PDA

View Full Version : D20 Social Initiative Rules ("Speaking In Turn" WIP) INPUT WELCOME AND WANTED!



Yipyioh
2013-08-17, 05:11 PM
So I'm running a Star Wars: Saga Edition game online through Roll20 (a virtual tabletop with a built-in chat system) and the issue has come up of what order in which players should speak when multiple people wish to do so. Some players type faster than others, and as such occasionally a player will be typing for over a minute. This would not be so much of an issue except for the fact that, while it breaks immersion, any other player can swoop in and say any shorter statement while the typing player is technically supposed to be talking.

To this end, I have decided to homebrew my own system that will fit any d20 system (including but not limited to D&D 3.5, D20 Modern/Future, Star Wars Saga Edition, Shadow Theory) to integrate speaking and conversation into the standard combat initiative system. This means that, while most uses of this would be strictly for conversation between multiple players/NPC's, the rules will be able to be mixed with standard combat, perhaps giving creative and dramatic players/GMs the ability to easily maintain banter between characters. After all, a good cinematic duel is half physical and half verbal right?

The rules I have come up with are not terribly numerical but I will herein post what I sent to my friend via Skype earlier this day, which is a concise(ish) summary of how it would work in relation to the standard d20 combat initiative. Keep in mind that what I am posting here is tailored for online RPing and therefore typing, but that doesn't mean they aren't modular enough to be used offline. Ergo, ignore any blatant references to typing.


Anyways the reason I asked about the seconds last night was for the "social combat" rules (still not sure what to call it). I'm thinking I will integrate them directly into the standard combat system. I've been playing around with a stopwatch and come to the conclusion that most standard "statement" sentences when said slowly enough to be casual and easily understood are approximately 3 to 4 seconds long; a move action. So everyone rolls for initiative and the first guy to go puts up a pair of sentences for his round, but broken up into the two sentences. To add drama, I'll also say that for a swift action you can make a "gesture" with a short statement such as pointing at two people, one right after the other and going "You, and you..."

Additionally if a character has a large statement to say and wants to continue saying it they can take a full round action to speak a few sentences quickly, not taking much time to say it all, allowing them to say 3 or 4 sentences as opposed to the 2 you'd get out of a pair of "move action statements" Doing so would ignore most interruptions so it doesn't have to be chunked up into single sentences and wouldn't leave room for people to butt in.

When a speaker finishes their round it goes to next of initiative, to which they may do the same thing or simply put "..." to indicate they have nothing to say.

That's effective enough, for most conversations, but I also realize people will on occasion all want to be saying something, so I think that at the end of a phrase (if the speaker is talking in "move action sentences") OR at the end of any speaker's round of speech ANYONE who has something to say can make some short single-word indication that they want to speak like "Umm... " or "Ahem" or "Err/Yar" after which the person who is next in line to speak may give way to them with "..." and allow them to speak, also resulting in a change in Initiative order (the person who interjected is now in the current place in initiative). In some cases, such as in the middle of a story or personal matter this may be considered butting in and therefore rude, sometimes it's always considered rude like in the middle of stingy higher-class societies.

As to when this would be put into effect; I'd assume that when it's a normal conversation of one person talking to others without any tension (everyone is willing to stay quiet until the speaker is done with his/her/its point) that I wouldn't need to call for initiative and use of these rules, but whenever two or more people begin to talk/type at the same time I will enact it as a "social encounter" unless one person wants to shut up and let the other speak on his own. Either way, it should eventually become apparent when it's appropriate to use.

As always, comments and constructive criticism are always welcome. Anyone who has some ideas throw them up, my ears are open!