TheRPGSite

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

7th Sea had the only Individual Initiative system I liked.

Otherwise, its all Group Initiative for me. (With rare modifiers)

Better Games (makers of Crimson Cutlass, Battleborn, Rogues of the Empire) had this great initiative system where you got to choose to act before the enemy or react to the enemy's action. Different actions would be easier depending on the phase of before or after so it became a tactical aspect to the game.

For D&D, I actually do prefer group initiative; I don't think that this combat system in particular is robust enough for a more tactic game, and works best when the combats are kept as brief as possible; group initiative helps doing so.

For more visceral fighting systems, I prefer individual initiative, but I generally don't like any system that is basically a separate minigame that does not use the actual events in the combat as a strong influence on the initiative order (Shadowrun comes to mind). Usually, I think, initiative should shift to the advantage of the more offensive and successful combatant, so that characters can press advantage and the combats become more dynamic.

Everyone and the monsters roll initiative individually each round.

I remember Zak once posting a cool spin on group initiative:

Roll a d6 for the whole group, then characters and foes alternate, beginning with a member of the group that won the initiative check. Who gets to act when in their respective group is up to them. All excess combatants act in a desired order until everybody got their turn. Roll for initiative again.

In general/in principle, I like group initiative.  I also think that "popcorn initiative" (after acting, you choose who goes next) looks interesting, but I've never actually tried it.

In practice, the D&D-alike that I've run most recently was ACKS, which has initiative bonuses as class abilities for several classes, so using anything other than individual initiative feels like it's handicapping those classes.

Either way, I tend to prefer initiative rolled each round.

My preferred initiative system: simultaneous!

Everybody writes their actions down on index cards, and then reveals them at the same time.

I was actually thinking of going to a group initiative.

I currently use the 5e RAW, roll d20 + Initiative bonus, act in order highest to lowest, repeat until combat ends. However, it takes a moment to order all the players, NPCs. All the bad guys usually go on the same initiative, with any leader acting as desired (before or after minions).

Hackmaster 5e's count up using "weapon speeds" was nifty. Maybe a bit fiddly, but the fact you could move every second until you faced an enemy kept everyone on their toes the whole combat.

I have looked over the weapon speed (action speed) rules in the DMG (5e), and I'm not sure if it gives me exactly what I'm looking for. I like the idea of "counting down" from a number and then having people act. Less tracking on my side.

I like some of the weapon length/size options in Legend/RQ. It adds complexity however, and I want things to run quickly/smoothly.

I think I am going to fiddle around with an optional "engagement" system that steals some of the elements I like but simplifies them. I would really like to get away from tracking initiative at the onset and keep the players engaged in combat, even when it's not their turn. I also think there should be some kind of advantage for polearms on initial engagement, but then I have to add something where the melee fighter can "slip in" thereby gaining the advantage. Some thinking on this is needed...

Most of the D&D games I have played in use individual initiative, roll 1d20 plus bonus (usually Dex). Typically, the enemy initiative rolls are shared by opponents of the same type (so five goblins and five orcs would be represented by two initiative slots where five actions occur at once).

Lately, I prefer systems where everyone rolls for initiative slots and each side decides who will use each slot as it comes up. It neatly allows players to "hold" actions and respond to changing battlefield conditions a bit faster. It also makes the enemy a bit more unpredictable. Some players even seem to focus more since their turn doesn't always come up at a set time.

I quite like that initiative system for pulp and Sci-fi games. But since this can make characters with certain abilities (buffing, debuffiing, area of effect) more powerful, so I haven't used it yet in a high-level D&D game yet. If anyone has, I'd love to hear about how it affects things.

I think Group Initiative is interesting and can be fun, but it does grate a bit if there is too much planning out combos and the like due to the OOC nature of it.

Generally individual initiative is preferred.  It can be every round or once, but if only once, then there should be a mechanic for "seizing initiative" or losing it.

Out of all the published initiative systems I think I like Hackmaster the best even if it is involved and takes some practice as a GM to really make flow well, but it allows for some really cool effects.

I usually prefer individual, with rolling it once for each combat.

There is something to be said for taking a more free form approach as well.

We're doing group initiative in the LotFP game we just started... at least for now.
I've been thinking of trying the initiative step from Confrontation (miniature skirmish game), write each participating character from both sides on a card, shuffle the cards and turn them over one by one. Each side can nominate one character to hold its action till anytime during the round... even to interrupting a character from the other side... the rest act in order the cards are turned.

Quote from: Cave Bear;819672My preferred initiative system: simultaneous!

Everybody writes their actions down on index cards, and then reveals them at the same time.

That kind of reminds me of how we did it in Earthdawn, but no cards, everyone just declared and the GM wrote it down in order of rolled init + speed bonus. A character could change it's declaration when it's turn came but at a penalty for changing course.
It did come out feeling fairly simultaneous, less action/reaction, but like everything else in Earthdawn it sounded cool but took too fucking long in play.

Like I said elsewhere: My favorite initiative system is "mostly none". Surprise rolls matter, haste/slow matters, those establish turn order, with ties going to the players. On first round, longer weapons go before shorter. After that, there's a couple places where order of action matters, but I mostly treat it as all happening at once.

Heck, you could even roll all the attacks and damage at the same time, and then if one combatant kills another, figure out if the death occurs before the victim is able to act. Here, shorter weapons go first except on tthe first round, and I compare rough weapon length in feet to spell level to see if an attack interrupts a spell.

It's not D&D/OSR so it guess this doesn't really address the OP, but for crazy, swingy combat group initiative rolled each turn is pretty amazing.  But you don't want very large parties if you go this way.

