The Enlightened One

[Mithras]

Andrew Martin, sir - I know that you have a sense of humour!

So don't take offence when I ask, why do most of your posts seem to include the following words somewhere: 'I'd use my S system, available at: http://valley.150m.com/S/S.html. '?

Shameless self-promotion!

Innocent RPG.NET Poster:
'Does anyone know of a neat d8 mechanic for a Cadillacs & Dinosaurs game set in the Ice Age instead, with a cool sanity mechanism that sends 1 in 3 characters over the edge every session?'

Andrew Martin:
I'd use my S system, available at: http://valley.150m.com/S/S.html.

Happily, it never used to be like this. I remember the days when your posts always included the words 'Have you considered using FUDGE?' somewhere in the body of the text instead...

Only kidding you, man.

It's just that we know about 'S' - OK!?

:)

[Alka-Seltzer]

Originally posted by Mithras

(snipitey)

Shameless self-promotion!



(snip snip)



Zozer Games at www.geocities.com/mithrapolis/games.html

Zenobia - Epic gaming in the Roman Empire
The Ladder - a fast generic RPG
Zaibatsu - Japanese cyberpunk, Gibson-style
Mars - hard SF on the Red Planet



I sense an inconsitencey, but i'm not sure what.;)

[Mithras]

Hey, it's in my signature!!!!

That's allowed!!!

Isn't it?

[NPC Whymme]

Originally posted by Mithras
Andrew Martin, sir - I know that you have a sense of humour!

So don't take offence when I ask, why do most of your posts seem to include the following words somewhere: 'I'd use my S system, available at: http://valley.150m.com/S/S.html. '?

Well, that's obvious. If you really want to know the answer, you can find it at http://valley.150m.com/S/S.html



Things can always be worse. I remember one time when I posted a question "What do you think of my system?" and got an answer back:"Use Fudge. That will do what you want to do."

Whymme

[Alka-Seltzer]

Originally posted by Mithras
Hey, it's in my signature!!!!

That's allowed!!!

Isn't it?

If you can playfully give people hard times, we can playfully give you hard times as well, grasshopper.

[NPC Whymme]

To me there is a clear differenct between referring to your game in a sig, and including a "the answer is in my game system" in every post. I would consider the first one normal (although, Mithras, do you have to use those bold letters?) while the second one can become obnoxious very fast.

When people ask for a combat system that doesn't use rounds, and mr. Martin posts: "Use my system!" even though it has rounds, it is becoming a bit too much self promotion.

Whymme

[NPC Balbinus]

Originally posted by NPC Whymme


Things can always be worse. I remember one time when I posted a question "What do you think of my system?" and got an answer back:"Use Fudge. That will do what you want to do."

Whymme

I actually remember this, it was very funny (probably because I wasn't receiving it as a response myself). Using Fudge is not the answer to every problem in game design.

Especially since I don't particularly like Fudge.

FWIW, I think sig references to one's own work are fine, and often helpful. References in the body of the message get a bit dodgier.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by NPC Whymme
(although, Mithras, do you have to use those bold letters?)

I can't stop playing with the damn settings! Lots of fun for the sick and infirm (out of action with the flu).

Take your point.

Bold's gone.

[Andy K]

I love these settings. I also have only a few more posts until I gain the next level!

[Andy K]

...now what?

[Ian Absentia]

Originally posted by Andy Kitkowski
...now what?
I don't mean to put ideas in your head, but the only reason anyone remembers Marilyn Monroe or James Dean is because they died during their primes.

No, really, there is no subtext to that statement. None what-so-ever.

~Ian, lowly Initiate

[NPC Chapino]

I like S... it's easy to remeber.

[The Incredible Hatboy]

I find it's also easy to remember. :-)

Actually, Mithras, your sig's pretty damn long. More than three lines is, IMABHO, pushing it. Mind you, this is coming from someone whose e-mail sig used to dominate most of a printed page.

[NPC Andrew Martin]

Whymme wrote:

When people ask for a combat system that doesn't use rounds, and mr. Martin posts: "Use my system!" even though it has rounds,...


You are wrong.

My RPG combat system has no rounds as in conventional RPG systems. Instead, players declare offensive actions, complex defensive actions, and complex movement actions as a flurry of combat, in an order decided by their position relative to their opponent. Defensive actions (and some offensive actions) and movement are triggered by an opponent's offensive actions, resulting in a combat that has no rounds. For example, an opponent's offensive action can easily occur within your own flurry of combat, if your own actions aren't carefully thought out.

