Quote from: TristramEvans;643638I've known lots and lots of people who dont like the "rolling for Initiative" style of initiative, but no idea who you're referencing on rpgnet.

In fact, the entire hobby is based on rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice, as one set of actions leads to another set of actions. It's the stupidest quote I've ever heard, and that believe me takes some doing.

Whatever about not liking random initiative which could arguably be a matter of taste rather than objective badness, not liking rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice in this business is the hallmark of a moron, obviously diceless randomisers excluded.

I therefore assume you were being more than a little tongue in cheek when you said it.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;639844I cannot see any way past sequential ordering. Every other idea i've found or read about seems certainly no quicker. There's no point being clever for the sake of clever.

"Simultaneous moves" is in my experience quicker.

Why? Because there's no issue of dawdling for several minutes, watching what else is happening, before even starting to make a decision (then spending another fraction of a minute pondering it).

There's little issue of not being able to do mechanical labor for resolving this or that yet because a dozen or twenty other things must be done first; things can be worked out at the same time!

What I saw in 4E D&D games -- which supposedly simulate a mere 6 seconds per turn, IIRC! -- took "initiative order" slowdown to a ludicrous extreme.

Simove is quick: GM decides NPC actions, then goes around the table in any order to get PC actions. Dawdling can mean your character is waffling about, or you might get a second chance after the others have spoken.

Then everything gets worked out in whatever order is convenient. Sometimes in the course of that, one event clearly must precede another. In other cases, there's an important question who will be quicker; a toss of the dice can settle that easily.

Quote from: The Traveller;643641In fact, the entire hobby is based on rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice, as one set of actions leads to another set of actions. It's the stupidest quote I've ever heard, and that believe me takes some doing.

Whatever about not liking random initiative which could arguably be a matter of taste rather than objective badness, not liking rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice in this business is the hallmark of a moron, obviously diceless randomisers excluded.

I therefore assume you were being more than a little tongue in cheek when you said it.

Glib, though not tongue in cheek.

I'm rather amused that you misused the word "hallmark" in the course of your pedanticism.


Personally I'd say the "the hobby is based on rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice" is a much stupider comment.

Quote from: TristramEvans;643649Personally I'd say the "the hobby is based on rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice" is a much stupider comment.

Suit yourself. Might want to consult a dictionary too, just a word in your ear.

Quote from: The Traveller;643652Suit yourself. Might want to consult a dictionary too, just a word in your ear.

I did, which is how I noticed that you misused that word.

Quote from: TristramEvans;643654I did, which is how I noticed that you misused that word.

Oh okay hallmark: "a distinguishing characteristic, trait, or feature", or to put it in the context of my sentence, "not liking rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice in this business is the distinguishing characteristic, trait, or feature of a moron".

And this is why I always regret taking people off ignore. I should really learn to trust my own judgement.

Buh bye now.

Quote from: The Traveller;643658Oh okay hallmark: "a distinguishing characteristic, trait, or feature", or to put it in the context of my sentence, "not liking rolling dice to see who gets to roll dice in this business is the distinguishing characteristic, trait, or feature of a moron".

So this thing you've, according to just a few posts ago,  never heard of (people not liking to roll for initiative) , except for apparently some random woman on rpgnet, is a "characteristic feature" of something? Yeah, you can ignore me in the same way you ignore syntax.

I think the combination of being hyper-pedantic about my post while engaging in grosse hyperbole at the same time really isn't working for you.

Quote from: Phillip;643646"Simultaneous moves" is in my experience quicker.

except we can't resolve things simultaneously. Even if they happen that way on the game board, the GM still has to go through each action one at a time. So in that sense, having actions actually happen sequentially, in some order of quickness or alertness, is just refining that process - and rewarding the characters that are naturally sharper.

Yes, we can resolve things simultaneously; been doing it for decades.

Quote from: Phillip;643762Yes, we can resolve things simultaneously; been doing it for decades.

Perhaps you could elaborate on your preferred method of dealing with intiative, I mean are you talking about heavily abstracted systems or what?

Just bog standard simultaneous moves, except there's usually no need for players to write their moves since there's usually no reason to conceal them from each other (and obviously no concealment from the GM).

Quote from: Phillip;643771Just bog standard simultaneous moves, except there's usually no need for players to write their moves since there's usually no reason to conceal them from each other (and obviously no concealment from the GM).

Not to belabour the question, but you said ""Simultaneous moves" is in my experience quicker.

Why? Because there's no issue of dawdling for several minutes, watching what else is happening, before even starting to make a decision (then spending another fraction of a minute pondering it)."

Surely that's a factor of the combat system you're using rather than of simultaneous moves? As GW pointed out everyone has to have their go anyway, so if the underlying system is quicker it shouldn't matter what method you use as far as that goes.

No, doing 10 1-minute tasks sequentially takes 10 minutes; doing 5 in parallel takes only 2 minutes.

I alluded to this:

QuoteThere's little issue of not being able to do mechanical labor for resolving this or that yet because a dozen or twenty other things must be done first; things can be worked out at the same time!

Quote from: Phillip;643775No, doing 10 1-minute tasks sequentially takes 10 minutes; doing 5 in parallel takes only 2 minutes.

Do the players have access to all the stats of the monsters and work out the results of their actions by themselves, presenting them to the GM after 2 minutes? Also, do the monsters always respond passively, or do the players GM how the monsters choose to defend themselves? What about dogpiling and combined attacks? I'm genuinely not sure what you're describing here.

Traveller, I most often run old D&D these days because it's the crowd pleaser in my current circle. Otherwise, I tend to other old things such as RuneQuest (which I note has "strike ranks") and Traveller. Even more complex old games such as Chivalry & Sorcery work fine.

Among things published in recent years, I especially like Paul Elliott's Zenobia.

So, if you insist on using elaborations that require Igo-Hugo, or any other thing, naturally you take whatever bad may intrinsically go along with the good.