Splitting Rounds into Phases

[Psychic Robot]

Like I said in another thread, I recently played Arkham Horror, and one of the things that really interested me about it was the splitting of turns into phases. This seems like it could be applied to an RPG, where characters have two different phases: movement and action. In this, every character would use his movement in the movement phase and then he could take actions such as casting spells and attacking in the action phase.

However, my fear is that it would end up as a giant "fuck you" to fighters, where the fighter would move to engage an enemy and then the enemy would just move out of his reach (attacks of opportunity notwithstanding). My immediate solution to this would be to use a system where enemies are "engaged" and can't move away when in reach or something, but this is, of course, untested and a thought experiment.

So my question is: are there any good RPGs or systems that split combat into movement/action phases? If so, could you elaborate on them?

[fectin]

That really feels more like a CCG mechanic. you've basically described L5R attacking, for example. And while I love me some L5R, it's not really an RPG-style mechanic, since it basically requires specific locations that you care about, and somewhat screws individuals.

Aside form the connection to Arkham Horror, was there anythnig in particular you liked about it?

[Spike]

I was going to say it sounds like a Strategic Wargame mechanic, a la Battletech or, to a greater degree of seperation, Warhammer 40K and Fantasy.

I'm not opposed to the idea, personally. People who want to melee learn to use the system to force it more than people who don't want to melee learn to defend themselves (since people generally focus more on offensive strategies in these game in my experience), though it does rely on the GM not being of a mind to provide a tactical 'fuck you' to the players... since he's going to get more practice by simple virtue of having more pieces to muck about with.

Regardless, it does provide a lot of tactical uncertainty to the table, and by extension ranged combat grows more useful.

Obviously that supports Mages, though it can also penalize them in that it is harder to pin down groups for AoE spells.

[Lago PARANOIA]

In this, every character would use his movement in the movement phase and then he could take actions such as casting spells and attacking in the action phase.

What's the point of even doing it like this? How does this enhance the play experience for someone to be unable to move and attack within the same action? It just sounds to me like it'll just take up extra time with no real tactical benefit.

Moreover, since D&D is a game that worships at the altar of short-range squad engagements, even at high level, it doesn't actually provide any tactical diversity. You were going to move and attack anyway. You weren't going to move and then start singing a song or engaging your chevrons or whatever.

[Orca]

RoleMaster uses this system by default, though there are a dozen variations on any mechanic in RM. You also have an action declaration phase at the start, before any actions are resolved, and spellcasting phases ... it gets complicated.

Movement in RM can be fairly uninteresting, since you tend to be penalised on your other action for moving. Which tended to result in the movement phase getting rolled into other phases.

The action declaration phase might answer your problems with it, but that is also anti-immersive. I'm not sure I'd recommend this, but someone obviously thought it was a good idea once.

[TheWorid]

Dungeons and Dragons. At least back in 1974, if you weren't using the alternate combat rules instead.

[CCarter]

Hmm I'd be wondering mostly how if 'move' and 'attack' occur at differ phases in the round, how stuff like charging or Ride-by Attack would work. Charge moves your attack up into the 'move' phase ?

2nd ed. Combat & Tactics had a phase system where a character could potentially move and attack in different phases if they had a slow weapon, but not a defined 'movement phase' as such. I wouldn't call it 'good' exactly but 'interesting' maybe.
http://www.purpleworm.org/Library/Rules/CT/DD02419.htm

[Psychic Robot]

My thinking was that it would allow for more tactical combat and cause people to change their strategies. Compare say, D&D, to this theoretical system (which we'll assume works with D&D principles like AoOs). The wizard goes first and casts a spell in the first round. In this system, the wizard moves but can't yet cast a spell. An orc moves up to engage him, and then the wizard has to decide if he wants to cast the spell and take an AoO or do something else. In a similar vein, other characters can move in response to whatever actions their enemies take, so a fighter who sees archers moving back for a long-range assault can advance on them, forcing the archers to reevaluate their tactics.

Again, just a thought, and I don't know if it would work.

[Username17]

Basically you're talking about Battletech. In that system, everyone has ranged attacks. And one of the reasons that happens is that if you don't win initiative, you can't engage another pilot in melee even if you are fast and they are slow. You move up, they step back, then you don't get to attack them.

-Username17

[Murtak]

Even without ranged attacks on the part of some characters this can still work. Sort of. If overrun/bull rush/trample and the likes happen during movement then losing initiative means you pull out a lesser attack and try to stomp the caster/archer into the ground. And since these attacks presumably need a straight line of movement towards your target there is value in being a big ugly guy in armor and standing in front of your squishy friends.

[Username17]

I would submit that if you put attacks into the movement phase, then you don't really have a separate attacks and movement phase. Instead you've just implemented a lot of high quality attacks that go off at the end of the round, which makes initiative even more important, since only people who win initiative can use those effectively.

-Username17

[Murtak]

How does having some of your attacks go off in the attack phase going to make initiative more important than having all of them in that phase? Besides there is a clear difference between getting to put your sword into someone's spleen and getting to bodycheck them. Not that either argument is at all useful.

