Which RPG has given you the best sense of simultaneous action?

[TripleD]

Which tabletop RPG has given you the best sense that all participants were actively engaged in combat, as opposed to standing still, moving one by one as each waited for their turn?

Hackmaster has an interesting "seconds" system that I've been reading up on lately, and was wondering what other approaches have been taken in RPGs over the years?

[JNAProductions]

X-Wing.

I know, not an RPG, but still.

[Knaight]

The ones that genuinely have things go simultaneously tend to do the best here. Fudge, Torchbearer, and Burning Wheel all stand out (with rapidly increasing complexity as one goes down the list).

[Cluedrew]

I have to agree with both JNAProductions and Knaight. On top of that I would add on any system that does not have a defined turn structure, which lets you resolve actions however you feel is most natural for that scene. They may or may not actually be happening at the same time but the fluid nature of "turns" really helps.

[Knaight]

There's also some systems which do have turns, but the turn order gets really messy so it ends up feeling more simultaneous. Warbirds in particular stands out - it feels like everyone is flying around at once, and while only one person is shooting at once that comes across as much better for biplane combat than other things.

[LooseCannoneer]

Continuum, especially when the combat time limits are enforced (5 seconds to declare an action). There's nothing more simultaneous than everything all at once.

[ImNotTrevor]

Apocalypse World, and most PbtA systems do this really well. There's no initiative, so you generally just go around the table starting with whoever decides to shoot first.

[Fri]

IIRC, burning wheel (or just mouse guard? I forgot) is technically literally simultaneous. You pick and action and enemy pick action and your action choices interact.

[Anderlith]

Shadowrun. Once detailed a combat we had that was full of action & how it was over in seconds. Gun barked people died, it felt like an unbroken fiht scene where everyhing runs together

[RazorChain]

Ad&d 2nd edition wins this one hands down.

[ImNotTrevor]

Ad&d 2nd edition wins this one hands down.

You're going to need to explain why. :P

[ahenobarbi]

I'm not sure what system that was (some World of Darkness maybe) but in the system characters picked their actions from lowest initative to highest and actions were resolved in reverse order (highest initiative to lowest).

Gave good impression of everyone acting simultaneously (but some having better reflexes and being able to take others intentions into account).

[Thrudd]

In a practical sense, it's impossible to do actually simultaneous action, the GM/referee can only do one thing at a time.

Early D&D and AD&D did do a pretty good job of it, though, with per-side initiative.

Declare intended actions
Initiative is rolled
the side with the higher roll goes first
resolve actions in order of - 1. movement, 2. missile attacks, 3. spells, 4. melee

then the other side goes, and repeat.

When there is a tie in initiative, which has a 1/6 chance of occurring, then both go at the same time -
whoever is moving on both sides performs their move actions
then any missile attacks on either side are rolled and resolve
then all spells go off
then all melee attacks

in that situation, any damage done is applied to both sides simultaneously. So even if you happened to roll your attack first, the damage doesn't actually apply until your opponent has also rolled their attack. You could potentially kill each other or at least wound each other, which is actually fairly realistic.

I like a modified version of that, in which both sides act, in initiative order, at each stage of the combat round. My order is this:
1. speaking/beginning to cast spells
2. movement
3. missile attacks
4. melee attacks
5. completed spells go off

In each phase, the initiative winner may choose to go first, or wait to see what the other side is going to do.
So if you win initiative, your side can gain the high ground first, or can wait to see what the enemy is going to do.

If you win initiative, your side's damage applies before the opponents are able to act (in each phase). If initiative is tied, then damage isn't resolved until both sides have acted.

I also added a speaking phase before anything else, to give the initiative winning side the chance to call out to the other side, or to each other, just in case they'd like to try a last second de-escalation, communicate some in-character strategy, or just trash-talk.

[tensai_oni]

In a practical sense, it's impossible to do actually simultaneous action, the GM/referee can only do one thing at a time.

Not really. Any system where first everyone declares what they do, then all the actions go live at the same time, is simultaneous. Burning Wheel was given as an example, I'm sure there are more.