If you'd like to check for your self, look for the sections on feint and riposte. The strike part of a defender's riposte occurs during the opponent's strike.

[NPC Andrew Martin]

Mithras wrote:
> ...why do most of your posts seem to include the following words somewhere: 'I'd use my S system, available at: http://valley.150m.com/S/S.html. '?

It's only posted when people ask about combat systems or post bad generic systems that don't fit the setting they want. Do you see me posting it on the D20 religious war threads? :)

> Innocent RPG.NET Poster:
> 'Does anyone know of a neat d8 mechanic for a Cadillacs & Dinosaurs game set in the Ice Age instead, with a cool sanity mechanism that sends 1 in 3 characters over the edge every session?'

Sadly, S doesn't have a cool sanity mechanism. After all, it's definitely not perfect, and it really needs rewriting again, with plenty of examples.

Besides, I'd recomend Call of Cthuluhu's San mechanic! :)
- After all there's hardly any point in dueling a dinosaur or Cthuluhu for that matter... :D

> I remember the days when your posts always included the words 'Have you considered using FUDGE?' somewhere in the body of the text instead...

Of course! I even do the same in my own posts. I don't want to be labeled a hypocrit [sp?] !

> It's just that we know about 'S' - OK!? :)

Good! My subtle advertising has worked! :D

[NPC Andrew Martin]

Whymme wrote:
> I remember one time when I posted a question "What do you think of my system?" and got an answer back:"Use Fudge. That will do what you want to do."

That's right. And according to the setting information you posted at that time, Fudge would still do the job.

Of course, if you've changed the setting since then, or cleared it up some more, then maybe another system would do the trick. Perhaps Hero Wars might fit better or Dying Earth.

I make no apologies for recommending the best system, IMHO, for the setting/situation presented at the time by you.

[NPC Andrew Martin]

Balbinus wrote:
> Using Fudge is not the answer to every problem in game design.

That's totally correct. I'm not being sarcastic! There's a lot of settings and games out there that Fudge is completely unsuited for. I've even given several alternatives on these boards and on my site. Take for example:

Dying Earth;
Hero Wars;
Soap;
Wyrd;
a number of Jared's games;
Marvel Super Heroes Adventure Game;
Amber books by Zelazny;
roleplaying gods in a pantheon;
skirmish and table top wargames;
Call of Cthuluhu and it's San mechanic; and
Pendragon's passion/personality mechanic -- my own conversion on my site doesn't work well enough or simply enough.

to name only a few settings or mechanics that Fudge is unsuitable for.

[NPC Andrew Martin]

Andy Kitkowski wrote:
> ...now what?

:cool:

I don't know. I hardly feel enlightened and my attempts to enlighten others doesn't seem to have worked. :D

May be we should ask Chapino, as he got there first? :)

[NPC Chapino]

I don't know, I' can't even log back into my account without being logged back out in a jiffy, arghies, me angry, lol. Oh well, i know if this is a script bug how much time it takes to work on a site like this, so i guess I just have to wait till my account stabalizes again.

[NPC Whymme]

Originally posted by NPC Andrew Martin
Whymme wrote:

>>When people ask for a combat system that doesn't use rounds, and mr. Martin posts: "Use my system!" even though it has rounds,...


You are wrong.

My RPG combat system has no rounds as in conventional RPG systems.

Where did that modifier come from?

The original question was for a combat system without rounds, whether these rounds were as in a conventional RPG system or not. When I repeated it above, I did not mention anything about 'conventional RPG systems'.

S has rounds. At least, I assume it has. At the beginning of the round, initiative is determined for everybody, then everybody acts, and, although the rules don't mention it, I assume that the next round begins, with another time determination of initiative. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Andrew, and that the fight is over after everyone has done one action for every combat-related skill he or she has.

Originally posted by NPC Andrew Martin
Whymme wrote:
> I remember one time when I posted a question "What do you think of my system?" and got an answer back:"Use Fudge. That will do what you want to do."

That's right. And according to the setting information you posted at that time, Fudge would still do the job.

So that was you? It still is strange.. I can't remember posting any setting information. My post was about a system, not about a setting. As of now, I still haven't developed a setting for that system.

