A look at quickness of actions in RPGs

See also my more In depth Reviews

Starting a more in depth review series.

Test played Reviews: JAGS Revised

Test played Reviews: Hackmaster

Act first but not actually quicker actions
One of the biggest issues that I considered in all of the games is the normal disparity between having an attribute that is supposed to represent quickness such as Dexterity, Quickness, Speed, or Reaction Speed (REA) and having the ability to actually be quick by doing multiple actions in a single round. D20 products normally consistently perpetuate the lack of actually being in action rather than just being first in line. They prefer the 'I go first' method.

Feat or talent separation mentality
They normally just let Dexterity be added to an initiative roll. What that does is let characters act first, but not faster. A d20 character normally can only act more than once through either a feat/ability - which must be obtained separately - or through a system of standard action, instant action, and full action. While the third is the best to my liking, the actions are normally talent, feat, ability based in which dexterity has no influence on.

I looked into GURPS system and for it you also need to 'buy' more than one attacks.

Three Quickness methods
Only a few actually had anything to indicate speed of actions.

JAGS, Hackmaster, and several d100 systems have the systems that I liked the most. Each accomplish the speed adjustment in combat and round systems differently.

A) Hackmaster attaches the speed to the items, weapons, skills, actions, or spells. I think of it as the utility speed method.

B) d100 has a chart where intelligence and dexterity are combined to see how many actions a character has per round. I think of this as the body-mind method.

C) JAGS to me seems like the most ingenious of the methods. It uses the actual attribute as a pool of points which three levels of actions can use. A character can chose to do multiple actions directly based on the REA stat size - 3REA for short actions (reactions like defense), 5REA for medium actions (attack & spells), and 8REA for long (run away). In addition, skills and powers can increase or decrease the size of REA - like having a level 3 expert skill lets you take a 4 REA attack using that skill once per round. In the revised edition, you can even spend a few points to wait or delay actions. I just think of this as a direct attribute pool method.

Both d100 and JAGS require the character have available points in order to do defense. So that spending all your points on offense will leave your character unable to defend actively.

For me, it's important that quick characters actually act quick - and not just act first.

Starting a more in depth review series.

I wanted to take the information that I took for the last two months search for a fantasy or universal RPG and bring all of the information together per game. At least I will do it for the 8 games that I test played. It may lead to further test playing of games not played as well.

Here is an overview look at what I did for that search which I've never shown before.

So I will go back and compile each of the game's information, beginning with JAGS, then Hackmaster, Dungeon World, etc.

Search for a current fantasy main system Part 4: Organizing Losers Battles

Prior posts in the series
Search for a current fantasy main system Part 1: suggested games and evaluating their samples
Search for a current fantasy main system Part 2: First look at downloaded samples
Search for a current fantasy main system Part 3: Organizing "Battles"
Search for a current fantasy main system Part 4: Organizing Losers Battles
Search for a current fantasy main system Part 4: Evaluating the game systems

Here are my combined posts concerning the structure of the losers bracket battle rounds.

I'm working out a system to test the non-playable games.

I think after I finish doing the battle phase and reduce the playable games nearly in half, I will do a losers bracket.

Phase 1: losers bracket battle round

*Phase one Criteria might be three:

1. Official Rules - How good are the rules that I can find on the official site? And I don't want to create an account to access it or given something not available officially to all. Unless it's available on RPG Now, which I already have an account.

2. Gameplay - Can I figure out the rules by looking at or watching a few gameplay media?

3. Reviews - Can I figure out the rules by reading or listening to rules review?

*Criteria are subject to change, if between now and then I think of something different or better.

I'll use the same grading scale - A through E as the winners phase 2 battle round.

If any of the systems are missing any of those three data points, it will be an automatic E = 0 for that criteria.

If I can't remember or forget or am distracted hearing or reading a detail - tough, too bad, so sad. My attention and memory can only go so far when media isn't in front of me.

I'll then divide the score by three to get the score.

Phase 2: losers bracket

The winners of the first losers bracket phase I'll try to do a full evaluation using what I've learned about the game like the other games taking the winners and tied games of the first round against each other. Anything that I can't figure out or remember from a few gameplay, reviews, and rules notes in the full-20 criteria will be an automatic E = 0. And all the total of the scores on my criteria spreadsheet is divided by 20.

Only one game from the losers bracket will emerge.

If there is a tie ... maybe a dice roll if I can't decide.

I think it's tough but fair.

