
![]() |

I think the best approach is for everyone to post in initiative order, without the extra step of declaring actions. If you want to guarantee combat keeps moving, have a 12- or 24-hour rule during combat. If a player can't post in that time, you take their turn for them, respecting the manner in which they'd likely act. Just keeps things moving while keeping to combat rules.
Caillus charges the archer farthest in the back so as to drive archers out of the building. I can see the map on my laptop fine, it turns out, but not on my phone. I'll attempt to charge such that I threaten another archer.

Harakani DM |

Can't charge or Run through difficult terrain, I believe. Could double move - do you mean double move? If so, where to? Could get to AM28.
Moving should really be in the Gameplay thread.
I suppose the advantage of init order is the social obligation to post. At the moment I'm getting a bunch of posts each turn, then a few drizzling in.
I'll trial it next turn - seems weird to change halfway through a turn.

The Master in Grey |

For large scale combat like this, I've had a lot of success with Block Initiative (we go, in whatever order we can post in, and then the entire enemy force goes)
This makes combat a little less dynamic, but it's worth it for the big increase to convenience and speed. It also makes coordination a little easier than usual since you don't have to deal with Delaying your action if you want to do something in conjunction with another player.
Also, the list of actions by name that you've been putting up is really useful in reminding us who's done what, and who's left to go. Seeing that more frequently might help maintain focus, along with a clearly labeled End of round resolution and New Round announcement.
I know for me personally, I'm enjoying the game, but it is very hard to keep track of everything that is going on and when I should be acting.

![]() |

This format has been hard to keep track of, and not because of the two locations, that part has been fine. It just feels like we go days without any movement and some stuff gets out of order. Plus, I see declared intentions in one thread and actual events in another (maybe there's less of that than I think there is). So it gets confusing and I have a poor idea of when it's my turn or when I'm expected to go. I'll try to be more on the spot, but we definitely need a different system after this combat.

![]() |

I think the reminder post is great. My favored system - what I'd use if I were running a pbp - is a 24-hour rule. Between combatsanyone can post at any time. In combat, you post in Initiative order. Too much of the game revolves around turn orders (though we can build characters to suit any initiative system you choose) to just fire Initiative. But if we post in turn, and you take over if someone holds up combat for 24 hours, no one can complain. Just always post an action they've referenced or something you think they'd do. So combat keeps moving in turn, and we dump the 'post your intentions' phase.
And as we play together, we'll gel more and get in each others' way less, so things will speed up. This is a good group of characters, so we'll shake the rust off and be taking over Golarion in no time. :b

![]() |

Also, as long as we can keep it straight, you could say anyone can post for combat when they get a chance (eases the 24 hour rule), but nothing resolves until the players' turn. Upside, it keeps combat moving and people can post when they have the opportunity to. DOwnside, the occasional post has to be revisited, as the guy Caillus attakced is already dead when his turn rolls around and such.
Going to look at the map and find out why the interior of the building is difficult terrain. I'lll post right after I figure it out. Also, I think our convict pops back into time at the beginning of next turn. Two full rounds, right?

The Master in Grey |

DOwnside, the occasional post has to be revisited, as the guy Caillus attakced is already dead when his turn rolls around and such.
I've tried that a few times before. It worked fine in the 3 person game. In the 6 person game we usually had to revisit at lest one action a turn. It caused a lot of delays, and for me personally was extremely frustrating. I found myself wanting to go either first or last in every combat just to avoid having to rework things.
Any fight I didn't have the highest initiative I'd just Delay down to the bottom and wouldn't want to act until everyone else's stuff had resolved.
Round 1 is really the only turn that initiative matters. Those that act first set the tone of the fight, so its important. After that, its round robin.
If the bad guys always act as a block, then splitting the players up into Group A (the fast ones who act before the bad guys), and Group B (the slow guys) would work well to keep the importance of the initiative system but allow for people to post when the are able instead of having to wait for their exact turn.
So group A would go, the GM would resolve those actions and take the Enemy actions, then Group B would go. The GM would do an end of round wrap-up and tell group A to go again.
What do you think?

Harakani DM |

I like it.
Especially because after the first round A & B are pretty much working on the same initiative.
Init then becomes "can you get the drop on the bad guy" and effectively get an extra turn.
Steven - between the sphere and the grease there was one square of bad terrain anyway. Stone call just makes it much worse.
Yeah, the guy is due back, but Grey already burned away the gibbet he was attached to.

Taerine Doumont |

I'm a STRONG believer in setting it up so all the bad guys end at the end of initiative -- that way everyone can react to them when they post their actions for the next round. What I do is roll initiative normally and then if necessary I do a half-round, basically. Everyone who goes before my antagonists get their turns, then my antagonists, then the next round starts with people who act after the antagnists.
So for example if I have the following initiatives:
Tom 17
Jerry 5
Speedy 3
Bluto 22
Antagonist 9
I'll run Round 1 as Bluto, Tom, antagonist
Then Round 2 as Jerry, Speedy, Bluto, Tom, antagonist... and so on and so forth. I think that makes it a lot easier to follow for me and the players.
It does make the antagonists a little less dynamic if they don't have multiple initiatives, but the trade-off is worth it, IMO
Personally, I prefer doing each round as a whole as I think it makes it easier to follow, which I think outweighs the benefits of resolving a few characters' actions at a time. Of course, that does mean I'll sometimes change my players' actions -- though that's easier when they're lower level and there aren't seven of them.
Honestly, I think confirming the actions is slowing down things too much. If you're confused, certainly ask the player for guidance, but otherwise, just resolve them however, IMO. Hopefully we're all able to roll with whatever happens.

Harakani DM |

Let's hope not today! Kressle just wants you down so her force stops being scared.
And who knows - you may die multiple times.
I must admit I liked the title for the suggestion that you may simply have vanished into the time stream, presumed dead.
If anyone who has posted wants to change their action speak up now.
Sorry about the delays. Internet should be back up now.

Harakani DM |

Nope. You guys murdered everyone the second time rocks fell.
The keep isn't in great state, and there's a few prisoners to rescue, the hanged man to give medical help to, some quite wounded companions and of course Hargran. He's going to be not-quite-himself for some time.
I do have a scene I want to do. If there's anything anyone wants to do before a "one hour later" scene it is worth mentioning now - otherwise I can assume everyone is doing.
Mostly I'm thinking about immediate post combat discussions like "Why on earth did you try to drop me into a pit" ;)
May have been a looooong time OOC, but IC that little problem was about a minute ago.

The Master in Grey |

We'll have that talk leter, but all is forgiven. :b
My only immediate concerns are Hargran's recovery and the security of the prisoners and site.
Also, I love the historical narratives you give. Except that "posthumous" thing. :b
The historical narratives are my favorite part of the game so far. Brilliant narrative device. I'm totally stealing the idea for future games.

Denat Leroung |

Also, I love the historical narratives you give.
And agreed on the historical narratives. That's a very nice touch.
The historical narratives are my favorite part of the game so far. Brilliant narrative device. I'm totally stealing the idea for future games.
I concur. ;)