Whymme

[NPC Andrew Martin]

Whymme wrote:
> The original question was for a combat system without rounds, whether these rounds were as in a conventional RPG system or not. When I repeated it above, I did not mention anything about 'conventional RPG systems'.

Perhaps we should refer to the original post that started it all:


One of the specific things that has recently been bugging me is the concept of turns. A discrete unit of time during which you get to make one attack, possibly more if you are good. In some games they are ludicriously long, taking up to a minute for each attack, and others they are far too short, with three seconds being the turn length, which may not be bad for attacks, but without any space in between them. But somehow, I don't think any specific unit of time would solve it...

What I then thought of was making a system that had turnless combat, but still more specific than one roll to resolve the entire thing. I mean, I do prefer a general blow by blow accounting of the combat rather than mass abstraction.


As we can clearly see the post was about the conventional RPG system of each round or turn being exact fixed lengths of time; either one minute (AD&D), or three seconds (Storyteller). Each round taking up so much time, like a brick in a wall, and being unchangeable.

The next paragraph clearly shows that the poster is wanting turns that aren't fixed lengths of time, and a blow by blow accounting of combat.

S is blow by blow, based on non-fixed time turns, and actions are resolved by being triggered by other actions, and those actions are triggered by player and NPC decisions.

> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Andrew, and that the fight is over after everyone has done one action for every combat-related skill he or she has.

This is not what the original poster wanted, as can be seen by looking at both paragraphs.

Just to clarify actions again, actions in S are declared in order of initiative as determined by spacing and weapon length, then actions are resolved in reverse order (except for defensive actions). Defensive actions may never be resolved, if they are not triggered. Opponents can become incapacitated before their action can be resolved. So while there is order in declaration and resolution, that order is not based on time or on a fixed length of time.

For example, if two fighters both declare riposte as their only actions, nothing happens as the strike part of a riposte is only triggered by a parry action which is only triggered by an opponent's attack. So that time span has no predetermined duration. Each fighter has no performed no actions, even though those actions were declared. At this stage, we go back to the players and ask for new actions, otherwise, things get boring. Both players can then state new actions as they wish, and if they want, they can specify a time, like "wait five seconds, while ready to riposte." or wait until an event happens, and then time passes either the declared length or until the event happens. So we can see that combat actions take whatever time the players select, and if unspecified, players can just assume the entire combat took place over whatever time they want it to take.

So hopefully you can see now that S is a reasonable response as it fulfils the original poster's requirements of:
not fixed lengths (of time) for each turn;
more specific than one roll;
prefer a general blow by blow accounting of the combat;

[NPC Whymme]

Originally posted by NPC Andrew Martin
Whymme wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Andrew, and that the fight is over after everyone has done one action for every combat-related skill he or she has.

This is not what the original poster wanted, as can be seen by looking at both paragraphs.

This was not directed to the original poster. When I reread the skirmish rules in 'S', it occurred to me that it was not mentioned what should happen after everybody executed their actions. And just in case that in your system a new round would not start after that, I added the line that you quoted.



Originally posted by NPC Andrew Martin
So hopefully you can see now that S is a reasonable response as it fulfils the original poster's requirements of:
not fixed lengths (of time) for each turn;
more specific than one roll;
prefer a general blow by blow accounting of the combat;


You must have noticed that Tyrethali mentioned TWICE in the original thread that he considered the skirmish system in 'S' as just one more of those systems that he wanted to avoid.

In the piece you quote, he specifically states: What I then thought of was making a system that had turnless combat [...] .
To that post, you replied: "Here's 'S', my game with turn-based combat. It's exactly what you're looking for."
So hopefully you can see now that 'S' is definitely NOT a reasonable response.

Whymme

[Andrew Martin]

Whymme wrote:
> You must have noticed that Tyrethali mentioned TWICE in the original thread that he considered the skirmish system in 'S' as just one more of those systems that he wanted to avoid.

> In the piece you quote, he specifically states: What I then thought of was making a system that had turnless combat [...]

>To that post, you replied: "Here's 'S', my game with turn-based combat. It's exactly what you're looking for."
> So hopefully you can see now that 'S' is definitely NOT a reasonable response.

Perhaps you should have the decency to correctly quote my replies?

Tyrethali wrote:
> > Well, I looked at S. It still has turns, as I said.

Andrew wrote:
> Not quite. Yes, everyone has a turn declaring actions in initiative order (otherwise combat would be unfair on the players by not giving them a chance to do something!), but actions are intermingled when resolved, so getting the complexities of real combat.