Quote from: Soylent Green;819733It's not D&D/OSR so it guess this doesn't really address the OP, but for crazy, swingy combat group initiative rolled each turn is pretty amazing.  But you don't want very large parties if you go this way.

Why? it would seem to work better for large parties than for small parties. In my experience individual initiative is slower than group initiative for large parties since you have to go turn by turn and most players wait to roll or even think about what they are going to do until it is there turn.

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

It's a mixed bag.

Group initiative tends to encourage teamwork, but it's significantly more time-consuming than individual initiative.

The difference is that with individual initiative I'm controlling the pace and can generally keep the table moving at a pretty good clip. With group initiative I end up with waffle from the players about whose action is going to resolve next.

For OD&D I used a phased group initiative, as described here (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/7842/roleplaying-games/justins-house-rules-for-odd). This was a nice compromise, although some players had a difficult time grokking it.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;819667Roll a d6 for the whole group, then characters and foes alternate, beginning with a member of the group that won the initiative check. Who gets to act when in their respective group is up to them. All excess combatants act in a desired order until everybody got their turn. Roll for initiative again.

The Star Wars RPGs from FFG use a variant of that: Everybody roles individual initiative, but the resulting initiative slots belong to your "team".

It's interesting on paper. In practice it appears to be basically the worst of both worlds: Discourages teamwork because you're not taking actions at the same time, but has all the waffle of people deciding what order they're going to go in. It does provide an interesting strategic decision, but does so in a heavily dissociated way (much like MHR's hot potato initiative).

The Numenera variant is also interesting: Everybody rolls individual initiative. PCs who succeed on the initiative check all get an action. Then the NPCs go. And then you alternate groups.

There's also the systems where you announce your actions in reverse initiative order and then resolve them all simultaneously (with tie-breaking edges being given to the initiative winners).

The initiative system I use most often determines initiative by group, with all members of the winning side getting a +5 bonus to their "Strike Speed" which is loosely based on the Weapon Priority system from Judges Guild (most easily found on page 17 of the 2nd edition of the Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets booklet published in 1978.  I then count down the Weapon Factors and characters/monsters act when their weapon factor comes up. It works somewhat like strike rank in Chaosium RQ 1/2. It players faster than it takes to describe it here once players are used to it.

I really like the initiative in Twilight 2000 2end, and Savage Worlds. I know SW with the cards is considered by some gimmicky, but I like it. I don't look at it as gimmicky as much as I look at as wargamey. Which is plenty fine for me.

Quote from: Bren;819738Why? it would seem to work better for large parties than for small parties. In my experience individual initiative is slower than group initiative for large parties since you have to go turn by turn and most players wait to roll or even think about what they are going to do until it is there turn.

With group initiative rolled each turn it is you often get on side acting twice in a row. With a large number of player/critters in play concentrated fire under those can be absolutely devastating.

The key here is "rolled again each turn". If you roll once for group initiative and keep going back and forward it doesn't matter so much.

I like "simultaneous moves" with phases such as:

1) Control & Morale
2) Ready Shots
3) Melee
4) Movement & Shooting (Lance charges at end)
5) Spells

Activating a ring or such: phase 2
Using a wand or such: as shooting
Scrolls: after spoken spells

Initiative factors are used as needed to break ties. Depending on situation, that could be based on longer weapon, dexterity, spell level, group roll or a toss for that particular case. I like the latter for spells, so one is never assured of getting the drop.

Start by having everyone declare intent, then resolve everything in its proper phase.

Quote from: Ronin;819748I really like the initiative in Twilight 2000 2end, and Savage Worlds. I know SW with the cards is considered by some gimmicky, but I like it. I don't look at it as gimmicky as much as I look at as wargamey. Which is plenty fine for me.

I found the cards in SW work remarkably well. It self documents (no more GM scribbling initiative scores) and allows for all sorts of special effects and opportunities for Edges.

Given a choice, I prefer simply alternating sides (so effectively group initiative) starting with the side that didn't start the fight (but skipping them if they were surprised). It does have some potential for waffling about who goes first, but that can be dealt with by enforcing time limits on that decision. But there's no initiative bonus there, so I don't use this in D&D.

In D&D we went from d6 group in OD&D to d10 group and then individual in AD&D to d20 individual later, with dexterity bonus in each case; but still rolling once for large groups of NPCs.

Folks using spells or magic items, or bracing spears against charges, and the like,  declare intent beforehand (for purposes of spell interruption, etc.)

Group initiative is rolled on d6.

PCs with a Dex bonus may be able to act simultaneously as the enemy if the party die is one point below the enemy,  or act before the enemy if the party and enemy get simultaneous initiative.  

Simultaneously initiative is generally simultaneous, unless closing with weapons of wildly different lengths, or other corner cases.

Quote from: Simlasa;819718That kind of reminds me of how we did it in Earthdawn, but no cards, everyone just declared and the GM wrote it down in order of rolled init + speed bonus. A character could change it's declaration when it's turn came but at a penalty for changing course.
It did come out feeling fairly simultaneous, less action/reaction, but like everything else in Earthdawn it sounded cool but took too fucking long in play.

Cards are useful because they can be reused. Players tend to perform the same basic actions frequently during combat, changing only the targets of their actions. Reusing those index cards saves you the time of having to write down actions every round.

Quote from: Soylent Green;819750With group initiative rolled each turn it is you often get on side acting twice in a row. With a large number of player/critters in play concentrated fire under those can be absolutely devastating.

