I've mentioned a few times I'm working on making a tactical RPG engine, and I'm finally at the point where I'm doing the actual important part of determining turn order.

It's a harder design decision than I thought, so I thought I'd ask for opinions.

I'm trying to make a game in the style of Shining Force, where the turn order is determined by a unit's status. There's quite a few games like that, but I'm wondering if that design is actually good. The thing that makes that style of game good is that they're actually fairly easy, and the "noise" of stat-based turn order, where you can't depend on a specific turn order, seems to make the game harder. Or at the very least, it closes the door on more precise tactics. I've had plenty of experiences where I thought a unit was safe because they had enough HP for one more hit, and the enemy ended up hitting them twice before their turn came up.

In reality, I'm actually pretty set on keeping this in my engine for better or for worse (boy, is it hard to resist expanding scope), but I'd be interested in hearing some opinions nonetheless

After many years of Roll20 D&D campaigns, we have whittled the process down to the bare essentials: there are only three of us now, with one DM and two players running two characters each. Having completed many of the classic modules of our youth, we are now tackling an extension to the Mines of Phandelver - Shattered Obelisk. Because this is golden age D&D from when we were teens, we chose a classic lineup. My friend is playing a half orc fighter and wood elf rogue, while I'm playing the dwarven cleric and high elf wizard.

What is new for us this time is that the DM is brand new to the position. He's been a player forever but has never had the time to run a campaign. These pre-packaged modules make things quite easy though so we're delighted to finally get the forever player behind the screen so that the two normal DMs can really play this team to its potential. It's been a blast.

But what I realized yesterday is how different his style is, and that's what I'd like to discuss here. I come from a theater and Hollywood background as a screenwriter/playwright and character actor. I also have a ton of improv comedy experience. I'll throw out a number of story elements or NPCs and just cut loose, completely fine with where the dice and the player decisions take me. Our other usual DM is also a Hollywood guy, but he's a producer. So for him it's all about marshaling the resources, optimizing the setting, and conducting the grand scenario. He cuts right through all my roleplaying to get to the tactical play as soon as possible.

Well our new DM is a senior medical doctor at a teaching hospital. I just realized as we played last night that he isn't narrative in the slightest because he is presenting each of the scenarios or NPCs as if he's on his rounds with a knot of junior doctors, giving them a brief outline or quick synopsis of each patient's condition before moving on to the next. It's such a different way of approaching this kind of data that it took me a few months of this before I realized what he was doing. All of us are trained to our own methods, that's for sure.

How do you and your tables present information and move the game forward? I fear that the success of Critical Role, etc. has given too many newer players the idea that there is only one way to conduct these kinds of games and I'd like to hear of more original approaches.

Mine's definitely Evan's Gambit. IF I can get a game with it I'm going to play it. Always leads to a fun, spicy game with enough tactical mess to make for a great blitz game. For any classical game though I'd probably just stick with open Italian systems but castling queenside and throwing pawns if they dare castle first.

How about you guys?