Simultaneous, group, or "popcorn".  I'm happy with any of them.

I play Earthdawn and the initiative system hasn't changed much over the editions. So I've begun to tinker with it.

Base rules are:
Combat is broken into roughly 6 second rounds, roll Initiative every round. Your Initiative "Step" (determines die pool) is your Dexterity Step* minus Armor or other Initiative Penalties. Warriors have Talents like Cobra Strike that can increase Initiative.
*(Dex Step = Dex Value of [1-18]/3, round up to next whole number, +1. I love how Earthdawn 4th Edition has standardized derived attribute formulas.)

Each round the PCs roll their Init Steps (or Talents), GM rolls Init Step for important NPCs (and "takes the Step" for the others)*. The GM can also roll, or take the Step, for groups of similar characters. The GM then sorts the Initiative Results.
*(The Step# is the target number which the die pool will roll above around 50% of the time.)

<>

So we have a high-to-low Initiative array driving actions, and it is re-rolled every round. This does chop up the flow of actions a bit. I also use the optional rule that movement costs initiative points (2 yards or 1 hex of movement costs 1 Initiative point), as I like tactical combat and use minis/tokens, or a Virtual Tabletop sometimes. It also means that closing past reach weapons costs you a point of initiative.

The first thing I tried was rolling Initiative for PCs and important NPCs in three rounds batches. I was thinking that players would be able to spend their best results first and it would make "rolling initiative" less intrusive if we could go 3 combat round equivalents before having to re-roll. This ran into complications of players trying to figure out spending Strain (damage) to power their Initiative boosting talents in 3 round chunks. Some Warrior and other Adepts really have to watch the Strain expenditure to win fights, so this threw too much of a complication into the combat decision tree.


Here's what I'm tinkering with now:
"Take the Initiative"
Each combat is resolved to two or more "sides" (as mentioned, 3+ sides in a combat is rare). Anyone can attempt to "take the initiative" for the round. Compare the highest Initiative result to the next highest Initiative Result for the opposing side(s), and grant everyone on the winning side +2 Initiative for every +5 over the target number (which is a base ed4 success rule.. also I don't quite know what to do with people who have delayed from the last round in order to act first). I'm thinking a quick spreadsheet will make tracking the bonuses and sorting easy.

"Directed Movement"
Moving 2 yards (1 "hex") costs 1 Initiative point from the character's result as before. Any character can lead up to Charisma Step other characters: by spending an Initiative point and directing the others into position, this combat option allows the other characters to begin to spend their Initiative points on movement starting on the Leader's turn (now -1 initiative from activating the power). Characters with the Leadership talent/skill can affect rank*20 others as long as the Leadership effect is active (as the talent/skill allows).

Archers flank into position on the charging Warrior's command. The Nethermancer's skeletons rush forward at the players, swarming the space between them. Even if they can't attack yet, it sets the scene and presents the threat. I've got a home-brew Unit/Mass-combat system, and the result of the two rules isn't very fiddly in the playtests I've done so far.

Important characters roll individually.  Mooks/non-important things roll as a group.  Initiative is rolled at the beginning of each round.  PCs win on ties.

Actions aren't announced before initiative.  They're simply declared when your turn comes up.

While I do somewhat enjoy phased combat systems where actions are staggered out over a round, I find it easier and more efficient to just have a participant do all their actions when their single turn that round comes up.

Hi there! Long time lurker, first time poster!

My favorite approach is simultaneous actions, but when I use an initiative system, I really enjoy a 'reverse order' approach.

In this approach, initiative is still determined in the usual way, but combatants are sorted from lowest to highest initiative, which means that the combatants with the lowest initiative go first.

The idea is that this gives a tactical advantage to combatants with a higher initiative, as they are able to react to a slower combatant, or they can use the information they gain going later to their advantage when they wish to act.

The process is simple. The combatant with the lowest initiative acts first. If nobody with a higher initiative wishes to interrupt, the combatant takes their turn. However, anyone with a higher initiative can interrupt the slower combatant's turn, and take their turn instead. Once that combatant has taken their turn, the slower combatant can then take their turn.

It gets really interesting (and fun for me) when multiple faster combatants start interrupting slower combatants. For example, combatant A has the lowest initiative, so A goes first. A is going to run over to the city gate to pull the lever to close it before the enemy's reinforcements can get inside of the city. B decides to interrupt A in order to attack A before A can act, in order to allow B's allies to get inside the city and turn the tide of the battle. Combatant C decides to interrupt combatant B in the hopes of preventing B from stopping the action of A, because closing the gate will give them a big advantage over their opponents.

