In discussion of the Daggerheart RPG, it came up about "popcorn" actions versus strict turn-taking -- it also relates some to the "everyone rolls attack" thread.
Most RPGs use a strict initiative system in combat, where there is a defined turn order for each player, while outside of combat actions go "popcorn" style - where whichever player speaks up first is doing that thing. i.e. "GM: After Saya opens the door, you see a semicircular room with a short pillar in the center that has a two-handled vase on it. Player #3: I walk up and pick up the vase." So rather than in turn asking what each PC is doing, the first player to speak up does the action.
It's mostly notable for exceptions. In original AD&D, there was one player who acted as "caller". Players could call out what they were doing, but the caller would moderate this and tell the GM what everyone is doing - possibly changing what a given player wanted to do.
Also, the Amber RPG doesn't have initiative or rounds. It suggests the GM phase back and forth between different PCs involved in different conflicts, and calls this "more of an art than a science". All players should get input, but when to cut back and forth between different players is handled by GM arbitration rather than rules.
Do people think that it's OK to use popcorn turn-taking and GM arbitration even for some action scenes or combat? Or alternately, do you think that strict turn-taking should be used even outside of combat?
never tried nor read about popcorn combat but I like the idea for rules light systems. Into the Odd for instance could lean into this, with initiative like SotDL, based on groups instead of character.
caller rolls initiative vs DM, winning side goes first and describes their actions. this is similar to Mothership, where the DM describes what would happen if nobody does anything, players react to this and the "turn" is resolved when everyone rolls and interprets the results.
It's not to indifferent from how they handle that in Odd Soot. Tough the pyrmaid character creation is abit obtuse.
Popcorn is fine but it's for more disciplined groups. The advantage of consistent initiative is that your turn is coming up at a set time and so if you aren't ready to do your thing you can be shit on for not being ready. By contrast, popcorn initiative gives your side much more freedom in how to organize your actions and strategy, but requires all players be aware at all times.
Strict turn-taking can work outside of combat but it's mostly used to help promote shy/passive players. The main advantage to this kind of system is that it forces everyone to think about what they're doing. No one can simply coast in the back and let the other people handle things because they are expected to report on what their character is doing.
>Do people think that it's OK to use popcorn turn-taking and GM arbitration even for some action scenes or combat
No
>Or alternately, do you think that strict turn-taking should be used even outside of combat?
Also no.
Ordered turns are important for combat but generally unnecessary otherwise. There's a reason pretty much all systems are organised that way.
Hytnpdnd?
Mouse Guard uses a "GM turn" and a "Player turn." On the player turn it is the player's turn to drive the story, during the GM turn they put the heat on the mice who have to react. Each turn is supposed to last an hour or so.
Torchbearer uses dungeon turns like OD&D had but they are much more functional (if gamey). The turn structure forces harsh attrition of resources.
Burning Wheel has simultaneous combat where you script 3 volleys of combat and simultaneously reveal. Actions have certain amounts of rock paper scissors type interactions modified by the PC skills of course.
>(if gamey)
Frick.
I hate it when there's a game when I go to play a game.
Shit.
OD&D is very much like a board game or video game compared to something like oWoD due to the very strict and nonsensical mechanics for dungeon turns, wandering monsters, doors slamming shut on you, and so on. People don't want to be reminded that they're playing a game during a tabletop session, generally speaking. They want the mechanics to facilitate exploring and interacting with a new world they can escape to.
When you are talking about OWoD, it's imporant to distinguish if you are talking about 1e Vampire, or the rest of the OWoD cattlelog, as 1e vampire cleaves far more closely to a Trad Game that what followed fort from WW.
>People don't want to be reminded that they're playing a game during a tabletop session, generally speaking
That's weird, Satan.
When I play a game, I know I'm playing a game, and enjoy engaging with all of its game mechanics.
I just love games.
>"OD&D is very much like a board game or video game"
>drawing comparison between forms of media that are barely and nothing alike
Oh, you're one of those morons.
Game mechanics that get out of the way are more conductive to Roleplay.