Tyrethali's definition of turns:
> One of the specific things that has recently been bugging me is the concept of turns. A discrete unit of time during which you get to make one attack, possibly more if you are good.

Tyrethali's definition of turnless:
> The closest thing I can remember to seeing this once was a modification of the D&D (2nd ed) system, where the players rolled a d10, applied iniative modifiers. Each 'step', steps being numbers, was counted off, and when a person's number came up, they decided what to do (Or to delay their action) If they attacked or cast a spell, the weapon speed or casting speed was counted off in steps it resolved then (Thus, if you went on 7 and decided to attack with a weapon that had a speed of 3, your attack resolved on 10). After resolution of their action, a player rolled a d10 again and got to go again at that number added to whenever they were at currently. (Bob finishes casting a magic missile at 12, and rolls a 5. He gets to go again at 17.) Combat continues like that until it stops for one reason or another.

Tyrethali's point:
> My point is that is that combat seemed to me a lot less organized than one-turn, one action, even if one took into account the fact that multiple quick-but-wild attacks often sacrificed accuracy.

> One gets this in S as well quite easily, with multiple action intermingled and resolved at once.

Also, other posters give similar systems to Tyrethali's definition of turnless.

Though S may look like it's turn based from a quick reading, S is not turn based in resolution. Fights end exactly like Tyrethali's goal, which is like:

> In these fights, sometimes one person would attack the other, then vice versa, sometimes one person would do a series of attacks keeping the other on defense, sometimes neither person would attack for what seemed like a long stretch of a few seconds, just warily circling and looking for an opening...

Whymme, what is your definition of turnless? I'm under the impression that for you "turnless" has a different meaning from what Tyrethali calls turnless. I'm interested in what your definition is of turnless, rather than stating that game "X" is/isn't turn-based/turnless. Hopefully, we then can reach agreement, instead of pointless flaming.

[NPC Whymme]

Originally posted by Andrew Martin

Perhaps you should have the decency to correctly quote my replies?

I exaggerated in order to show where you went wrong. Maybe I should have mentioned that, but I thought that it was obvious that these were not your words (although I think that they did give a fair representation of what you posted).

Tyrethali wrote:
> > Well, I looked at S. It still has turns, as I said.

Andrew wrote:
> Not quite. Yes, everyone has a turn declaring actions in initiative order (otherwise combat would be unfair on the players by not giving them a chance to do something!), but actions are intermingled when resolved, so getting the complexities of real combat.

Now, Andrew, why do you forget to mention that Tyrethali gave this response to your answer: "So for me, systems like S still have turns, even though all player actions are intermingled in each one."

(snipping a lot of text)

Whymme, what is your definition of turnless? I'm under the impression that for you "turnless" has a different meaning from what Tyrethali calls turnless. I'm interested in what your definition is of turnless, rather than stating that game "X" is/isn't turn-based/turnless. Hopefully, we then can reach agreement, instead of pointless flaming.

My definition of 'turnless' is 'without turns'. Duh.

I don't think that we can reach agreement if you maintain that your turn-based system is turnless, or that it is what Tyrethali wanted, despite him telling you time and time again that it isn't.

One system that uses such turnless combat is the 'gestalt combat' described in Over the Edge. I use some variations of that in my RPG.

The system that Tyrethali and Matt suggested is one that has been discussed in several forums. Instead of turns, where everybody can act one or more times in each turn, after which everything starts again, you start a running count. Combat begins at the count of one, going up. Someone with an initiative of three acts at count three, someone with an initiative of seven acts at count seven. After someone acts, initiative is determined again and added to the count at which the last action finished, to determine at what count that person can act again.

Suppose that Harry has an initiative of three. He first wants to use his sword (which takes a time of two counts) and then cast a spell (which takes a time of seven counts).

We start at 1.

1.
2.
3. Harry starts his sword thrust.
4.
5. Harry finishes his sword thrust.
6. Harry starts casting a spell.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13. The spell goes off.
etc.

While Harry performs his actions, other characters act as well. Sometimes on the same count, sometimes their actions resolve on different counts. If someone attacks Harry at count 10, Harry can break off his spell casting to parry, for instance.