Yes.  And?

I take it you consider this to be a major bug.  Personally, I see it as a feature.  Combat should be dangerous and unpredictable, not just a countdown of "we'll finish whittling down their HP in 3 rounds... 2... 1...  done!"  The possibility of either side getting a devastating double turn adds danger and unpredictability.  If you don't want to risk the possibility that those 15 orcs might get a double turn against your party, find a way to not fight those 15 orcs.

Quote from: nDervish;819834Yes.  And?

I take it you consider this to be a major bug.  Personally, I see it as a feature.  Combat should be dangerous and unpredictable, not just a countdown of "we'll finish whittling down their HP in 3 rounds... 2... 1...  done!"  The possibility of either side getting a devastating double turn adds danger and unpredictability.  If you don't want to risk the possibility that those 15 orcs might get a double turn against your party, find a way to not fight those 15 orcs.

I think it's a potential bug because I don't think it scales well. Just be clear I do like the unpredictability of group based initiative rerolled each turn, I used it in Bounty Hunters of the Atomic Wastelands, that's how much I like it.

What I am saying is that I think initiative should be equally important in a 3 vs 3 fight as with a 7 vs 7 fight. Maybe it's just a perception thing, but I find that with larger party this kind of initiative can become disproportionately important due to things like concentrated fire and stacking effects.

d20+dex+misc mod

1) Players all strip naked, take ten minutes to oil themselves and apply face paint, then form a circle. Each of them are allowed to carry one of:  a broken bottle, a kitchen knife or a simple wooden or metal club (their choice)

2) I yell "FAPPO!", throw a handful of firecrackers into the circle and duck behind an overturned desk

3) events play out naturally.

Why? is that weird? how do you guys do it?

that depends do you find it hard because a lot of people find initiative hard for some reason

OD&D: Declare any spells ahead of time. Roll a d12 per player (no mods). Reroll each round.

B/X: Declare any & all actions ahead of time. Each character has an initiative die on their sheet: default is d6. This die steps up or down depending on Dex and Wis bonuses. So a character with a Dex bonus of +2 and a Wis mod of -1 rolls a d8 for init. Monsters get whatever initiative die I think they should get. Reroll each round

AD&D: I use segments, weapon length, weapon speed, etc. etc. etc. Actions are declared ahead of time. Each side rolls a d6, this number is added to a series of character-specific modifiers. The final number determines which segment(s) the character acts in. Reroll each round. I never used to do it this way, but I recently programmed myself something to manage all the calculations, and it works well.

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 (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96307553/philotomy/combat/combat_sequence.html).

Usually run more like this (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96307553/philotomy/combat/simple_sequence.html).

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.

Quote from: talysman;819728Like I said elsewhere: My favorite initiative system is "mostly none". Surprise rolls matter, haste/slow matters, those establish turn order, with ties going to the players. On first round, longer weapons go before shorter. After that, there's a couple places where order of action matters, but I mostly treat it as all happening at once.

I do think this is generally the best 'system', at least as long as you aren't using minis or similar. With minis everything is in a defined location at all times, with theatre of the mind they can be rushing about all over the place as in real life.

Another possibility is to use the attack rolls as initiative - highest attack roll goes first. This is basically what Tunnels & Trolls and Fighting Fantasy do, but it's surprisingly uncommon.

Quote from: S'mon;821233I do think this is generally the best 'system', at least as long as you aren't using minis or similar. With minis everything is in a defined location at all times, with theatre of the mind they can be rushing about all over the place as in real life.

Another possibility is to use the attack rolls as initiative - highest attack roll goes first. This is basically what Tunnels & Trolls and Fighting Fantasy do, but it's surprisingly uncommon.

That's what Reign does as well, with it's 2-dimensional results of "matches". Wider matches go first (3 threes goes before 2 tens, ties are decided on Height). Oh here's a cool reference:
http://3roses.com/games/reign/REIGN-Combat-Reference.pdf

QuoteProcedures
Combat Round: Declare actions, all roll, resolve widest first, then highest
Getting Hit: location = Height, damage based on Width, lose a die from one of your sets (if any)
Damage: Width modified by weapon [etc]

Talysman's "no initiative" system sure sounds a lot like an initiative system...

For our current campaign, we decided to use a group-based initiative system, based on a leadership or tactics skill of each group's leader. The winner decides which side  acts first, unled groups automatically lose.
It works reasonably fast and it makes sense in the context of this campaign, where the characters are supposed to be members of a coherent squad instead of a bunch of individualists.

Quote from: Beagle;821475The winner decides which side  acts first, unled groups automatically lose.

That's an interesting way of providing a relative advantage for leadership and organization.

Quote from: nDervish;819834I take it you consider this to be a major bug.  Personally, I see it as a feature.  Combat should be dangerous and unpredictable, not just a countdown of "we'll finish whittling down their HP in 3 rounds... 2... 1...  done!"  The possibility of either side getting a devastating double turn adds danger and unpredictability.  If you don't want to risk the possibility that those 15 orcs might get a double turn against your party, find a way to not fight those 15 orcs.

I find that artifacts of the initiative system are always worse on believability for me. There is a tendency of combat to feel like the characters are all standing frozen while one character at a time acts - and for me, initiative artifacts just make this worse.

I prefer to get unpredictability by uncertain results - like not being completely safe from a dagger because it does only 1d4.

My usual preferred initiative is to have a few fast and/or non-surprised people take actions first, and then after that just go around the table in order of how people are sitting.

