Are there other ways to manage time, rounds and turns in PF, 3E or 3.5E or d20 in general?

Current rules are ok, but they seem a little bit like turn based videogames. What could we do to feel the game more like continuous and simultaneous action and not like a retro turn based videogame.


  1. In a real battle people don't act and then stay quiet waiting for others to finish they're actions. They are constantly acting and moving around. We want continuous movement.

  2. If my sword gots too hot i just open my hand and allow it to fall to the ground, i don't wait for other people to end what they're doing to open my burning hand.

  3. Two melee opponents, A and B, with more than one attack per round face each other and their initiatives are too close, e.g., 21 and 20 respectively. To make it more cinematic i remembered a master (under old AD&D 2E rules) to make the action close to simultaneous allowing A to make one attack, then B, then A again, and so on, until each other exausted the attacks. If A had 2 attacks, and B 4 per round, then A makes 1 attack, B 2, A his last 1, then B his remaining 2.

  • \$\begingroup\$ This question is probably too broad as asked, but could be improved if you clarified what you find unsatisfactory about the standard rules, what problem you're trying to solve by using alternate rules, and what kinds of restrictions you have on sources (e.g., are you looking for official variant rules, or homebrew?). \$\endgroup\$
    – A_S00
    Dec 20, 2017 at 0:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ @A_S00, you are right. I'm going to expand the question. \$\endgroup\$
    – cablop
    Dec 20, 2017 at 0:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ Are you only onterested in standart-combat flow rules? Because I remember savage world having a very interesting chase-scene system that was also used for high-speed combat (think medieval jousting). And I think shadowrun uses a stack-style resolution with it's initiative. \$\endgroup\$
    – 3C273
    Dec 20, 2017 at 0:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ Not only for combat @3C273, i like to see how to manage actions in a simultaneous way while keeping the simplicity. Well, i'd check the systems you are telling me. They sound interesting enough. \$\endgroup\$
    – cablop
    Dec 20, 2017 at 0:53
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I think this is still quite broad. The answer is still just 'yes', which tells me the question isn't asking enough yet. I also suspect that the underlying question is gonna end up being a recommendation question, but maybe I'm wrong. \$\endgroup\$ Dec 20, 2017 at 1:04


Browse other questions tagged .