Initiative: Is There a System That Doesn’t Suck?

Summary:

is it my turn yet?

page 1 of 212next »

Initiative: Is There a System That Doesn’t Suck?

Invincible Overlord 16 Nov 2011 00:16

This thread is for comparing extant initiative systems as practiced in our games, with the faint hope of improving them or developing new ones. There is no chance whatsoever of us all agreeing! SO there is no need whatsoever to fear anyone imposing an initiative system on a game you run. But we might be able to have a vigorous discussion that would slightly improve our methods or at least develop understanding and acceptance.

Here is very big idea that needs to inform any modern thinking about initiative:
Initiative: the Silent Killer

He’s referring to the 3rd edition procedure. For those who haven’t played much, combat begins and all participants roll a d20. Often the monsters are grouped together, but theoretically each orc rolls. A modifier from dex and feats and stuff is added, and a list written. Those rolls set the sequence for the entire combat, unless someone delays and moves down in the initiative order. 3e also has strong rules about suffering extra attacks if you cast spells in melee or try to run past enemies without engaging.

More stuff that’s come up recently in the Seduction by Wilderlands thread:

Ska-tay said:

What about something a bit more like you seem to be leaning (RQ strike ranks) + initiative + surprise (OD&D)
So, check for surprise: 1-2, on d6. Surprise can either be a flat loss of 1-2 rounds, or a modifier affecting below. Let's assume a counting up initiative? So, anyone acting on 1, 2, etc? Roll d6 for initiative. Add surprise modifier. No one is assumed to have weapons 'set/readied'. Readying/Setting/changing weapon modifiers are based on weapon size = +3 for 2 handed, +2 for medium sized, +1 for small?
Dexterity initiative bonus applies only to modify above mods— how fast one can set or change weapons. Striking someone not readied should be a flat/base AC. No dex AC bonus, perhaps? So, all this bookkeeping is really for governing setting and changing weapons, adjustments to combat. If you're just hitting with the same thing, it's your normal combat rules.

Oban said:

But as long as you are enjoying a dalliance with the Judges Guild, why not try the native initiative system?

https://sites.google.com/site/zenopusarchives/home/rules-variants/judges-guild-weapon-priority
See the above post for a picture of the relevant table from the Ready Reference Sheets. I like it because it allows for player choice/tradeoff with armor and weapons vs. speed (although it does make more sense if you are using variable weapon damage). It offers some complexity and yet the table is small enough to include a copy on everyone's character sheet if you so desire.
I do not like the lack of random chance. If you are wielding a mace, you are pretty much always going last. And to resolve ties you need a DEX score for every monster, a la Holmes.

IO Again

Strictly for those who are interested, it would be super-neato if you could give the rule you use when adjudicating initiative. I would like to hear from the GMs on this, even if they are going strictly by some book. That is, please don’t say: “BD&D” … we don’t all know the rule, and chances are the interpretations will differ.

Also here, I’d love to hear from Sternum on Pendragon’s non-initiative system, from foner and James on how Marvel Super-heroes handles who goes first, and so on. I'll be mourning the unsuitability of RQ strike ranks to D&Dish games.

Re: Initiative: Is There a System That Doesn’t Suck?

TavisAllison 16 Nov 2011 00:41

I think the ideal is like Chainmail: there's man to man combat and fantasy combat and also just combat; which one you use depends on the situation, and none are perfect for all situations.

Early in the White Sandbox I only rolled initiative when it mattered. If you and an orc trade blows and no one dies, what does it matter who hit first? If one party would be killed, only then do we roll to see if he died before he could deliver his blow. This is a Platonic ideal because it is so flexible and efficient. What it doesn't do is provide a structure to combat - I would often go in move/melee/missile phases to keep it straight by limping similar actions together for adjucation, as going around the table often meant that someone would go well I meant to do this but now I see that my plan is… This system also made tactics hard, as the randomness stays invisible until it is too late. This system works well in smaller groups who have fewer options (i.e. low level PCs) or the situation constrains action.

Later I did party initiative. This is the communal ideal. It works well for allowing planning in the context of another structure, like go around this way to see when it is your turn. I think it gives too much advantage to powerful PCs.

Recently I have been using ACKs initiative. It is good for tactics and suspense, and the countdown is dramatic. However often the situation does not warrant tactics it suspense. I will henceforth use it only when lots of spellcasting is declared, lives are on the line, etc.

Re: Initiative: Is There a System That Doesn’t Suck?

Sternum 16 Nov 2011 03:40

Pendragon doesn't have an initiative system. Instead, both sides roll to hit. The guy with the best successful roll hits. If the loser made a successful roll, but rolled lower than the winner, he gets to use his shield to absorb some of the blow. The the loser missed, he gets walloped for full damage. If both sides miss, nothing happens.

Things get slightly more complicated in fights against multiple opponents. You can break up your target number amongst your combatants or give them unopposed rolls while you focus on your primary target.

I like this system because everything is resolved in one roll, which makes combat lightning fast. However, since knights in Pendragon don't use magic or fire missile weapons, it may be too simplistic for Dungeons & Dragons style combat.