There is an interesting system where you take everyone's declarations first - in order based on Wits, Awareness or something similar. Then you resolve all of the declared actions in order based on speed. In practice, though, players haven't favored this because they prefer to know immediately what happens from their declared action.

Quote from: jhkim;821549My usual preferred initiative is to have a few fast and/or non-surprised people take actions first, and then after that just go around the table in order of how people are sitting.

Where do the NPCs sit, in other words, how do you determine when they act?

Quote from: Bren;821553Where do the NPCs sit, in other words, how do you determine when they act?

NPCs act from my spot on the table. i.e. The players all go in order around the table, and then when it comes to my turn, all the NPCs go.

Nothing special about this - it's just simple and easy to remember. I consider it less distracting than more complicated initiative rules, and no worse for believability.

Quote from: jhkim;821577NPCs act from my spot on the table. i.e. The players all go in order around the table, and then when it comes to my turn, all the NPCs go.

Nothing special about this - it's just simple and easy to remember. I consider it less distracting than more complicated initiative rules, and no worse for believability.

While admittedly less distracting, the NPCs routinely acting last seems less believable.

Quote from: Bren;821588While admittedly less distracting, the NPCs routinely acting last seems less believable.

Within repeating cycles, whether you are "last" and "first" is a matter of perspective. It's like complaining about who's in the lead on a merry-go-round.

If the NPCs started the attack - then they probably get the first action, after which the PCs go, and then into turn cycles. If the PCs attacked first, then they will always be first.

Quote from: jhkim;821600Within repeating cycles, whether you are "last" and "first" is a matter of perspective. It's like complaining about who's in the lead on a merry-go-round.

If the NPCs started the attack - then they probably get the first action, after which the PCs go, and then into turn cycles. If the PCs attacked first, then they will always be first.

OK. That's in keeping with the frequently used one side acts then the other side acts inherited from war games.

"We have mentioned quite a few times that we use a continuous initiative system...
 
What does that mean? It means that combat initiative is kept continuously instead of stopping at the end of a round or a turn and starting again. A character in combat or in another initiative situation1, after they have attempted a feat or action, will roll initiative for their next action, and add it on from there. And they are allowed to stop and change course at any time.
 
This can often mean a character with a fast weapon might attack two or three times before a character with a slower weapon. However, since smaller weapons normally do less damage and have higher dividing dice, they penetrate armor less...It also accounts better for moving and movement., as well as for other actions."

from the intro to here (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955668/Initiative)

Used this since 1982.  More complicated, but always, to me more flexible and representative of how combat actually works.  I mean, we all have to abstract a lot, but there comes a point...

Quote from: jhkim;821549I find that artifacts of the initiative system are always worse on believability for me. There is a tendency of combat to feel like the characters are all standing frozen while one character at a time acts - and for me, initiative artifacts just make this worse.

I know that feeling all too well, but I tend to ascribe it to turn-based resolution rather than to initiative systems.

Quote from: jhkim;821549I prefer to get unpredictability by uncertain results - like not being completely safe from a dagger because it does only 1d4.

Agreed.  Initiative is just one possibility among many potential sources of uncertainty.

Quote from: jhkim;821549There is an interesting system where you take everyone's declarations first - in order based on Wits, Awareness or something similar. Then you resolve all of the declared actions in order based on speed. In practice, though, players haven't favored this because they prefer to know immediately what happens from their declared action.

Would be nice if it was easier to get players to go along with systems using pre-declared actions.  Aside from having more of a sense of realism, they also help to mitigate the tendency of players to focus fire.  ("OK, six PCs vs. six orcs.  You all attack orc #1...  Bob the Barbarian one-shots the orc!  The rest of your attacks chop it into tiny pieces, but are otherwise wasted...")

We had these questions and threads before.
I am collecting my answers from here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=433255)...

   In Sovereign Stone the result of the skill check is the initiative. A character just announces what he wants to do and rolls, whether it's climbing a wall, rummaging through the backpack, reciting a spell, or hitting with the axe - highest roller goes first.

So a character doing something he is proficient in acts faster than someone doing something unfamiliar.

... and there (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=177988):
But my favourite is  from my own heartbreaker (in use since the early 2000s), in which only players roll for initiative:

   The Initiative check is a simple DEX check. (Roll under.)
Success means your character can act before the GM characters/monsters. Failure means you have to act after the monsters.
Let players in each camp decide on their individual order.

In a PvP conflict (if both win or fail their roll and end up on the same side of the "GM divide") the DEX value acts as a tie-breaker.
Some monsters have special abilities/hindrances that may ignore the roll, eg, zombie: slow (always last); snake: fast (first strike).

Seems like Numenera does something similar:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;819739The Numenera variant is also interesting: Everybody rolls individual initiative. PCs who succeed on the initiative check all get an action. Then the NPCs go. And then you alternate groups.

Quote from: LordVreeg;821605...

from the intro to here (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955668/Initiative)

...

That is actually really nifty. In Hackmaster 5e, they have a count up initiative I really like as well. This one is actually very similar yet easier. I may try something out similar/modified for my DnD5e game.

I did convince the group to try a group initiative, but we haven't had a chance to play-test it yet...

I've often considered a counting-up initiative; the idea is appealing, but I've always felt it was a little too complicated to administer in actual play.

Quote from: trechriron;822332That is actually really nifty. In Hackmaster 5e, they have a count up initiative I really like as well. This one is actually very similar yet easier. I may try something out similar/modified for my DnD5e game.

I did convince the group to try a group initiative, but we haven't had a chance to play-test it yet...