Of course these kind of systems run a risk of turning into a huge cluster... mess the more people are involved in a fight, but that's why they're built with taking this into consideration from beginning, as opposed to just taking typical DnD-like turns, except everyone moves at once.

[Jay R]

Hero system has an aspect that helps make it seem, not actually simultaneous, but fluid. It not exactly turn by turn. One characteristic is Speed, which represents how many actions you have in a turn. If you have Speed 4, you act in segments 3, 6, 9, and 12. Meanwhile, a slower person moves in segments 4, 8, and 12, and a faster person acts in segments 2, 5, 7, 10, and 12.

[Thrudd]

Not really. Any system where first everyone declares what they do, then all the actions go live at the same time, is simultaneous. Burning Wheel was given as an example, I'm sure there are more.

Of course these kind of systems run a risk of turning into a huge cluster... mess the more people are involved in a fight, but that's why they're built with taking this into consideration from beginning, as opposed to just taking typical DnD-like turns, except everyone moves at once.

Everyone can't literally declare and act at the same time, that's what I meant - everyone would be talking over each other and dice rolling with nobody seeing what's happening. The game might have no set turn order and resolve actions simultaneously by applying results only after all parties have acted, but at some point the GM has to listen to each player's action and see every dice roll individually and declare what happens, and that is going to look like "taking turns".

You can have everyone dive onto the table and try to move their mini at the same time, and everyone can roll dice at the same time, but there's only one GM who can hear and address one player at a time.

[LokiRagnarok]

Shadowrun. Once detailed a combat we had that was full of action & how it was over in seconds. Gun barked people died, it felt like an unbroken fiht scene where everyhing runs together

...how? In my (limited) experience, Shadowrun has the slowest fights I have ever played.
Sure, in universe, things happen awfully fast, but I as a player got pretty bored with the several initiative passes (with some characters having up to two more than others in our case), taking modifiers into account, and waiting for three worlds to resolve.

I am genuinely curious as I want to mayhap run a game of Shadowrun myself and if there is some magical recipe for solving this, I would lile to know :)

On topic: Splittermond felt pretty fast. No idea if they cribbed their initiative system from somewhere else, but you basically announce your actions, then you start them and then they resolve at a later point, depending on the complexity of the action

[JAL_1138]

Ad&d 2nd edition wins this one hands down.

You're going to need to explain why. :P

[snip]

Depends on which initiative system you use to an extent (there are three in the PHB), but since the only difference is how many dice are rolled and whether modifiers are applied it's not that much difference. Side initiative is probably the most "simultaneous"-feeling, since it doesn't have the players act in a defined turn order amongst themselves (each entire side goes at once), but group initiative and individual initiative give almost the same sense because although they involve modifiers and/or more die rolls, the same basic system applies, and initiative changes every round.

In AD&D, you declare your actions before the round starts, and then roll initiative, each round. With side initiative there's no defined order--players act simultaneously, or in any order they want (declared before the initiative roll). Then the next side goes, same way. Group initiative applies speed modifiers for individual participants to a single initiative roll per side (e.g., the group rolls a 5, but Alice has a +2 penalty and acts on 7, but Bob has a -2 bonus and acts on 3). In individual initiative, everyone rolls their own die instead of one per side, but still declare their actions before rolling initiative and still apply modifiers like with group initiative. There are no tiebreakers; when there's a tie, everyone with that initiative result (after modifiers, if used) acts at the same time. The PHB gives the example of a wizard being killed by goblins who would then fall unconscious when the wizard's Sleep spell takes full effect at the end of the round.

AD&D (in 2e, at least--I don't think 1e does either, but I've never quite figured 1e combat out) doesn't use the BECMI Missile->Magic->Melee order of operations; a spell can go off after a melee attack, and a missile attack can happen last of all, depending on the initiative modifier, for example. Practically speaking missile combat happens first, because firing into a melee is unpredictable and usually a bad idea.