Oh! You think social games are board games. That explains it.
Some RPGs actually benefit from set pieces & pack-ins.
Speak for yourself, troony.
The players are expected to listen to the GM monologue for an hour at a time? Jesus no wonder nobody plays that shit
I'm a huge Mouseguard dork and I completely forgo the GM/Player turn system. It's completely pointless as opposed to just players and GMs being reactive to each other
You haven't played Mouseguard then.
daggerheart doesn’t have initiative because apocalypse world and blades in the dark don’t have initiative, and daggerheart is dishonestly trying to market itself as that type of game.
from what ive read it isnt though
what makes you say that?
That "popcorn" shit doesn't sound like it tests skill or luck very well, considering some homosexual "caller" can just frick with whatever they say.
>That "popcorn" shit doesn't sound like it tests skill or luck very well, considering some homosexual "caller" can just frick with whatever they say.
Popcorn and Caller are two entirely different systems. I don't know why OP tried to imply they were the same.
Under the Caller system you can have a table of 20 people all in the same dungeon like at a convention. One party leader has to interpret the will of a huge pack of hangers-on. You're right in that this puts way more emphasis on the party leader. Functionally, this turns the party into a "single actor" where each character acts like an arm or organ of a single whole. However, you're wrong that the Caller can just do whatever he wants. Although the Caller organizes the party, he doesn't communicate to the GM via black box or have veto power. For example, if the Caller says "The Thief starts searching for traps while the Clerics looks over wounds and the Fighters play dice while the others work", you as a Fighter could still object and say, "Hold on, I wanted to help the Thief, standing by to grab him in case a trap triggers."
The Caller system is not used at all in combat.
Popcorn is more like what you are actually familiar with playing. It covers almost every single noncombat encounter you've ever had. Players are free to interact with the scene in any order. For example, the wizard could cast a spell to search for magic doors. Then the wizard might try to read some runes he found while searching. Then the cleric might say he wants to do a lore check to help. Then the wizard might do something AGAIN. All the while the fighter is just hanging out. There's no inherent structure to this kind of play or demand that the Fighter say what he's doing.
The popcorn system is more formal in combat. The round alternates between player turn and enemy turn. Each player gets one turn per round but it can be on ANY of the player turns. For example the fighter can go last in round 1 but first in round 2.
>That "popcorn" shit doesn't sound like it tests skill or luck very well
Then you're deaf and/or moronic since it's literally just not having initiative for out of combat stuff. Also, cease with this moronic attempt to change what the definition of a game is, all a game needs is rules of some variety and a win and loss state of some kind. You could have a game with no other rule than whenever a conflict or contest happens you flip a coin, heads you win tails you lose, and you have a game.
People get triggered when you imply there's a win condition to TTRPGs, so I don't mention it. morons here screech about video games enough as it is.
Just like I don't mention the competitive aspect to "game's" definition because that would illicit responses of "YOU JUST WANT PVP IN A COOPERATIVE GAME gay", and people deflect enough as it is.
I'm just considering the shitty behavior and response patterns of the waterheads I'm talking to and adjusting my wording to convey the actual point.
It would be simpler if people could just address a point and be consistent with their standards, but here we are.
The win condition is in the storyline TTRPGs and in group play is tied to the success of the whole group (there are few competitive ones, but the only "big name" I could come up with would be 'Paranoia' to some degree and maybe some kingdom/faction-managment games)
Elicit. Not illicit. moron.
daggerheart only exists for critical role to play it on stream. I’m sure it will sell many copies when it comes out because of how popular CR is, and I’m sure some of those people will play it and some of those who play it will like it, but make no mistake: the game is designed specifically for Matt and the cast to play a game that caters to exactly how they want to play on their stream, and everything else is secondary.
The homebrew I'm writing uses the same action point system in and out of combat. Turn order goes clockwise around the table, with NPCs acting during the GM's "turn," with the current active player starting initiative.
essentially no different than rolling initiative
seems pretty different tbh
what are the advantages of doing it that way, in your opinion?
what, in particular about the antecedent, would you like clarification on?
what problems with dnd style initiative does this fix?
have you gotten a reply from
yet? hopefully they are able to see youre query and reply promptly.
