Many
non-gamers assume players take turns in games, each one resolving their actions
fully before moving on to the next player. Gamers obviously have a bit more
experience with different player sequences and resolution, whether using an
innovative initiative system in a roleplaying game, flipping playing cards to
see which side’s units move and shoot in miniature wargames, participating in a
shifting player order in a European-style board game, or, my favorite,
resolving actions simultaneously so nobody’s knocked out of the game before
they get a chance to take a parting shot.
Even in
traditional turn-taking games I prefer every piece to have a chance to take
action even if enemy fire that turn would normally destroy it; the Axis & Allies Miniatures Game and
it’s War at Sea naval version do a
good job of simultaneously resolving hits by noting how much damage units take
and removing destroyed units at turn’s end after every piece has had a chance
to move and shoot. In Panzer Kids, the beginner-friendly tank miniatures game I’m developing, I make sure to allow
every tank within range and line of sight to a target a shot before accrued
hits take effect and knock some tanks out of the skirmish.
While player
sequencing helps maintain order at the game table, resolving actions
simultaneously not only provides a better sense of fairness but forces players
to remain involved and focused on the game throughout their and others’ turns.
It’s a rules element I prefer, when available, in whatever games I’m playing; I
try incorporating simultaneous action resolution into game designs when the
mechanic seems suitable to the game’s style, overall mechanics, and theme. I’ve
enjoyed some experience in other games with simultaneous action resolution:
Wings
of War/Glory: One of the elements I like about Wings of War/Wings of Glory remains the simultaneous attack
resolution. After all units have moved, everyone determines which enemy planes
are in range and which ones they’re attacking, with target aircraft taking
damage cards (or chits in the WWII version) with different damage values
(including zero); aircraft with hits reaching their damage resistance value are
destroyed. This procedure, however, allows the target plane to get off a shot
even if, when taking hits itself, it would be eliminated at the end of the
turn. In the Star Wars: X-Wing Miniatures
Game -- a direct derivative of the Wings
of War/Glory game with some original innovations -- ships move and shoot
according to their pilot skill value (higher being better); less experienced
pilots move first and shoot last in those respective phases, while veteran
pilots naturally maneuver last and attack first. Although movement might seem
like a simultaneous action -- with maneuvers revealed on a previously set dial,
much as flyers in Wings of War/Glory
reveal cards for maneuvers -- the addition of actions like barrel-rolling,
targeting, evading, and focusing all reveal the intentions of players moving
first. Since combat is fully resolved in turn beginning with the better pilots,
they can knock less experienced pilots out of the game before everyone’s had a
chance to shoot that turn. I enjoy Wings
of War/Glory that much more because I know, even if my plane’s going down
in flames this round, I have a chance to take a parting shot at an enemy
aircraft.
D6 System
Roleplaying Game: When I run roleplaying games with built-in initiative
systems I generally resolve actions simultaneously in my head, with an eye
toward fairness to player characters and unexpected plot developments from
actions with results that often clash. I frequently discard built-in
initiatives systems -- intended to impose structure on player and gamemaster
actions -- in favor of an improvised yet simultaneous task resolution method.
Typically I’ll announce the characters’ adversaries intentions then go around
the table to each player (usually varying my start point each round) asking for
their characters’ actions and letting them know what relevant skills to roll. I
roll the gamemaster character skills, noting how well they did in terms of
success/failure and degree of success (for opposed rolls). As players reveal
their skill roll results I figure out what’s going on in relation to opponent
actions, then narrate the outcome. This certainly makes a bit more work for the
gamemaster to mentally keep track of what all the characters and their
adversaries are doing, but makes for some interesting moments as simultaneous
action resolution brings about some unexpected results. I also find the
technique -- or the simple omission of an intrusive initiative game mechanic --
far more cinematic.
Oracle
System: I’m building the Oracle System -- the basis for a retro-clone-style fantasy roleplaying system I’m
developing -- on the concept of simultaneously resolving combat between two
opposing parties, including chances to hit and defend in one roll. A hero rolls
her dice while the gamemaster rolls dice for her opponent; each counts up defend
results (2s and 3s), a number of which (equal to the character’s armor value)
can cancel out the opponent’s hits (4s, 5s, and 6s), with any hits getting
through armor lowering the defender’s overall dice (both an indication of
ability and health). In this fashion two opponents can conceivably knock each
other out of a skirmish; even someone about to be vanquished still has a chance
to inflict damage with a parting shot. (You can read more about the Oracle System and its simultaneous
combat resolution mechanic in an earlier blog entry.)
Simultaneous
action resolution isn’t right for every game. They often becomes a choice over
other game concerns. For instance, I’m sure the Star Wars: X-Wing Miniatures Game designers felt using a pilot
skill value was far more important to the overall game strategy than
simultaneous attack resolution; in fact, offering different pilot expertise
levels helps players build diverse squadrons essential for both varied skirmish
scenarios and organized play (a cornerstone of the game’s appeal and marketing
approach to the gaming community). Mechanics remain the primary consideration;
if simultaneous resolution doesn’t work with the core game system -- or needs
additional fiddling to fit it in -- it doesn’t belong. It’s a convention I
enjoy in many games, but not at the expense of fluid and engaging gameplay.
As always, I
encourage construction feedback and civilized discussion. Share a link to this
blog entry on Google+ and tag me (+Peter Schweighofer) to comment.