It works for us.  Heck, we've used it for 30 odd years.  the whole 'speed vs power' thing was something I wanted to explore, as was having it more granular when people need to add an action or change their mind or move during combat.  It also allows for skills like initiative bonus and multiple attack.

Everyone in my group rolls at once, person with the highest roll acts first, people with the same roll act simultaneously. Simple.

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.

That's a lot like how the original WEG Star Wars handled it as well.

How do you guys handle initiative and combat when the party is supposed to face a cinematic threat?

Like they activate a curse in a pyramid, and suddenly 5000 mummies rise up out of a mass grave and start shambling after them. You can't just do initiative and combat turns for all 5000 of them...

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;822811How do you guys handle initiative and combat when the party is supposed to face a cinematic threat?

Like they activate a curse in a pyramid, and suddenly 5000 mummies rise up out of a mass grave and start shambling after them. You can't just do initiative and combat turns for all 5000 of them...

The mummies would all act on 1 init roll. But in that case I'd probably not have them attack in round 1 - rising up & moving would be their turn.

Quote from: S'mon;822817The mummies would all act on 1 init roll. But in that case I'd probably not have them attack in round 1 - rising up & moving would be their turn.

Yeah, that's what I did. But what about the attack rolls?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;822871Yeah, that's what I did. But what about the attack rolls?

They are "shambling" mummies. They attack last.

I mean the problem of handling 5000 attacks.

I actually treated them more like an environmental hazard. Like a flood. Except it's a flood of bandages.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;823036I mean the problem of handling 5000 attacks.

I actually treated them more like an environmental hazard. Like a flood. Except it's a flood of bandages.

You only have to worry about the initiative of creature in reach or in action.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;823036I mean the problem of handling 5000 attacks.

I actually treated them more like an environmental hazard. Like a flood. Except it's a flood of bandages.

That makes sense.

For most characters 5000 zombies are far too many to stop or destroy. All the PCs can do is flee and treating failed flight rolls as a group of zombies that catch up or just treating the zombie flood as a hazard makes a lot of sense.

Quote from: LordVreeg;823038You only have to worry about the initiative of creature in reach or in action.

The situation that came up was this. I was winging a game completely from scratch and decided to go for an Acquisitions Inc style game since it was the first time a few of my friends were playing.

They were exploring the Temple of Black Blood to retrieve an ankh from a pharoah buried there.

The room with the ankh is a circular tower that rises high, high up to where a hole in the ceiling filters down a pillar of sunlight onto a pedestal in the center of the room.

All along the walls are alcoves with mummies stored in them, going all the way up and around the room. Like honeycombs in a beehive, or a morgue.

When the PCs took the ankh from the pedestal, the mummies all came to life and started dropping down onto the floor and then shambling after them. So pretty much all of them were close enough that you'd want to track initiative if you were going to use them individually in combat.

Also they were all level 1 so there's no way they'd fight that many of them off. It was more of an "Indiana Jones in D&D" type of scenario.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;823036I mean the problem of handling 5000 attacks.

I actually treated them more like an environmental hazard. Like a flood. Except it's a flood of bandages.

Treating them as more of an environmental hazard is actually a pretty good idea. There are swarm rules that basically do the same thing... I think I wrote something about a cat swarm halving all movement. 5000 mummies is a swarm of mummies.

As for attack rolls... really, 5000 mummies can't all attack at once, unless they are the size of dust motes. (I think I once wrote about that, too, or at the very least hundreds of 1-inch high skeletons.) You figure out how many creatures of that size can reasonably attack each character at one time and roll that many attacks. I'd probably say 8, if each character is surrounded by mummies, or three, if the characters are together and form a ring or shield wall.

If the characters aren't alone, but have an army of mercenaries, switch to some kind of mass combat rules.

The main hazard of 5000 mummies is not that they can do 5000 attacks per round, but that killing the ones attacking you just makes room for fresh mummies to take their place. It's like you're fighting a monster with 2500 hit dice.

Quote from: S'mon;821233I do think this is generally the best 'system', at least as long as you aren't using minis or similar. With minis everything is in a defined location at all times, with theatre of the mind they can be rushing about all over the place as in real life.

Another possibility is to use the attack rolls as initiative - highest attack roll goes first. This is basically what Tunnels & Trolls and Fighting Fantasy do, but it's surprisingly uncommon.

For minis, I'd probably do "announce actions in reverse Int order, then move in Dex order". But I hate minis.

I actually rethought the initiative I posted earlier and decided to simplify it, because it's way too complicated.

(1) Do surprise attack first, if any, then side that attacked first announces actions first. This order stays the same for the rest of the combat.
(2) Hasted actions all go first, then normal actions, then slowed. Actions are otherwise simultaneous.
(3) For interrupted actions, lowest damage goes first. Roll a pseudo-damage roll (1d6) for any action that doesn't do damage. If interrupting a spell, the spell's pseudo-damage max is equal to spell level. Tied results are simultaneous.

I wouldn't mess with weapon length for initiative any more. I'd just give attackers with a longer reach an opportunity to step outside an opponent's reach, forcing them to use their next attack to close the distance again.

Quote from: RPGPundit;821467Talysman's "no initiative" system sure sounds a lot like an initiative system...

Depending on what you mean by "initiative", I suppose it is. Most initiative systems requiring rolling or comparing numbers. I try to keep the numbers out of it as much as possible. Hence, it's not an "initiative system", the way most people think of initiative.

Originally, initiative wasn't really about order of actions, but order of turns. If you aren't using simultaneously revealed written orders, the side that goes second has the advantage of hearing the other side's plans first.  So, Chainmail had an optional roll-off, with the side that won the roll picking whether to move  first or last.