It's very easy to track, and it help me visualize the scene more like a movie, where cause and effect can kind of get played out in real time.

Welcome to TheRPGSite! Glad you came.

I have only really used Initiative in Traveller, Shadowrun, Pathfinder/D&D, the Network System and Edge of the Empire. I don't really have a preference though I do like the Network System, PF and Traveller versions as they're comparatively simple.

Welcome to theRPGsite, BloodSweatSteel!

Quote from: BloodSweatSteel;820521Hi there! Long time lurker, first time poster!

My favorite approach is simultaneous actions, but when I use an initiative system, I really enjoy a 'reverse order' approach.

In this approach, initiative is still determined in the usual way, but combatants are sorted from lowest to highest initiative, which means that the combatants with the lowest initiative go first.

The idea is that this gives a tactical advantage to combatants with a higher initiative, as they are able to react to a slower combatant, or they can use the information they gain going later to their advantage when they wish to act.

The process is simple. The combatant with the lowest initiative acts first. If nobody with a higher initiative wishes to interrupt, the combatant takes their turn. However, anyone with a higher initiative can interrupt the slower combatant's turn, and take their turn instead. Once that combatant has taken their turn, the slower combatant can then take their turn.

It gets really interesting (and fun for me) when multiple faster combatants start interrupting slower combatants. For example, combatant A has the lowest initiative, so A goes first. A is going to run over to the city gate to pull the lever to close it before the enemy's reinforcements can get inside of the city. B decides to interrupt A in order to attack A before A can act, in order to allow B's allies to get inside the city and turn the tide of the battle. Combatant C decides to interrupt combatant B in the hopes of preventing B from stopping the action of A, because closing the gate will give them a big advantage over their opponents.

It's very easy to track, and it help me visualize the scene more like a movie, where cause and effect can kind of get played out in real time.

thats.. actually pretty good

Quote from: RPGPundit;820806Welcome to theRPGsite, BloodSweatSteel!

Thanks a bunch, RPGPundit! You can call me James if ya like!

Quote from: BloodSweatSteel;820521Hi there! Long time lurker, first time poster!

My favorite approach is simultaneous actions, but when I use an initiative system, I really enjoy a 'reverse order' approach.

In this approach, initiative is still determined in the usual way, but combatants are sorted from lowest to highest initiative, which means that the combatants with the lowest initiative go first.

The idea is that this gives a tactical advantage to combatants with a higher initiative, as they are able to react to a slower combatant, or they can use the information they gain going later to their advantage when they wish to act.

The process is simple. The combatant with the lowest initiative acts first. If nobody with a higher initiative wishes to interrupt, the combatant takes their turn. However, anyone with a higher initiative can interrupt the slower combatant's turn, and take their turn instead. Once that combatant has taken their turn, the slower combatant can then take their turn.

It gets really interesting (and fun for me) when multiple faster combatants start interrupting slower combatants. For example, combatant A has the lowest initiative, so A goes first. A is going to run over to the city gate to pull the lever to close it before the enemy's reinforcements can get inside of the city. B decides to interrupt A in order to attack A before A can act, in order to allow B's allies to get inside the city and turn the tide of the battle. Combatant C decides to interrupt combatant B in the hopes of preventing B from stopping the action of A, because closing the gate will give them a big advantage over their opponents.

It's very easy to track, and it help me visualize the scene more like a movie, where cause and effect can kind of get played out in real time.

So if A wants to move and pull a lever and B interrupts with an attack, what happens? Does A get attacked, then continue with their turn and pull the lever? Or does the attack basically cancel A's turn?

Also, welcome to the site.

Quote from: tuypo1;820807thats.. actually pretty good

It's hands-down my favorite way to run combat that uses an initiative system. Full disclosure, the first time I came across this concept was on a post by "TheMouse" on RPGNet.  The first time I tried it out, it went over really well.  I've since made this the optional combat rules for the RPG I'm finishing up. I think I'm going to offer the option for simultaneous or alternating for future play tests, just to see which one is more popular.

One great side effect that I've noticed (because I'm a big fan of descriptive gaming) is that it really aids in describing the combat, because players can "react" in a sort of real-time way to the fight as it unfolds, and it ends up feeling like a fight scene you'd see in a movie.