PR's question was "will this end up fucking fighter types and how do I avoid that". You alluded to a similarity with Battletech and implied that this will indeed fuck over pure melees, since in Battletech you can't ever be sure of even getting a melee hit in. I concur by the way, but only under the premise that there are precisely three things you can do: shoot, stab and move. Which is why I suggested that options be added during the movement phase. These may deal damage, but that should not be the real point. They should impede the movement of your target, making it more likely to have someone to stab once the attack phase happens. And with this simple addition we have an opportunity to not totally fuck over melee types and introduce tactics beyond "move out of melee range, shoot".

Of course initiative will still be important, but much less so than without adding maneuvers.

[Username17]

How does having some of your attacks go off in the attack phase going to make initiative more important than having all of them in that phase?

Because in the D&D system, having a better initiative count means that you go first. You move and strike. Then your opponent gets to move and strike. If you want to, you can delay until after your opponent moves and strikes to use your move and strike. The point is that unless your higher initiative count drops your opponent, they still get to act normally.

Now compare the situation where there is a first phase and a second phase, and you can choose during your first phase whether to delay your strike to the second phase and get a "big" attack or take your attack during movement in the first phase and take a "small" attack. This gives more freedom to the player who has initiative and less freedom to the character who does not. Player 1 delays movement until after Player 2, and then if Player 2 takes the small attack during the movement phase, Player 1 sits there and socks him with the big attack. If Player 2 waits on his big attack, Player 1 takes the small attack and moves out of range.

So Player 2 actually doesn't have action parity against Player 1, even on rounds where he isn't dropped before he can take an action.

-Username17

[Murtak]

1) You are comparing "move/trip, attack" to DnD. Why?

2) In DnD dropping someone is quite likely, and even if you do not, ensuring that your opponent does not get to act is not very hard.

3) I never suggested "delaying attacks". I suggest that you should be able to do something like tripping your opponent in addition to your regular movement. This should not take the place of your regular attack.

4) Even if I had said this, getting to do anything at all is still better than what you get in DnD (where the last character to act has decent chances of being dead or controlled) or in "move, attack" (where the character who looses initiative may not melee attack at all).

5) Who said action parity is needed? None of the systems we are talking about has action parity. I submit that a system where everyone always gets to do what they want contains no tactics worth mentioning. Getting to do what you want to do, while denying the same to your opponent is both the very definition of successfully executed tactics and of action disparity. The question is not whether we want action disparity, but how large it should be.
I agree that "Battletech without guns for everyone", aka "move, attack" is bullshit, both because the disparity is too large for melee types and because it depends largely on a single die roll. I think "move/trip, attack" may be useable, while introducing tactical elements like positioning. In the context of simply splitting DnD rounds into phases it is bullshit, because it will end up as a straight powerup for casters. It might work out for other games though, or for building one from scratch.

[cthulhudarren]

MRQ2 has a system where there is an order based on strike rank, and then you have a number of combat actions based on int, dex, and encumbrance. Then you cycle through the turn in strike rank order, each person taking a combat action, which can include movement (the amount of which depends on certain things like race, encumbrance, etc).

After a certain number of rounds you start to fatigue (based on con and encumbrance) if you don't make a "save".

So in the case we're talking about, if you have twin combatants wearing the same armor in an open field you could move up to engage a person on your combat action and they could move away to disengage on their action if it follows yours. As long as there is enough open terrain theoretically you could have a stalemate until one or the other fails a fatigue check.

This scenario would almost never occur as these things are variable.

<tangent>
The thing about this system is that combat actions are king. Most combat resolution is via opposed skill checks. If you have more combat actions than your opponent, after all of the other person's actions are done, you get to take more actions until yours are gone. The other person automatically fails they opposed skill check. And combat in 2MRQ is realistically lethal.
</tangent>

[TheFlatline]

MRQ2 has a system where there is an order based on strike rank, and then you have a number of combat actions based on int, dex, and encumbrance. Then you cycle through the turn in strike rank order, each person taking a combat action, which can include movement (the amount of which depends on certain things like race, encumbrance, etc).

After a certain number of rounds you start to fatigue (based on con and encumbrance) if you don't make a "save".

So in the case we're talking about, if you have twin combatants wearing the same armor in an open field you could move up to engage a person on your combat action and they could move away to disengage on their action if it follows yours. As long as there is enough open terrain theoretically you could have a stalemate until one or the other fails a fatigue check.

This scenario would almost never occur as these things are variable.

<tangent>
The thing about this system is that combat actions are king. Most combat resolution is via opposed skill checks. If you have more combat actions than your opponent, after all of the other person's actions are done, you get to take more actions until yours are gone. The other person automatically fails they opposed skill check. And combat in 2MRQ is realistically lethal.
</tangent>

Sounds overly-complicated. Not sure how it would flow in real gameplay. It also sounds like it doesn't separate out movement from the rest of a player's action.

Another thing about Battletech movement being separated out from actions is that in BT, winning init moves last, not first. By separating out movement from actions, it's desirable to move last, but act first (or simultaneously).

[Psychic Robot]

Another thing about Battletech movement being separated out from actions is that in BT, winning init moves last, not first. By separating out movement from actions, it's desirable to move last, but act first (or simultaneously).

That's nifty. I'd probably give winning initiative the option to move last or first, though.

[TheFlatline]

Most often it's still beneficial to move last, especially if you're going to act first (or simultaneously, as in BT). Facing also matters in BT, which is why going last can be so important (so you can actually be pointing at your target).