The way I see it, there's no point in doing that for a dungeon crawl game (the GM has technically already "gone first" by setting up the dungeon.) So, I'd be willing to just let the players go first or last, whichever they prefer, unless surprised.

I think initiative is any way of establishing who does what in what order.  we tend to do it with rolls, out of tradition, but there's probably lots of other interesting ways to do it.

For D&D my preferred method has always been D20 + Dexterity modifier, as per Third Edition.

Shatterzone was pretty awesome with its group-based Initiative based on its card deck.

My favorite these days in Savage Worlds because the visual aid of the cards displayed on the table means everyone can see who is going first with high cards down to the lowest cards on the table and this helps keep up the pace of combat or chase by going in order.

I'm a big fan of the A&8/HackMaster count system. It keeps everyone involved and is very quick.

As I see it, traditional initiative (such as in recent D&D) really doesn't matter after the first turn. It's just an arbitrary ordering.

If you do turn-by-turn rolling, then sometimes there will be double actions, but those average out - since every double action leads to a double-action by the opposing side.

Example 1: Super-fast guy A fights super-slow guy B. Order of actions is ABABABABAB. There are never double actions. The only benefit of A's super-high initiative is the first action.

Example 2: Medium-fast guy A fights average guy B. There will be some doubled actions, but it averages out.  Actions might be ABBAABABAB or BAABABABAB.


That's why I tend to go with special handling for initial actions, and then just go around the table after that.

Quote from: jhkim;823475As I see it, traditional initiative (such as in recent D&D) really doesn't matter after the first turn. It's just an arbitrary ordering.

... And it was always just an arbitrary ordering. It's just that somehow, a lot of gamers have come to the conclusion that it models something real, instead of just being a way to keep people from fighting over who speaks first.

That's why your method, which probably isn't that different from my method described earlier, works just as well as the complicated systems in some RPGs. The only time order matters is when one action might interrupt another, so you could actually not bother with initiative at all and have simultaneous rolls until an interrupt condition shows up.

"Anyone have any unnusual actions they want to do this turn? OK, everyone roll their attacks or actions... These opponnents were injured or killed. Now they attack... OK next turn."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;823036I mean the problem of handling 5000 attacks.

How on earth could all 5000 of them make attacks on a single target in a given round?

Quote from: TristramEvans;823544How on earth could all 5000 of them make attacks on a single target in a given round?

Really long, skinny arms?

2,000 year old mummy morning breath. Times 5,000.

Quote from: TristramEvans;823544How on earth could all 5000 of them make attacks on a single target in a given round?

Think of it cinematically. When you have a swarm of undead they don't just stand in line, they literally flood over you until you disappear in the swarm. At that point, it doesn't really matter.

Quote from: jhkim;823475As I see it, traditional initiative (such as in recent D&D) really doesn't matter after the first turn. (...)

Example 1: Super-fast guy A fights super-slow guy B. Order of actions is ABABABABAB. There are never double actions. The only benefit of A's super-high initiative is the first action.

Example 2: Medium-fast guy A fights average guy B. There will be some doubled actions, but it averages out.  Actions might be ABBAABABAB or BAABABABAB.

Two counter points:

If you went with a "first in, last out" method (low initiative has to declare actions first, but resolution is in opposite order) then it would very much make a difference who won initiative, and in your example 1 the super-fast guy would have a tactical advantage even in "boring" ABABAB order.

And even if everything averages out in your second example it would also make a big difference if in round 5 of a given combat one of the combatants is down to 1 hp - yes, probably the orc is toast next round but do I get to take him out before he can deal another d6 damage to me? Can I loose my arrow before the bad guy cuts the rope of the portcullis?

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;823691Two counter points:

If you went with a "first in, last out" method (low initiative has to declare actions first, but resolution is in opposite order) then it would very much make a difference who won initiative, and in your example 1 the super-fast guy would have a tactical advantage even in "boring" ABABAB order.

And even if everything averages out in your second example it would also make a big difference if in round 5 of a given combat one of the combatants is down to 1 hp - yes, probably the orc is toast next round but do I get to take him out before he can deal another d6 damage to me? Can I loose my arrow before the bad guy cuts the rope of the portcullis?

I can't recall if jhkim is using simultaneous resolution. If so, then the 1hp combatant doesn't matter since the result of both hits occur simultaneously. So it doesn't matter who rolls first. as both will still hit. (Though I would argue that simultaneous resolution isn't really a difference in initiative, just a difference in rolling procedure and of course it that case one might as well just go around the table.)

Quote from: Telarus;8236622,000 year old mummy morning breath. Times 5,000.

I sit corrected. It actually is 5000 attacks. :)

Over the years I've tried various forms of initiative - per side or per individual, every round or once at the start. I experimented with various systems before stumbling upon this system which immediately stuck:

Attacks/spells are resolved one group of combatants at a time. Within each group everyone rolls a d6 and it is resolved in that order. (Ties are simultaneous).


For example, if one round A&B are fighting X and C is fighting Y then first A,B and X roll initiative and resolve their attacks in order, next C&Y roll initiative and resolve their attacks in order.

Because it is resolved in small groups, there is not a big gap between A attacking X and X attacking A, so you only need player A's attention once to cover both attacks. Hence despite rolling initiative for every character every round, it counter-intuitively goes faster. There is no book-keeping required, or counting down of initiatives. As we all sit round a table and use miniatures or counters, I just point to the group to be resolved, everyone in that group rolls a d6 and puts it next to their miniature or counter, then we remove it when it's our go.

