Action resolution systems exist to simulate action and other events. Do I really need to say it? Maybe not, but it is certainly instructive to see what game systems consider under action resolution. Ok, for a change I’ll start with RuneQuest and next move to other games I like.

Action resolution in RuneQuest

Actually RuneQuest does not have a single action resolution process, instead it has several alternatives. The most elaborate is the one designed for combat. In this case action resolution is broken up into:

Declaration of intent on the part of the players is the necessary initial meta-setting step. Since it is about the intent of the player and not the action of the character I won't spend more time with it from now on.

Order of action based on a computation of Strike Ranks that combine Dexterity, Size and weapon size.

Performance based on opposed skill rolls. It can generate one of five possible outcomes: Critical success, special success, normal success, failure, fumble.

In the case of a success the body location of the adversary is rolled.

Next damage is rolled. To it can be deducted the value of the shield and or armour that comes in-between the hit and the hitted.

Finally the damage that passes by is deducted from the Hit Points of the victim, both from a general tally and from a body zone tally. The local damage may produce several qualitative consequences.

Thus we have six basic steps, not counting other niceties that may result from the interference of magic, encumbrance, etc. We also have three dice rolls plus one for the defender if he actively protects himself.

RuneQuest has simpler rules for actions other than combat. For a start, there is no equivalent of damage or body location rolls in those instances. More often than not, neither is there a calculation of a status stat like hit points (with the exception of magic where there can be computations of magic points). And things can be simplified a little if instead of opposed rolls one uses the Resistance Table.

Other BRP games have their own simplifications and complications. In Stormbringer, for instance, there are no Strike Ranks, instead there’s initiative based on the Dex stat; critical and special successes are combined into a single "advanced" level; there are no body locations, but the protection provided by armour is rolled, not fixed.

Most roleplaying games follow patterns similar to those found in RuneQuest, even if with more or less big variants. What about Rough Quests? Let’s look at the core steps one at a time.

Initiative

Rules to order the characters’ action are fairly common. We have seen that in RuneQuest this means a fixed stat, Strike Rank. In Stormbringer initiative is also based on a fixed stat, Dexterity (with or without circumstantial modifiers). Many games base initiative on a dice roll plus modifiers eventually based on attributes or skills.

Usually the function of initiative is to order attacks, defining who acts first and avoiding simultaneous actions. One of the consequences is that it may preclude action for the character that loses initiative if he is disabled by the incoming action that has higher initiative. For instance, in a combat this usually means that if the one that acts first disables or kills the one that lost initiative, the latter one doesn’t act at all.

There are mechanics that work on different assumptions. One I particularly like in concept but that is problematic in practice can be found in Skyrealms of Jorune 2nd ed. In this game initiative is based on the roll of 1d20 plus mods based on skill level and circumstantial factors. According to the roll the character may: do nothing; just defend himself; attack or defend; attack and defend; etc. What I like about it is the fact that in this case initiative is not only about order of action, it is also about tactical options. The problem with it is that at low levels of the skill the characters usually do nothing or only defend themselves, so the players may spend several rounds taking no action and that’s boring.

Let’s cut to the chase: I have major problems with initiative rules. For a start, I don’t like initiative rules that don’t link initiative to skill level (like it happens in RuneQuest) since my expectation is that all things being equal the character with highest skill should have better initiative.

Next, I fail to see why initiative is not factored into skill. After all, skill is an abstract measure of general ability. Getting initiative should be part of skill. Why make it something separate?

My third objection has to do with the purposes of the initiative roll. As I said, most often than not the purpose is to order actions with the consequence that the action that happens first may preclude any other action afterwards on the part of its victim. Now, this is very odd to me (all the more odd in games with very short rounds). What’s the problem with simultaneous actions? After all, fatal simultaneous actions are a stapple of fiction and can also be found in battle descriptions of real world combat. An example at hand, the climax of the movie Excalibur where Arthur and his son kill each other. If Excalibur had been directed according to the rules of a good deal of rpgs that climax would be impossible.

Furthermore, initiative rules that order action by how fast it is are irrealistic. Don’t like the word "irrealistic"? Instead of it consider that these rules don’t conform to the wisdom of those that know about fighting. I consulted several books on hand-to-hand combat that can be found at the A.R.M.A.. Guess what, none of them mentions initiative as priority of attack as being an important concern in combat. Yet they mention several critical principles that determine success when facing your oponent weapon in hand. Pallas Armata refers to tempo and measure; Jseph Swetnam considers distance, place, time and patience (the oposite what drives initiative as acting quickly!); Hale Gent focuzes on strengh (actually it corresponds more to the Dexterity of rpgs) and judgement that incorporates the time, place and distance of Swetnam; George Sylver is adamant about these same three. To put it in the words of the Book of Five Rings, "Speed is nor part of the true Way of strategy. Speed implies that things seem fast or slow, according to whether or not they are in rhythm. Whatever the Way, the master of strategy does not appear fast." Why should rpg characters be any different?

Initiative in the sense of order of action is a bogus concept. It has no ground on the realities of combat as presented by past and present experts or as practised in sports combat (just look at a good boxe or Martial Arts fight and you will realise this). It precludes very interesting results in roleplaying terms when both sides are successful in their actions. It arbitrarily puts outside of the skill roll something that should be part of it. I have no place for initiative in Rough Quests.

I may not have place for initiative as found in games but I will certainly have place to the three factors referred in the fighting manuals of the past: Distance, place (maybe both together as measure?) and time. Yet I think that the best way to handle these is as factors relating to performance, not as an independent step in the action resolution process. And whatever I work out for these three tenets of combat action, I intend to extend them to all types of action without restricting it to combat alone.

That's it for the day. Next week(s) I’ll look more closely at the Performance stage in action resolution.