You don't have to roll initiative every time combat starts.
anyone else looking forward to not watching critical role tonight
Gonna be honest, the only time Critical Role takes up any of my mental real estate is when I see it mentioned.
No, because I'm not the kind of obsessed weirdo who stews in his own hatred every second of every day, like you apparently are.
nah I'm finishing running the rick and morty module with some beers and my friends tonight. it's been legitimately a good time, the book has you be such a dick to the players and there's so many traps that are just a pain in the ass, like one room is a work in progress and every time osmeone does something you roll on a table and one of the options is a goblin appears from a hatch in the floor, kicks a player in the groin, and fricks off before they can do anything.
There's a fricking trap that steals your buttcheeks (or one of them on a success) for frick's sake, and it's tied into a cult you find later in the dungeon. This shit's dumb and I'm glad I ran it, frick you joyless subhumans.
Combat's better when it's side-based/faction-based instead of individual. Lets players get creative and do crazy shit.
That said, combat's the most mechanically intensive part of most games for a reason, because without strict rules it becomes "My infinity+1 sword cuts your infinity shield and I win".
There's also a time and place for turns outside of combat, like if you know there's more combat coming or if you need to run a gauntlet of traps or something.
Allowing people to act first if they talk first would turn every fight into a shouting match.
Yeah, that's fun and saves time, right?
simultaneous combat is better
real time combat is even better
What would you consider a fair compromise then?
In a battle to the death, what compromise is there?
what is life but a compromise with deaf
I couldn't hear that if it was spoken to me
My idea of popcorn initiative is the party gets as many turns as there are players but you can’t take two turns in a row. Or three in a row, depending on how the game works.
Yeah, but that's a sepairate term known as "Wheeling", which started being used in early 94 on rec.games.rpg, borrowing the term from the card Wheel of Fortune.
>the first player to speak up does the action.
The problem with this is that Alpha Players will try to dominate everything
alpha players dont try
guess you should stop being a spineless b***h if you want to participate in a social activity
>social activity
gaming is the activity
gamers are gaming
tourists & so's are there to be social
Roleplaying games are social activities, sorry. You can leave. Being a miserable autist is not an activity that requires other people to be present.
Now here's a genuine red flag if there ever was one.
howso?
>heh... nothin personnel, kid... I'm not here to make friends, I'm here to game...
>wait what, where are you all going? stop, wait, let's play the game!! I promise I won't be That Guy, I swear!!
take your meds
I tried it and I like it.
Sick of players getting to their turn and not knowing what they are doing.
They clearly just want to watch so sit back and do that.
I actually like doing stuff when there is stuff to do. Hate combat where my char is just throwing attacks for the sake of economy of turns while I wait for the conditions for the stuff I really want to do to happen.
Here I can let the others fight it out.
Thing about Daggerheart is that it is heavy on GMs.
I am not aware of any game where speaking first means you go first. If someone else wants to do something at the same time then it comes down to initiative or whatever rules your system has, the only time you automatically go first is if you're the first to declare an action AND nobody else wants to act at the same time. It can be easy to overlook this in a group context because in most cases the silent players are cautious and indecisive and they'll wait to see what happens to the player who declares their action first.
My understanding of the "popcorn" concept (which is used outside of games) is just that no one knows who is going to go next. So it's an umbrella term for both just the first person to have an idea -- but probably also covers the case of the acting player choosing who to pass to. (I think that's used in the Marvel Heroic RPG, among others?) Note that the former doesn't mean anarchy where the loudest player gets all the time. The metaphor is that once someone has their turn, they're done - and everyone else gets a chance to go too.
>Never-game asking inane, abstract, theoretical questions about theoretical game mechanic
what's the everyone rolls attack thread?
Numenera's pretty rough around the edges and multiples of three seems like lazy game design.
replied to the wrong post?
What do you mean by "OK"? How would someone determine that?