GM: "The giant white ape raises it's arm as it turns its gaze towards Tigu, and slams its massive fists in her direction!" (Ape had lowest initiative)

Grognor: "As soon as Grognor sees the ape turn on Tigu, I charge towards it, hoping to flank it, slashing at its legs to cut it down a notch." (Grognor had a higher initiative and chose to attack before the ape attacks Tigu)

Tigu: "Tigu sees that Grognor is charging the creature from behind, so she does her best to defend herself against the ape's fists." (Tigu also had a higher initiative than the ape, but chose not to interrupt, saving her turn)

GM: "A successful Maneuver will put you into a flanking position Grognor. Attack the ape!"

Grognor: "I have a Great [+2] Melee Weapons Skill, and I rolled Good [+1], for a Superb [+3] Total."

GM: (GM rolls for the ape. Ape has Good [+1] Fists Skill, but rolls Poor [-2], for a Mediocre [-1] Total) "The ape isn't able to react quickly enough to Grognor, and you're able to get behind the creature and hit it for a Serious Wound."

Grognor: "I run up behind the beast, and before it can slam its fists down on Tigu, I slash one of its legs, blood spurting everywhere, and the ape lets out a pained roar. That thing is going to have a limp now!"

GM: "The ape screams out in pain, and Grognor's slash causes the ape to slam down its fists awkwardly towards Tigu. Go ahead and roll your defense Tigu. (the ape is now at a -1 from the Serious Wound that Grognor inflicted. The GM rolls Fair

• for the ape, which gives the ape a Fair
• Total).[/I]
  
  Tigu: "I have a Good [+1] Melee Weapons Skill, and I rolled Good [+1], for a Great [+2] Total."
  
  GM: "The ape slams its fists down towards Tigu, but thanks to Grognor, you have time to easily sidestep the ape's fists."
  
  Tigu: "Tigu dives out of the path of the ape's fists, rolls to her feet, and throws a dagger at its head."
  
  And so on, and so on......

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;820878So if A wants to move and pull a lever and B interrupts with an attack, what happens? Does A get attacked, then continue with their turn and pull the lever? Or does the attack basically cancel A's turn?

Also, welcome to the site.

In the scenario you're describing, A's turn is 'on hold' while B interrupts. Once B has taken its turn, A can then take its turn. If B was able to take A out with its attack, then A obviously can't take its turn. But if B only wounded A, A can now take its turn, with any penalties that might have been incurred from B's attack.

The way we run this type of initiative is that interrupts stack, so if the order is A, B, C, A would go first. B could interrupt A, and C could interrupt B. If that happens, then the order would be C, B, A. If only B interrupts, then the round order would be B, A, C.

Another nice side effect of this approach is that it seems to encourage maneuvers and strategy even more than a conventional system. Using the same example, B might realize that they might not be able to kill A or take them down in a single attack, so B might opt instead to try and tackle A (B's decision might be different for an NPC than for a minion). If B succeeds in tackling A, A will now have to spend its turn trying to free itself from B, giving B's allies more time and options in preventing A from getting to the lever and opening the gate.

EDIT: I forgot to thank ya for the welcome. Thanks!

If B interrupts A, does A get a chance to change their intended action, or are they basically locked in to it regardless of any interruptions?

Quote from: RPGPundit;819652For D&D/OSR games: do you prefer to have group initiative? Individual? D20+dex? D6? D10?  Something else?

This one.

Usually run more like this.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;820887If B interrupts A, does A get a chance to change their intended action, or are they basically locked in to it regardless of any interruptions?

That's an excellent question! The way we've been using this approach, an interrupted combatant can change their action to reflect their reaction to changing circumstances.

For example, Agradar & Boromir are fighting Thief1 & Thief2. The initiative order for the round is Agradar,Thief1,Thief2,Boromir.  Agradar attacks Thief1, but Thief1 interrupts to attack Boromir. Thief2 interrupts Thief1 to also attack Boromir. Boromir interrupts Thief2 to attack Thief2. The order is now Boromir,Thief2,Thief1,Agradar. Boromir is taken out by the attacks of Thief1 & Thief2, so now Agradar has decided to flee instead of his original action of attacking Thief1, even though nothing directly affected Agradar's ability to carry out his original action.

I've had a couple of people mention that you might want to have a rule that an interrupted combatant can only change their action if something happens that affects the interrupted combatant's original action. I haven't really noticed any scenarios where this would have made a significant change in the outcome of a fight, but it might have a better feel for some.

My ideal sort of initiative system is pretty much what I put into Arrows of Indra, and what will be in "Appendix P" of the Albion book.  That is, individual, D6 based, with some basic modifiers based on actions taken or weapons used.