unless it offers valuable benefits that existing systems can't offer, or it significantly (like 10x) outperforms existing systems at fulfilling the audience's needs.

I agree. In fact, I posed this similar consideration to somebody elsewhere recently.

I think there's more nuance to it, particularly with what factors into Milllennial (and especially Gen Z) purchase-making not necessarily needing it to outperform or even be that different. But historically, yes, I agree.

Is "Grenades detonate in the character‘s next Action[...]after they‘ve been thrown" not functionally the same as "Grenades detonate after they've been thrown on the character's next Turn" in D&D?

No, Action, not Turn. This means if you can take 4 actions because of your stats and your opponent can only take 2, you can spam 'nades and "juggle" the opponent. D&D (among other numerous systems) has a static # of actions for everyone and arbitrarily split actions into types (which I've never understood, just humored really) which can only be committed if that type of action is available.

When proposing a new system, if I can present ways to do the same thing in a system that the majority of TTRPG players are already familiar with (D&D), why would anyone go to the effort to learn the new system?

Setting, mostly. Prescribed gameplay is another factor, too.

But let's be honest: every layer you add or piece you separate to become its own moving part increases resolution time. It's not that there isn't value to declaring your actions and then resolving them later after all actions have been declared - it's that this takes more time than declaring actions and resolving them immediately.

This is why I never understood the approach of splitting actions up into Full, Complex, Standard, Bonus, blah blah blah...

I do but I really don't. It's kinda stupid. Firing one shot or a burst from a firearm are literally fractions of a second difference in time.

Now, if this is due to aesthetic preference on a given designer's part, that's fine. But when I see OgreBattle listing off what are essentially permutations of a D&D style action resolution sub-system (with different names for things), I start to wonder if this is really best thing for RPGs going forward into the 2020s. Can we do better?

[deaddmwalking]

I do but I really don't. It's kinda stupid. Firing one shot or a burst from a firearm are literally fractions of a second difference in time.

Now, if this is due to aesthetic preference on a given designer's part, that's fine. But when I see OgreBattle listing off what are essentially permutations of a D&D style action resolution sub-system (with different names for things), I start to wonder if this is really best thing for RPGs going forward into the 2020s. Can we do better?

Can we do better? I don't think so.

First off, when your turn comes up, you want to be able to make a contribution. If you have a single action and most times you have to spend it to move or gain a positional advantage that's not ideal. On the other hand, if actions are entirely undifferentiated and you have 3 of them, you can spam the same thing for all of them which isn't particularly thrilling. Getting to do different things is good.

What 3.x did badly was making a 'full attack' require anything more than a standard action.

[Username17]

No, Action, not Turn. This means if you can take 4 actions because of your stats and your opponent can only take 2, you can spam 'nades and "juggle" the opponent. D&D (among other numerous systems) has a static # of actions for everyone and arbitrarily split actions into types (which I've never understood, just humored really) which can only be committed if that type of action is available.

Having different characters take different numbers of actions is more accounting than having everyone take one action per turn. Like, a lot more accounting. See: Vampire the Masquerade or 1st edition Shadowrun.

The fastest resolution is to go around the table and have each player declare their move and shoot and roll relevant dice and change relevant numbers immediately. Literally anything else you could possibly do is more time spent faffing around than that. It may be worthwhile if you're getting something from that, but the cost you're paying is very real.

Thus the only way you could possibly sell me on your alternate action accounting concepts is if you actually told me what you intended to gain with your action economy rules. It can't be faster resolution or more streamlined play, because we already have the theoretically best system for that. It's called "Taking Turns" and we learn about it in pre-school. Anything else you want to do is by definition more cumbersome than that, so you'd better be prepared to tell me what you actually intend to achieve.

-Username17

[PrometheanVigil]

It's called "Taking Turns" and we learn about it in pre-school.

Really dude? Ease up on the condescension, mate. Don't be a bellend.

Anything else you want to do is by definition more cumbersome than that, so you'd better be prepared to tell me what you actually intend to achieve.

I have. And it's called "buy my book". You can learn about it in my signature.

(hahhahahah)

[Axebird]

Anything else you want to do is by definition more cumbersome than that, so you'd better be prepared to tell me what you actually intend to achieve.

I have. And it's called "buy my book". You can learn about it in my signature.

(hahhahahah)

If you're not willing to explain what you're trying to do beyond vague platitudes, I'm not willing to pay you to find out what you've actually made.

[erik]

It's called "Taking Turns" and we learn about it in pre-school.

Really dude? Ease up on the condescension, mate. Don't be a bellend.