Losers Bracket Phase 1 Battles

Strange Object Battle - Burning Wheel Gold v Cypher System

Two 'The's Battle - Shadow of the Demon Lord v The One Ring

Hero Battle - Hero System v Heroquest Glorantha

Kickstarter Battle - Blades in the Dark v 7th Sea

Anyway, it will be a while, at least a week, before I get through the top games. Heck, they might even read this and make sure they have material ready

Search for a current fantasy main system Part 3: Organizing "Battles"

Prior posts in the series
Search for a current fantasy main system Part 1: suggested games and evaluating their samples
Search for a current fantasy main system Part 2: First look at downloaded samples
Search for a current fantasy main system Part 3: Organizing "Battles"
Search for a current fantasy main system Part 4: Organizing Losers Battles
Search for a current fantasy main system Part 4: Evaluating the game systems

In this part, I will show how I set these initial observations up into a competitive battle round series, aimed at decreasing the number of similar games and overall selection down to a manageable number to actually test out. Reading can only go so far.

I was watching TV and saw a music competition. It seemed like a nice way to narrow down the games to a manageable set of playable systems. 

First I tried to find similarities between the systems. I grouped each head-to-head against another game based on a common theme. The following is the text I created for this battle round

Phase II

I'll be beginning a phase 2 - Reviews and gameplay research.

I mentioned Godbound can be bought in a future time. Ars Magica and Fantasy Age are not for me. Neither three will be considered anymore. Burning Wheel Gold was moved down to the insufficient gameplay section.

For the next phase I will try pairing up somewhat similar games into battles where I will try to pick the system that fits my criteria, which I'll try to list more formally later. A game in this phase just has to beat one competitor to make it to the next phase. I'll consider the opinions of others. So, input is welcome!

Battle Phase - Reviews & Gameplay

d100 Battle = Open Quest v Runequest

d20 Spinoff Battle = Radiance v Unchained Heroes

Different dice Battle = Earthdawn v What's O.L.D. is N.E.W.

ALL CAPS BATTLE = GURPS v JAGS

Minimized Battle = 13th Age v Dungeon World

Fantasy Crunch Battle = Rolemaster Unified v Hackmaster

After creating a battle structure, I tried to write up formally my criteria, many of which I had already state and clarified. Some that I wrote down for the first time. Here is my 10 criteria and the main question I would try to answer for each.

10 Major Criteria & 10 Sub-criteria

1. Depth - how meaningful and utilized are the data & functions are used?

a. Meaningful - does data recorded makes a difference in the game?

b. Utilized Functions - are there multiple uses for data recorded?

2. Flexible/Adaptable - how usable is it with other custom settings?

3. Consistency - how many different systems are there within the game?

4. Understandable - are concepts defined before they are presented, Or is it just a rule dump without explanation?

5. Character - how is behavior explained and can characters be unique?

a. Behavior tied to character - how well does the data determine how a character behaves?

b. Unique Character - can the characters stand out from other characters of similar nature?

6. Combat System - are the mechanics interesting and innovative?

a. Turn/move/action - does the game use the same boring turn based mechanics?

b. Attack speed/ hastened/quicker - will having higher quickness make the attacks go faster and multiple times?

7. Spell System - does the game use the boring overused spell set?

a. Spell Regulatory - how does the game use data to limit magical powers?

b. Spell Breadth - is there a wide variety, yet coherently grouped collection of spells?

8. Creatures - how many provided creatures are available?

a. Standard Fantasy - does the game provide the expected common monsters and creatures?

b. Creation - are there creature creation rules so that I can add my own creatures?

9. Content - is the overall content presented in the core detail depth and have variety. Do elements differ in sufficient degree among other data?

10. Aesthetic - does the game have a subjective coolness factor?

I then needed a grading scale, which I reused the same one as I did to score the available playable material and rules. Here is that text.

I plan on using the A, B, C, D, and E again, this time tying them to points so I can convert it into a total value for the game.

For each criteria

A = 4 - beyond my expectation

B = 3 - great

C = 2 - sufficient

D = 1 - below my expectation

E = 0 - horrible, unusable

Total evaluation = sum of criteria/20

I wanted to to also keep a score of other information which is helpful.

In addition to the criteria I will grade availability of reviews and gameplay. All game makers can at least do their own gameplay. If they choose not to, or if no one else does any, I don't know what to say. Or at least an interview.

Reading or watching reviews & gameplay helps me to subjectively fill in the criteria.

Next Post
In the next post, I will show my losers bracket