In the Ubiquity RPG system (as used in Hollow Earth Expedition or Space 1889), an alternative initiative system ("continuous combat", where actions take place continuously, without use of combat turns) is proposed in addition to the default system (a turn based system relatively similar to Dungeons and Dragons). Continuous combat is left a bit vague in the core rulebook, but elaborated on in the addendum to the Hollow Earth Expedition GM screen.

What are the advantages (as a GM) of using continuous combat?
Is it very complicated to use?
When would it shine compared to the standard initiative system?
When is it worse?

  • \$\begingroup\$ You're right, I've totally messed this up. Continuous combat is more complex than normal round-robin combat, not vice versa. Do you have access to Hollow Earth Expedition GM Screen? It has some more information on the topic. \$\endgroup\$ – enkryptor Apr 15 at 8:39

The advantages are that combat is more granular and step-by-step. Combat is broken into phases, with ten phases equaling one combat turn.

Page 117 says:

Using the continuous combat option makes using weaker, faster weapons more attractive because a character with a high initiative and a fast weapon may get to strike more frequently than an opponent using something slower. Effects which take one combat turn (such as suffering from continuous poison damage or needing to roll to stabilize while dying) occur every ten phases. For example, a character that was stunned on phase 56 will get to attack again on phase 66.

It would shine if you wanted a more deadly but nuanced combat, and it would be worse if you want to keep things simple and fast. It's complicated to use, you're getting more detail by breaking down the turn into more parts.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.