Re: Initiative: Is There a System That Doesn’t Suck?

James_Nostack 16 Nov 2011 03:48

Tavis, what about the whole deal where Magic-Users and Clerics fizzle their spell if they are struck before casting? Initiative is hugely important in that context, because it can cost you a prepared spell.

IO…

In D&D terms, I am a big fan of the B/X Initiative, which is party-based. B/X also has strongly segmented parts of a round: morale, movement, magic, missile, melee, which in theory means that things flow really fast, especially if you do declarations before rolling initiative. I suspect the Glantri gang has far more experience with this than I do at this point, so they could advise as to its shortcomings. The one thing that's kind of dumb is that two-handed weapons automatically lose initiative, which I can see in a close combat, but they should probably automatically win when closing ranks simply because of better reach.

In Marvel Super Heroes initiative is dirt-simple. Declarations, roll for each team, team with highest roll acts first. (Optionally there's a modifier for who has the highest Intuition rank on the team.) This has the advantage of speed and ease of use, but clearly is just a D&D legacy element. In the Marvel Super Heroes Advanced Set there's a thing where, if the other side wins initiative and their actions force you to change your mind about what you want to do, you're still locked into your earlier declaration unless you succeed in a difficult Agility roll. You can also try to get more actions in a round by making a Fighting roll but if you screw it up you'll only get one (penalized) attack instead.

In James Bond 007 initiative is handled in a static fashion. Declarations are taken from slowest character to fastest, allowing faster characters to plan ahead of the slowpokes; resolution is then from fastest to slowest. I think Nobilis does something like this as well.

FWIW I think Initiative: the Silent Killer is bunk, though I respect Robbins mightily. Setting aside his own hedging and trying to weasel out of making strong claims later in the article, I think (a) there is absolutely nothing preventing coordination by the party when using fixed, individual initiative, I saw 10 year old children doing this for a semester and it works just fine, and (b) even without fixed individual initiative, or even Tavis's no-initiative, I tend to space out in combat when it isn't my turn anyway.

If the problem is that people aren't paying attention, that's not a fault of the initiative system: it's a fault of the encounter for not delivering enough pressure and uncertainty. Like everything else in D&D, combat is about problem solving, but the solution is usually pretty trivial: meat-shields hack away until the squishies can drop a sleep bomb. But from what I recall, our most memorable and satisfyingly thrilling moments of play have been in situations where we have no clue what to do next and everything is going to Hell. (Obviously YMMV!)

Re: Initiative: Is There a System That Doesn’t Suck?

Ridiculossus 16 Nov 2011 09:04

Since I can't sleep with this congestion…

Holy crap, Oban. That Judge's Guild thing rocks. I just want to fiddle with it a bit. I even incorporated the Ars Ludi thing a bit, in adding the prelim discussion phase before initiative is rolled.

I want feedback on this, btw—What fiddly bits are missing?

What parts aren't clear? What sucks for you? Thanks!

Last edited on 16 Nov 2011 15:04 by Ridiculossus Show more

Re: Initiative: Is There a System That Doesn’t Suck?

TavisAllison 16 Nov 2011 20:06

Tavis, what about the whole deal where Magic-Users and Clerics fizzle their spell if they are struck before casting? Initiative is hugely important in that context, because it can cost you a prepared spell.

In the freeform #1, if there is someone whose attack might disrupt a spell, and they hit, we roll initiative to see which happened first. Note the lack of tactics; there is not a defined way for you to be sure whether it is too late to try to disrupt.

In the others, I have people declare spellcasting. This allows for spell disruption, but for whatever reason it like never happens. If a lot of spells are queued up, then it is a good time to do #3, ACKS individual countdown, because spell disruption creates tension and tactics. If no one cares enough to throw a spell it probably signifies the fight is simple enough to do with #2 or #3.

My analysis of the Chainmail sources that the JG table is riffing off of is that it creates excitement in a combat where, like Chainmail, one hit usually kills. Strike order is thus part of the game's rock-paper-scissors tactics of which unit to move into the fray. As soon as both parties have enough HP that theu will usually stand and trade multiple blows, I don't see that its elaborate computation of who strikes first matters enough to spend time on.

Oh, and my take-away from the Robbins article is that it can suck when the structure is not visible. Knowing that it is my turn to get to go to the bathroom is good. The problem in 3E etc. is that it is hard to know this; I have to carefully track who rolled what for initiative and how long their turn will probably take before it comes back to me. I see this problem with the JG system, especially if strike order changes when someone casts a spell vs. throws a punch.

ACKS initiative makes a virtue of not knowing the structure: each round it is re-randomized, and the implicit tension is "who gets to go before the monsters do"? Even here, though, I try to recreate the orderly flow of going around the table to hit the people who rolled that initiative count. (Having only six base values makes this interesting; in d20 having twenty-plus numbers to count down = dull.)

Last edited on 16 Nov 2011 20:12 by TavisAllison Show more

Re: Initiative: Is There a System That Doesn’t Suck?

Lord Bodacious 17 Nov 2011 16:44

I'm a big advocate for easy, abstracted initiative.