While I've seen people playing with the idea of this system, or a similar one, during design, I haven't heard of a system in practice that uses it yet (although Shadowrun and Feng Shui use a suchlike system within turns, I believe). I see some disadvantages to the system; all actions must be defined in terms of speed, there is less room for improvised actions.. but those disadvantages could be avoided or lessened, probably.

Whymme

[NPC Billbo]

For what it's worth, "turnless" means to me, as it does to Whymme, "without turns." I'm not quite sure why Andrew Martin believes this to be an unconventional definition.

Perhaps it's of a piece with Andrew Martin's definition of System S as the game which solves each and every RPG design challenge ever noted.

Turnless means "without turns." A game system in which people act in turns, then the turn ends, and then a new turn begins, is not "turnless." One would imagine this glaringly obvious. "New turns" don't begin in a "turnless" system.

Rather by definition, it seems to me.

Whymme's cascading-count system is what I think of as "turnless." It's turnless in the sense that you don't have a fixed-integer number of actions within a "turn." But then again, it is nominally turn-based, in that one could call each action count a "turn."

But still, that's approximately what "turnless" means. At least, to most people. That is, to all the people who have not yet been swept up in the crazy cultural cyclone called "System S Fever."

Tyrenthali tried to explain this to you two or three times. Perhaps in the future your energies would be better spent by making a more sincere attempt to comprehend the words written by your correspondents, and being less in a headlong rush to promote the supposed advantages of your homebrew.

[Andrew Martin]

NPC Bilbo wrote:
> Perhaps it's of a piece with Andrew Martin's definition of System S as the game which solves each and every RPG design challenge ever noted.

I'm not that arrogant. S has a lot of flaws. It lacks examples, and it needs to be written better. It doesn't do soft style martial arts. Movement is poorly integrated with the rest of the system. I'm still learning the craft of rule writing.

But, S is turnless, by all the definitions that Bilbo and Whymme have produced.

BTW, this is poorly explained on my site. I really need to do better on this part. Please forgive me.

Earlier I wrote:
> ...everyone has a turn declaring actions in initiative order (otherwise combat would be unfair on the players by not giving them a chance to do something!), but actions are intermingled when resolved, so getting the complexities of real combat.

I'm sorry, but I misused the word "turn". I should have written:

...everyone has an opportunity to declare actions in initiative order...

For example, Harry is attacking with a sword and casting a spell. I'm assuming he's facing a unarmed Villager, as initiative is decided by the spacing of characters, not just by character speed.

Slower character declare actions;
Villager declares actions first because of automatic loss of initiative due to range -- assumed to flee away from Harry;
Harry declares actions: Attack Villager with Sword and Cast Spell;
Other faster characters declare actions;
Other faster characters resolve actions;
Harry resolves Sword Strike versus Villager. Villager declares defensive use of Speed to step back directly away from Harry. Assume for now that Harry misses. Villager is now out of melee range of Harry. Notice that Villager is resolving an undeclared Speed action out of order of their player's turn.
Harry resolves spell. Oposing Cleric resolves use of magical protection which was declared in previous round of action declarations. Harry's spell may or may not succeed.
Village resolves flee action, and gets further away from Harry.
Slower characters resolve actions;

At this point a new round of character declarations begins, with Harry loosing the initiative to the Villager for melee combat, because the Villager is out of melee combat range and Harry didn't move.

Notice that defensive actions are declared and resolved out of order and can be from any round. Notice that NPC and Cleric acted at the same time as Harry's actions, when Harry's actions impinged upon them. When is Cleric's turn over? When is NPC's turn over? When is Harry's turn over? Only when the declared actions stop impinging upon others.

So can you see now that S is turnless?

[NPC Whymme]

Andrew said: "But, S is turnless, by all the definitions that Bilbo and Whymme have produced."

AAAAARRRRRRGGGHHH!!!!!!!!

Hey, Andrew, do you by any chance speak a language that is virtually like English, but with some words having a completely different meaning?

What Bilbo, Tyrethali, Matt, I, and everybody else except for a certain Andrew Martin meant in these discussions when they used the word 'turn', is: A unit of time in which all the characters can perform one or more actions. This unit of time gets repeated until the combat is over. 'Turn' was not used as 'the unit of time in which one single character gets to act."

Whymme

[NPC Whymme]

Originally posted by NPC Whymme
Hey, Andrew, do you by any chance speak a language that is virtually like English, but with some words having a completely different meaning?

