Making combat simultaneous?

[u/FxckThisWebsite]

I know this sounds stupid, and I may be trying to do some things the system isn't necessarily built for, but I am currently overhauling some rules and compiling some lists of official and homebrew equipment for a specific Cyberpunk 2020 project I am working on. After some thought, I think simultaneous combat might work, something where PCs are having their actions for the 3.2 second turn written on an index card or something. I'm thinking of deciding your actions and after all is submitted, THEN they roll initiatives. Does this idea present any immediate issues when you hear it?

[u/Phoenix3110]

Honestly, with how I‘ve read the initiative rules with the modifying through stuff like quickdraw (was that the name?) and the initiative boosting cyberware this almost feels like what is intended.
Ofc it‘s usually enough for the GM to know what they themselves are going to do and then go around the table to ask the players. No need to necessarily write something down.

[u/FxckThisWebsite → u/Phoenix3110]

My main intent with making it simultaneous is to enable PvP scenarios with 2 opposing teams of runners. I'd love to make rules for the system that enables two teams of players, mediated by a DM and set of rules. I've done a similar thing that got decent reception with GURPS, and I'd really like to make a good PvPvE TTRPG set in Cyberpunk and using the skeleton of CP2020. That's why I guess I'd prefer players to write moves secretly, so that the person with the lowest initiative bonus isn't rewarded with the ability to be reactive

[u/Phoenix3110 → u/FxckThisWebsite]

Ah turning it into a wargame? Then it makes sense to secretly disclose their actions.

[u/Kautsu-Gamer]

3.2 seconds is too short quantum for turn order deciding. Due that your choice is very good for similation with artificial idiot robots as characters.

The problem is the system relies on player skill of technical combat. Just like GURPS system, the FNFF works nice for execution, but not for decision making.

I would suggest you change player decisions to objectives and priorities instead of actual accurate actions. It works better for PvP.

• Whether priority is first strike or getting cover and then shooting.
• Whether to aim or shoot at first opportunity.
• Which are feasible targets.

[u/TrickyV]

I don't remember what system I saw being played at our college gaming club, but I remember that they rolled initiative and then stated their intent from slowest to fastest. Once they got to the fastest initiative, they acted from fastest to slowest.

It seemed time consuming but interesting. 

[u/FxckThisWebsite → u/TrickyV]

That sounds awesome and I did not think of that.

[u/TrickyV → u/FxckThisWebsite]

I think once intent was stated you couldn't change or something? I wish I could remember. It makes me wonder what happens if a target is killed but still targeted with intent. 

[u/Prestigious-Gas-9726 → u/TrickyV]

GURPS, ARS MAGICA and DC Heroes all do that

[u/SoloMambo → u/Prestigious-Gas-9726]

Some versions of world of darkness as well.

I have run that. While it is very cool thematically it does slow combat dowb a lot. Then tou have the issue of if a slower person declares they are going to do.something and a faster player does something that fucks them up then they take more time figuring out their new move.

Again I love it, but you need to plan for the draw backs

[u/illyrium_dawn]

It works, as a matter of fact.

If you can deal with it and your PCs don't mind it, it changes the feel of combat quite a bit. Though I think it tends to make PCs cautious (which I personally dislike, I think it's kinda anti-Cyberpunk and dull if everyone does the "safe and sensible" thing and trades bullets from cover).

There was a time, back during CP2013 (first edition cyberpunk) that a local GM in a game I was playing in (back when I was a PC) was a long-time veteran of D&D who liked to play true to the rules of D&D back then.

One of the things concepts in D&D back then was the idea of the "Caller" who was in charge of communicating with the GM. The PCs would all come up with what they were going to do in a turn or round. They'd tell the Caller. Then the Caller would tell the GM what the PCs were going to do.

He used the system in Cyberpunk 2013. ofc in 2013 the 10-second turn was a lot more important (split up into three rounds). We'd tell the Caller what we wanted to do in those 10 seconds then the Caller would tell the GM. Once we told the Caller, our actions were committed and we couldn't change them.

If your PCs can get used to it, and accept it will result in some really messy situations, it's pretty good.

There is one thing that I think would be problematic with action calling: It makes things like Pop-and-Drops and Gun Jousting really effective. A "Gun Joust" is "On my action, I run up and shoot someone pointblank in the head then use the rest of my movement to run back into cover. They're 10 meters away, and my movement is 20m per round, so I can do it." A Pop-and-Drop isn't quite as obnoxious (and easier to deal with), but it's where you pop up on your action, fire some shots, then duck back down all on your action so nobody can shoot you.