Kelebrar wrote:Megistone wrote:I'd rather add an entry in the initiative table (like: "Tom's Frightened condition ticks down" at initiative count 12, while Tom has delayed to count 3 or maybe into the next 'round', acting at count 19) than put a nonsensical limit to the players' actions.
It is not a nonsensical limit to the players' actions. It simply is a different abstraction of the round structure. And many games implement a similar abstraction.
You can prefer one or the other, but why call it nonsensical?
There is no in-game explanation for that, that's why I call it nonsensical. The 'end of a round' as the moment where the initiative count resest is a concept that is completely out-of-game.
You have A, B and C acting in this order.
A could delay to act after B and before C, B could do the same and act after C and before A, but C absolutely can't: it either acts now, or they miss a whole round. Why can't it just wait for a little bit, and must do it in 6 seconds increments only, while the others can instead?
C can't delay because is last in initiative order. This is a disadvantage to be low in initiative order. If A "Delay" after C, then C can "Delay" in subsequent rounds.
Whit this abstraction, a round is just a self-contained amount of time (6 seconds in this case) in which you partition the continuous flux of action, and the iniziative just determine in which order the actions happen in this 6 seconds. If you have high initiative, you have the possibility to wait for the right moment to strike, if you have low initiative, you have lesser control on when you act (but you can't use this advantage repeatedly, because using it you will lower your initiative, giving eventually this advantage back to your foe). You resolve this 6 seconds completely, before proceed to the next 6 seconds.
Many excellent RPGs use a similar concept.