Excuse me, that was needlessly abusive. It was my frustration speaking that Andrew still doesn't get the point. It was inaccurate as well, because one of the meanings of 'turn' in English is the time when one person can perform an action, in sequence.

But this started with Tyrethali's request for turnless combat. He said:

Here's the rough definition [of 'turn'] of what I've been working with: An arbitrarily defined unit of time during which all players have a choice of what to do, and the turns repeat themselves until combat is over.

Most people did understand this from the start, it seems.

In his first answer to Andrew, Tyrethali said, of an idea of his about combat structure:

There are still turns, and they still begin with each person rolling iniative or speed or reflexes or whatever. However, only the person who rolls best can attack that turn, and the other person can only dodge or parry.

This does already make clear that he doesn't mean 'turn' as in "it's your turn now", but rather turns (rounds, if you will) in which every character has a chance to act, after which the next turn starts. Also, in the first post, he writes about a counting system (like the one I mentioned a few posts above) where it's someone's turn when the right number comes up. So he didn't mean 'turn' as in 'your turn'.

Whymme

[NPC Whymme]

Originally posted by Andrew Martin
But, S is turnless, by all the definitions that Bilbo and Whymme have produced.

Well, that simply isn't true. I reread my post, the one before Andrew's post where this answer was quoted from, and there I said:

The system that Tyrethali and Matt suggested is one that has been discussed in several forums. Instead of turns, where everybody can act one or more times in each turn, after which everything starts again, you start a running count.

I did clearly mention here that to me, a turn is a unit of time in which everybody acts.

Whymme

[Armin D. Sykes]

Originally posted by Andrew Martin
For example, Harry is attacking with a sword and casting a spell. I'm assuming he's facing a unarmed Villager, as initiative is decided by the spacing of characters, not just by character speed.

Slower character declare actions;
Villager declares actions first because of automatic loss of initiative due to range -- assumed to flee away from Harry;
Harry declares actions: Attack Villager with Sword and Cast Spell;
Other faster characters declare actions;
Other faster characters resolve actions;
Harry resolves Sword Strike versus Villager. Villager declares defensive use of Speed to step back directly away from Harry. Assume for now that Harry misses. Villager is now out of melee range of Harry. Notice that Villager is resolving an undeclared Speed action out of order of their player's turn.
Harry resolves spell. Oposing Cleric resolves use of magical protection which was declared in previous round of action declarations. Harry's spell may or may not succeed.
Village resolves flee action, and gets further away from Harry.
Slower characters resolve actions;

At this point a new round of character declarations begins, with Harry loosing the initiative to the Villager for melee combat, because the Villager is out of melee combat range and Harry didn't move.



This is absolutely a turn-based system, as turn is defined in the context of the original thread. It would, perhaps, have been a great deal better if the person starting the thread had used the word 'round' instead, and asked for roundless combat systems, because that is what he is after.

What you have described here is very much a turn/round system. You seem to think that it's turnless because a person can act, or influence things, outside of their declaration turn. That is not the case.

Take, for example, GURPS. GURPS is a turn-/round- based system that allows people to take defensive actions even when it's not their turn. Example: I smack Bob, and Bob can take a defense, including moving away from me, even though it's currently my turn, not Bob's.

Another example: Nick casts a spell. That spell lasts several rounds. It can affect people throughout the combat, for the duration, even when it is not Nick's turn to do something.

No, what you have appears to be a fairly standard turn-/round- based combat system that uses a declaration/resolution order, much like Star Wars and some other systems I can't recall off the top of my head.

When you say this: At this point a new round of character declarations begins, you have pretty much admitted that you are doing the same thing that the original poster had asked to avoid. He doesn't want a new round to begin, he wants the whole thing to keep going, mucking around until the combat is finally over. Note that it is very hard to have a declaration/resolution order like yours in a roundless combat system, because not everyone is in the same 'block' of time in order to declare things. Those systems generally are of the more common say-it-and-do-it-now variety.

I understand how your system works, I understand why you use such a system, and I understand the advantages and disadvantages of such a system. It works pretty well for many things, but it's not what the original poster was asking about. I think you got hung up on the word 'turn'.

Armin

[Flower of December]

Originally posted by Andrew Martin
At this point a new round of character declarations begins, with Harry loosing the initiative to the Villager for melee combat, because the Villager is out of melee combat range and Harry didn't move.

So can you see now that S is turnless?

Paradox hurts brain.