Re: turn processing discussed in PBM Design group (yahoo groups)

From: "samayel" <samayel70@cox.net>

Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 03:30:49 +0000

"Daniel Vuurboom & Gerry Damen" <vuurdameDELETE@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3C87E42D.5080709@xs4all.nl...
> >
> > that does make sense, if I go purely by speed (or any one factor)...
thats
> > the way to do it. I just hate the thought of turn processing order going
so
> > rigidly by any one factor... there needs to be a small variance... a
little
> > chaos... not much of course, otherwise the speed factor becomes
irrelevant.
>
>
> Maybe you could use something along the lines of the ShadowRun
> initiative system here:
> A player has an initiative based on his abilities plus a die roll,
> typically something between 1+1D6 to 16+4D6. The fastest player gets one
> action, deducts 10 from his initiative and enters the queue again,
> waiting for his next action.
>
> This way characters get anything from 1 to 4 actions, and the fastest
> has the advantage, but cannot do everything he wants before others have
> a go at their number one priorities. You would need to do a lot of
> tweaking though to get the right number of actions and spread....

ooh... I really like that idea... that way you don't negate the inherent
bonuses of a high speed (or whatever factor) but you also don't allow the
speedy guy to always dominate the action.

References

turn processing discussed in PBM Design group (yahoo groups)
"samayel" <nospam@domain.ext>
Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:10:40 +0000
Re: turn processing discussed in PBM Design group (yahoo groups)
S.J.Clifford@work.it.out.invalid
Thu, 07 Mar 2002 19:04:18 +0000
Re: turn processing discussed in PBM Design group (yahoo groups)
"samayel" <nospam@domain.ext>
Thu, 07 Mar 2002 20:14:47 +0000
Re: turn processing discussed in PBM Design group (yahoo groups)
Daniel Vuurboom & Gerry Damen <vuurdameDELETE@xs4all.nl>
Thu, 07 Mar 2002 22:05:33 +0000