If you make a missile attack or cast a spell at someone in a group then you are part of that group, but area attacks always go last (this seems plausible, but the true reason is because otherwise the whole combat would be one group and everyone would have to roll initiative together).

Note that this system assumes all actions for the round are declared first, and then all actions are resolved; that is, there is no initiative order for declarations. The order is simply players declare, followed by the DM. It is incumbent upon the DM to strive to be impartial.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;823691Two counter points:

If you went with a "first in, last out" method (low initiative has to declare actions first, but resolution is in opposite order) then it would very much make a difference who won initiative, and in your example 1 the super-fast guy would have a tactical advantage even in "boring" ABABAB order.

I agree - and this isn't a counter-point, because I was referring specifically to traditional initiative, as in D&D and other games.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;823691And even if everything averages out in your second example it would also make a big difference if in round 5 of a given combat one of the combatants is down to 1 hp - yes, probably the orc is toast next round but do I get to take him out before he can deal another d6 damage to me? Can I loose my arrow before the bad guy cuts the rope of the portcullis?

I agree that doubled actions - i.e. AABBAABB - makes a difference to the game play. The question is, what is that supposed to represent? Is it important for believability or some other reason to have that occasional doubling?

In general, I find that doubled actions is bad for believability to me. It increases the feeling that one character is standing still while the opponent does a bunch of stuff.

Just wrote something about initiative. Sorry for the necro...

http://blog.guildredemund.net/2017/04/03/roll-initiative/ (http://blog.guildredemund.net/2017/04/03/roll-initiative/)

Quote from: nDervish;819670I also think that "popcorn initiative" (after acting, you choose who goes next) looks interesting, but I've never actually tried it.

IMO, it's absolute garbage in absolute play. The decision of who to toss initiative to is completely dissociated and introduces a boatload of awkward record-keeping that bogs down combat.

Of course, I have a similar dislike for rolling initiative every round -- busy-work bookkeeping just isn't that interesting for me.

So... I keep seeing mention of the Hackmaster counting up initiative system.  I wouldn't mind finding an initiative system that takes things like weapon reach, speed or type of action into consideration - as long as it isn't too difficult or fiddly.  I kinda like what LordVreeg has posted, though it seems like a lot of extra die rolling. In all my years, I never tried AD&D segments.  Is the hackmaster system worth checking out?  Can someone give a short description of it? Does anyone have experience with it good or bad?

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

I think for D&D (BECMI/RC) we just used a d6. For AD&D 1e we used a d20 with no bonuses, individual initiative for players and group for the bad guys though sometimes mooks and main villains had their own rolls. When I ran 2e in the 90s I was completely insane and had some convuluted system based on a d10 or d20 which was combined with Move and Weapon speed and worked on the exact segment you acted, which included multiple attacks. For d20 I think I did it BtB though I ran more Star Wars RCR than 3.5e but the mechanics were pretty much the same.

The AD&D 1e version is notable because that campaign is still running from time to time. For 5e, I use d20 plus Dex bonus. Heroes get their own rolls and once again villains have group initiative though as with AD&D sometimes main villains will have a roll separate from the Mooks. If I'm running Play by Post, everything is group initiative adjusted for Dexterity because I don't want to spend three days working out combat order. In Fantasy Grounds... I press the button.

Everytime one of these threads get necroed it makes me realize how many regulars we've lost over the years since I first started posting here.

Individual initiative, plus monsters all roll as one.

Use to roll at the start of every round for years as I guess we didn't read the rules closely enough. I am a recent convert to the optional rule in the 5e DMG where everyone has static initiative ratings based on Dex and roll if they have the same rating. Seems to borrow from Runequest's strike rank. Speeds up play a lot and since I have mostly newbie players no one has exploited its predictability.

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

1d6+dex mod + to hit mod if you are a fighter class.

For monsters it is 1d6 + 1/2 HD.

Individual initiative, rolled every round.

I don't bother recording the results except for my own rolls. I start off asking if anybody rolled a 10 or higher. Then after resolving those players I count down from 9 to 1.

It works and I successfully used it at table with 12 players.

Hackmaster 5e, the brief combats we ran were fun with the count up.  Really wish we got to play it more.

In a lot of rpgs, things are mostly handled in a Igo Ugo way.  The only rpg I'm aware of that has something different is Savage Worlds (I'm sure there's others, just don't know about them)

I think some of the coolest ways to handle initiative come from wargames.  In GASLIGHT each unit gets one card, a hero gets two- everything gets shuffled and whatever card is drawn gets to take their turn.  In Sacre Bleu (great little pirate skirmish game) you roll each round to see which side goes and what action they can perform- one side can get lucky and get multiple turns in a row with the other keeping low.  In Open Combat, there's standard Igo-Ugo with the exception of beefing a roll can lead you to lose initiative.   Think the Song Of games do something similar.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;955282Everytime one of these threads get necroed it makes me realize how many regulars we've lost over the years since I first started posting here.

Necromancers aren't evil, they're just misunderstood.  Heck, I didn't even notice.

Quote from: Raven;8201801) Players all strip naked, take ten minutes to oil themselves and apply face paint, then form a circle. Each of them are allowed to carry one of:  a broken bottle, a kitchen knife or a simple wooden or metal club (their choice)

2) I yell "FAPPO!", throw a handful of firecrackers into the circle and duck behind an overturned desk

3) events play out naturally.

Why? is that weird? how do you guys do it?