Casting times (and weapon speeds and other modifiers, if used) are modifiers to the initiative result, of a sort--IIRC weapon speed and the rest are straight modifiers, but casting time has two components--same round and multiple-round. For spells that go off in the same round they're cast, it's a simple (and optional) initiative modifier like weapon speed. For multiple-round casting times, it's not optional (as in, still applies even if side initiative is used instead of the group or individual variants), and works differently--you start casting one turn, then your spell will go off on a subsequent turn, and any hit in the interim causes the spell to fizzle.

It can be a really frenetic, chaotic system compared to the modern "roll at the start of the combat, then declare your action on your turn when it comes up in the unchanging turn order" style--especially since you don't know who will act in what order when you declare your actions.

[Knaight]

Everyone can't literally declare and act at the same time, that's what I meant - everyone would be talking over each other and dice rolling with nobody seeing what's happening. The game might have no set turn order and resolve actions simultaneously by applying results only after all parties have acted, but at some point the GM has to listen to each player's action and see every dice roll individually and declare what happens, and that is going to look like "taking turns".

Not necessarily. There are multiple systems where once everyone gets something in the die rolls can quickly be tallied and it's really easy to just describe everything happening at once. Having actually played a number of these systems, I can confirm that it doesn't look like "taking turns" in several of them.

[TripleD]

Thanks for all the responses! This has given me a lot to read up on.

To expand upon my original question: there was one specific problem with turn taking that's bugged me for a while, but I forgot to address in my initial post.

Imagine in D&D that my opponent is thirty feet away, and my ally is sixty feet away. I gain first initiative, and my oppoment gains second. I rush forward and attack my opponent, who then rushes forward and attacks my ally.

If we really were all taking our actions within the same six seconds, I feel like I should never have hit my opponent, since they would be moving away from me at the same time I was moving towards them.

Not sure if it's truly possible to solve this issue in a tabletop game, but has anyone seen systems that find ways to deal with, or completely bypass, this issue?

[prufock]

The best game, Paranoia! XP.

[ImNotTrevor]

Thanks for all the responses! This has given me a lot to read up on.

To expand upon my original question: there was one specific problem with turn taking that's bugged me for a while, but I forgot to address in my initial post.

Imagine in D&D that my opponent is thirty feet away, and my ally is sixty feet away. I gain first initiative, and my oppoment gains second. I rush forward and attack my opponent, who then rushes forward and attacks my ally.

If we really were all taking our actions within the same six seconds, I feel like I should never have hit my opponent, since they would be moving away from me at the same time I was moving towards them.

Not sure if it's truly possible to solve this issue in a tabletop game, but has anyone seen systems that find ways to deal with, or completely bypass, this issue?

I find that most Theatre of the Mind systems handle this pretty well, especially ones that don't fiddle around with exact distances.

Though you could always take a line from Wargames and have each side have a Movement Phase before the actual combat part begins.

Ie, both sides move an amount up to their full movement speed, then resolve combat (during which would can move whatever distance you still have left.) It changes up the action economy, but I don't see any reason why that couldn't work pretty well.

[Thrudd]

Thanks for all the responses! This has given me a lot to read up on.

To expand upon my original question: there was one specific problem with turn taking that's bugged me for a while, but I forgot to address in my initial post.

Imagine in D&D that my opponent is thirty feet away, and my ally is sixty feet away. I gain first initiative, and my oppoment gains second. I rush forward and attack my opponent, who then rushes forward and attacks my ally.

If we really were all taking our actions within the same six seconds, I feel like I should never have hit my opponent, since they would be moving away from me at the same time I was moving towards them.

Not sure if it's truly possible to solve this issue in a tabletop game, but has anyone seen systems that find ways to deal with, or completely bypass, this issue?

one way that is solved is by phases - if all movement happens before melee attacks, then you and the enemy both move where you want before any attacking happens. Of course, there should be some advantage to actually winning initiative, so if you win initiative and reach the enemy, you can get the free attack if he still chooses to run away from you. Or maybe because he sees you starting to run at him, he decides not to run with his back to you, but backs away more cautiously (not provoking the automatic attack), so he doesn't reach your ally this turn (in AD&D you can withdraw from an opponent at half your movement rate). Or he might decide to just stay and fight you instead of going for your ally, because you got the jump on him.