In Glantri, we do a group initiative rolled on d6, higher is better. Individual Dex and special modifiers give players a chance to skip forward or back in the order (so if players roll a 3 and enemies roll a 4, a character with a +2 bonus can jump ahead of the enemies). Polearms have their own peculiarities (polearms go first on the first combat round, last thereafter) but I don't think this necessarily adds anything. In practice, the DM counts down the init total from 6 (or 7). When your number is called, you go. In very tight situations, we'll do individual initiative rolls, same rules apply. This seems to work fairly well.

I like this system because it's simple, but it still creates some initiative stratification. The enemies do still end up going on the same tick, but that seems to work fine, I think it's a bigger problem when all players go at once.

If you want more weapon/action sensitive system (as opposed to dex), I could see applying an initiative modifier to your roll based on weapon/action (i.e. casting spells give you +1, 2h weapons a -2).

This is the best initiative system.

Re: Initiative: Is There a System That Doesn’t Suck?

naked samurai 17 Nov 2011 16:52

I like the Glantri initiative system, but would introduce one thing:

Initiative bonuses for fast creatures.

Re: Initiative: Is There a System That Doesn’t Suck?

Ridiculossus 17 Nov 2011 16:56

This is the best initiative system.

::insane rage::

Personally, I would love to know if I could be faster than a gaze attack. It would be great to knock someone aside and beat that. Things like that always made me wonder, cause a lot of it was ruled by GM fiat. Also, ganging up on slower people can pay off in spades on a more detailed initiative system—but hey, that's just my way.

Last edited on 17 Nov 2011 17:06 by Ridiculossus Show more

Re: Initiative: Is There a System That Doesn’t Suck?

Invincible Overlord 20 Nov 2011 02:51

Here's something I wrote to resolve an obsession about the Runequest Strike Rank initiative system.

Here's the basics for those unfamiliar with it …

1. There are 12 ranks in the combat round, which is roughly 12 seconds long.
2. You want to strike at the lowest rank possible, before your foe. Within ranks, order can be determined by dex, or the actions can be considered simultaneous.
3. You add up numbers derived from your dex, your siz, and the length of your weapon. Fast people with long arms using spears get to attack before slow, short people using pocket knives.
4. Movement is 1 sr delay for each 3 meters, but that's only if you join an ongoing melee, and can be ignored if a new engagement is begun that round. Readying weapons and other minor actions generally take 5. Magic is delayed by the amount of power points you put into the spell and must be readied in unprepared.
5. You get some kind of defense roll, parry or dodge, against one attack a round.
6. Optional rules include delaying your attack in order to improve your hit location roll or delaying until the end to target a particular location.

Though rooted in the Strike Rank initiative procedure, combat can be resolved at multiple scales. Essentially, it’s not necessary to count up strictly through the Strike Ranks – anyone at 4? At 5? OK, who’s got the higher dex? – for all combats. There are 4 obvious cases:

#1: Surprise attack. Only attack rolls from an aggressor and possibly dodge or parry rolls are necessary in response. Since the defenders have not composed themselves yet, there is no need for strike ranks. Resolution can proceed in any way that suits the attackers. Multiple rolls can be made at once.

#2: Scrums. Here, the combat occurs in one or more knots, possibly without even numbers on each side. Since each scrum is independent of the others under most conditions, they can be resolved one at a time. Strike Ranks and dex matter, but once the order is established, many rolls can be made at once. You can make attack, location, damage, parry/dodge all at once and apply these rolls in order. After some practice, we can quickly see the results of the round’s combats. Aimed blows or other fancy combat maneuvers should be discouraged. Very often, it may be legitimate to resolve two or even three rounds of each scrum before moving on to the next, with the idea that even if opponents were defeated and thus combatants were freed up in time to weigh in on other scrums, it would take them time to get there anyway. Once all scrums have gone for a couple of rounds, they could re-sort without additional movement costs imposed. This procedure would absolutely tend to narrow the options available, but since it would apply to both PCs and baddies, it would rarely pinch very badly. Spells and choices about defenses and which opponent to attack can still be used, so tactics matter.

#3: Duels. Single combat should allow thoughtful exploitation of all the alternative combat rules. Especially, the rule for aimed blows which allows for altering the location roll by the number of Strike Ranks delayed can be strategically important. I might be able to derlay for 6 rounds, which gives me much more control over where my strike will land, but if you don’t, or “bid” under me, you get the first strike. Each round can be require recording a breakdown of ranks delayed, choices for defense, magic, weird grappling tactics, etc. There can be a 30 second time limit for writing orders, then dice can be rolled all at once. Duels can run for two or more rounds without interference, like scrums. Duel resolution can be going on in the same sequence as scrum resolution.

#4: Bullet Time. This is the slowed down, rank by rank count up of actions that shifts focus from the trolkin’s spear attack and humakti’s parry on one side of the cavern to the storm bull’s healing spell on the other to the dark trolls maul and elf’s dodge inside the sanctum, then back out to the humakti’s attack and trollkin’s parry. It allows detailed moves like casting demoralize on an ally’s foe while parrying your own. It is slow, and the imagined sequence is confused. Sometimes, it is the only fair thing.

page 1 of 212next »