It's not unnecessarily condescending if you cannot explain how your system is better than taking turns.

Anything else you want to do is by definition more cumbersome than that, so you'd better be prepared to tell me what you actually intend to achieve.

I have. And it's called "buy my book". You can learn about it in my signature.

(hahhahahah)

You'll need to clear some minimum level of display of competence or likability to make that sale.

I still think the most effective solution to this desire for reactive abilities is to increase the amount of things people can do as Immediate actions. Things like yield ground for +2 AC and a 5' step, or perform a combat maneuver (disarm, trip, bull rush), or +2 Attack, or +2 Skill check.

[OgreBattle]

That sounds sort of like you've got a resolution phase. Rather than requiring a caster to spend another standard action in 'round 1.5' you could have a resolution that occurs at the end of the round where people could use reactions if they have them.

Essentially, every spell (and potentially other effects) happen after all actions have taken over. Having a spot where 'Evard's Black Tentacles' resolves its effects outside of normal initiative order has benefits; if most people use reactions when nobody is actually taking a turn you avoid some of the difficulties of 'rewinding' time when someone realizes they had a relevant ability that they forgot to use/etc.

Yes a resolution phase is a good way to put it, but there’s still some choices to be made. Like the wizard spent his full round charging ‘a tentacle spell’, then he can unleash any tentacle colored mana spell in the ‘resolution phase’, or choosing to target a different character than anticipated.

I’m aiming for a ‘two beat’ tempo with one beat bigger than the other. Take this page has Vegeta unleash a big panel action, smacking recoom into the ground,then a follow up smaller panel action, Vegeta grabbing him.



That’s the thing I’d like to emphasize, ‘smaller panel’ actions that set up the “big panel” actions. That “what happens in the next page” anticipation as everyone then uses their ‘small panel’ action to set up their ‘big panel’ actions, react to the big panel actions with small panel actions.

Like each player is contributing panels to make pages of battle manga.

-----

Moving further from the DnD paradigm this could very well be a manga building game where actions have different sizes so you try to ‘win the page’
to your side’s favor to set up a “one page spread” finishing move

[Blade]

I like the idea of actions being ways to build up a "win". Thanks for that interesting concept.

[Foxwarrior]

You can also do a thing like this using a variant of CAN. Basically, the attacks you have that actually eliminate opponents require a large CAN advantage, so you can eliminate lower level enemies in one shot but to take out an equal level or better opponent you have to stack up situational bonuses and circumstance modifiers and such first
The advantage being that if your "small panel" move fails (grabs were mentioned, so I assume sometimes small panel moves can fail), you just do another small panel move instead of just twiddling your thumbs during the big panel round.

[jt]

Filling in different-sized manga or comic book panels is a really fun visual and an interesting resource mechanic. I think it's particularly interesting if the layout is already there, everyone can see what panel sizes are coming up, and the key is planning moves so when the big panel comes up you have an advantage that lets you claim it.

For a simplistic example of a game doing that - panels are size 1-4 and both players have 10HP. Flip a coin for who goes first. If it's your turn, you can either attack or gloat. If you attack, roll 1d6 and try to get 2+. If you succeed, you do damage equal to the panel size to your opponent, it's still your turn next panel, and the target number increases by 1. If you fail, your opponent does damage to you equal to the panel size, it's their turn next panel, and the target resets to 2. If you gloat, nobody takes damage and it becomes your opponent's turn next panel (with a target of 2). Ideally you want to chain attack into a big panel, but the longer you chain the higher the difficulty and the less likely it is that you'll actually win the roll, so you want to plan ahead and reset the difficulties with well-timed gloating.

Then for a real game, swap in whatever RNG is big enough for the modifiers you want, have different powers that fit in different panel sizes, and have powers that pass control to a party member. Maybe the fighter swaps in as the target and makes the target numbers higher, the rogue tries to hold the combo and swap to the wizard, and the wizard's entire job is winning big panels.

(As fun as all of this is though, it might make a better strategy board game than an RPG. It's creating its own pacing and not giving the GM a lot of tools to control it.)

[erik]

Create-a-comic sounds very neat and original, but I don't think I'd enjoy playing it beyond a one-shot. I dunno, it doesn't smell like my cup of tea.

To drag it back to a d20 type game, if wanted a set-up style series of "small panel" moves then it could be delivered by maneuvers or spells that you perform and if they aren't countered/responded to then you can execute something much nastier the following round. So characters have their standard schticks or they can try and do set-up moves to land big hits.

I wonder if create-a-comic would be best served by having simultaneous action resolution, or at least simultaneous action declarations to make things a bit more unpredictable.