A system where movement happens in phases would solve that, too, second by second. Each second, all involved parties get to move some number of feet, the initiative winner gets to choose to go first or wait until someone else has moved. Of course, this sort of precision would mean the combats will take a lot longer, especially if many characters are involved. Either crazy book keeping by the GM, or moving minis one inch or a half an inch at a time across the table.

[RazorChain]

Ad&d 2nd edition wins this one hands down.

You're going to need to explain why. :P

No wait....I can't really back that up, can I?

[ImNotTrevor]

No wait....I can't really back that up, can I?

Well you certainly can't if you don't even make a case for why. :P

Since the point is to help OP find a good system for what they want, you'll need to explain why you think that system solves the problem.

I work in car sales. If someone asks me for good alternatives to a Honda CR-V, then I'm not just gonna say "Nissan Rogue is the best alternativen hands down." With no further comment. I'll at least explain WHY I think that way. Sure, it's still a subjective opinion but at least I backed it up.

[RazorChain]

Thanks for all the responses! This has given me a lot to read up on.

To expand upon my original question: there was one specific problem with turn taking that's bugged me for a while, but I forgot to address in my initial post.

Imagine in D&D that my opponent is thirty feet away, and my ally is sixty feet away. I gain first initiative, and my oppoment gains second. I rush forward and attack my opponent, who then rushes forward and attacks my ally.

If we really were all taking our actions within the same six seconds, I feel like I should never have hit my opponent, since they would be moving away from me at the same time I was moving towards them.

Not sure if it's truly possible to solve this issue in a tabletop game, but has anyone seen systems that find ways to deal with, or completely bypass, this issue?

This is easily solved by systems that use lesser time increments for rounds. The 6 second DnD round is rather long by most standard, a normal healty human can sprint around 40 yards in that time which makes movement out of whack with everything else. But thank Zeus beard that they changed it from the ONE MINUTE rounds of old. There if you were going to shiv a prison guard and missed, he could literally walk to the next phone and call reinforcements before you got to attack again. I remember some of my players made so much fun of the one minute turns that one of them put the kettle on at the start of an ambush because tea should be ready when fight was over.


Like I said a lot of systems use lesser time increments and limit movement during fights. Gurps gives you one step (yard) if you are going to attack and uses 1 second rounds. Runequest uses 5 second rounds and breaks it into strike ranks and your speed and your weapon determines when you act in the round. Cyberpunk uses 3 second rounds.

[Knaight]

one way that is solved is by phases - if all movement happens before melee attacks, then you and the enemy both move where you want before any attacking happens. Of course, there should be some advantage to actually winning initiative, so if you win initiative and reach the enemy, you can get the free attack if he still chooses to run away from you. Or maybe because he sees you starting to run at him, he decides not to run with his back to you, but backs away more cautiously (not provoking the automatic attack), so he doesn't reach your ally this turn (in AD&D you can withdraw from an opponent at half your movement rate). Or he might decide to just stay and fight you instead of going for your ally, because you got the jump on him.

Getting to choose when to move fits this - if it's advantageous to move later they can move later, if there's a reason to move earlier they can move earlier.

[Shinn]

I like a modified version of that, in which both sides act, in initiative order, at each stage of the combat round. My order is this:
1. speaking/beginning to cast spells
2. movement
3. missile attacks
4. melee attacks
5. completed spells go off

The Dr. Who RPG have something like that :
- First are the TALK PHASE : if someone want to talk, he's always first to act with the other talkers.
- Then you get the FLEE PHASE : if you want to flee, you run away right after the talkers stopped.
- Then you have the ACT PHASE : if you want to do anything else than talk, run or fight, you can do it right after the fleeing people.
- Then you have the FIGHT PHASE : if you want to smash things, you'll be the last.
Every phase is simultaneous ; it was conceived for a less violent tabletop Game, as fighting isn't the best thing to do.

Otherwise I like the Scion Time wheel.