Ah, yes, good ol' FAPPO! initiative... :D

Ha, good timing. I am revising my proposed Airships & Riverboats Rules for Earthdawn 4e...for like the third time. My previous Initiative/Maneuver system was a bit too crunchy. This thread was a big help. As its ship combat, it is run at a different scale (one minute turns), and each ship is a "group". I'm going with an open declaration phase (change your action in response to another ship's declaration), and then everyone rolls their Ship Maneuver tests at once, with Ship Maneuvers resolved from high to low Results. Captains get a certain number of "Officer Maneuvers" that can be reactions or additional actions on your turn (return fire, evasive maneuvers,etc) equal to half their Captain Skill Rating (rounded up). They can also activate a free one if an enemy fails a Ship Maneuver against them, or deny reaction Officer Maneuvers to their target if they outmaneuver them. I hope to share more details in a little while, after I get the lead dev Josh to sign off.

What I think really makes this work is that ships act as "one character" for major actions ("Ship Maneuvers"), but any character can try for a "Decisive Moment", which allowed them two 6-second combat rounds of individual action at the risk of some "hazard damage" during those two rounds (which could be damage from enemies if you charge into a boarding battle, or from enemy ship weapons if you decide to aim an fire a fire-cannon using your own skill ranks - as they otherwise fire in batteries based on the average crew skill rank). So you get tense moments of individual heroism, instead of trying to run ship combat at the individual combat scale, which tends to involve"holding your action" multiple times until the ship is in a position that allows a single character to take a meaningful action.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955292Individual initiative, plus monsters all roll as one.

This is how I do it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955292Individual initiative, plus monsters all roll as one.

The reason I don't usually do this is I don't like how all the monsters deliver their damage at once. This can swing a combat before the characters have a chance to react. It's the same problem as having entire armies take their full turn in a wargame.

I use some different methods for initiative.

I almost always have the characters roll individual initiative.

If there are less opponents than characters, or the numbers are close, I use individual initiative for the opponents.

If there are more opponents than the characters, I use batch initiative. All monsters that are armed identically, or doing the same action, are considered a batch, and all go on that rolled initiative. (Orc spearmen, orc archers, orc spellcaster and the Chief gets their own separate init, etc...)
If all the monsters in a large group are identical, I arbitrarily split them into batches. I sometimes split batches into smaller batches if it would mean too many opponents all go at once. This is an eyeball, on the fly decision.

If there are a lot of opponents, (20+) I assume they will all roll one of the possible initiative numbers
So a group of 20 kobolds will all "roll" 1=1, 2=2, etc.

I'm shocked that more people aren't aware of this, but I keep a piece of scratch paper to record initiative numbers, that way I'm not constantly asking players to re-state their initiatives. One piece of scratch paper to record init and hit points per encounter. (Usually a few combats can be tracked on one sheet, if the system is simple enough.)

A poster mentioned doing this, but wondering if any games forgo initiative and just have both sides go at once?  Only one I can think of is Tunnels & Trolls.

I like card deck initiative the best. Everyone has a card (PCs) and the monsters have a card, maybe also boss card, caster card, whatever. You dont know who acts next until the card is drawn. Makes mayhem of any planning. Very fun.

I like outlaws of the water margin's system, where dice are rolled simultaneously, with the high score being the attacker and the lower score defender.

Quote from: RunningLaser;955363A poster mentioned doing this, but wondering if any games forgo initiative and just have both sides go at once?  Only one I can think of is Tunnels & Trolls.

Pendragon, Crimson Blades, ORE, probably a few I can't think of right now...:)

Quote from: Tristram Evans;955679I like outlaws of the water margin's system, where dice are rolled simultaneously, with the high score being the attacker and the lower score defender.

Initiative-wise, I like, in order...;)
TRoS (decide simultaneously whether you attack or defend).
ORE
Outlaws of the water margin
Crimson Blades/T&T
Apocalypse World, where what you have declared resolves whether you're attacking and/on defending.

Quote from: RunningLaser;955363A poster mentioned doing this, but wondering if any games forgo initiative and just have both sides go at once?  Only one I can think of is Tunnels & Trolls.

It's not exactly D&D, and it's certainly not OSR, but personally I swear by Dungeon World's initiative system.  Or rather, lack thereof.  There's no initiative; combat is treated the same as any other conflict resolution.  The DM describes the oncoming threats and asks the players how they respond to those threats, shifting the spotlight between players as appropriate.  

It works surprisingly well.

Quote from: Psikerlord;955677I like card deck initiative the best. Everyone has a card (PCs) and the monsters have a card, maybe also boss card, caster card, whatever. You dont know who acts next until the card is drawn. Makes mayhem of any planning. Very fun.

This is awesome. I think I'm gonna try that.

Quote from: Psikerlord;955677I like card deck initiative the best. Everyone has a card (PCs) and the monsters have a card, maybe also boss card, caster card, whatever. You dont know who acts next until the card is drawn. Makes mayhem of any planning. Very fun.

This is the Initiative System from Savage Worlds. (Not sure if other systems use it).

I'll admit I was skeptical of it. I still am. But it's been damn fun as a change of pace to do it. So something is working right.

Quote from: tenbones;955771This is the Initiative System from Savage Worlds. (Not sure if other systems use it).

Yeah, that's what I thought, too, until Psikerlord said "You dont know who acts next until the card is drawn."  In Savage Worlds, you deal out regular playing cards to everyone, then act in descending order of the card values.  In the system Psikerlord is describing, it sounds like each combatant has their own card in the deck and you draw one card, that person acts, then you draw the next card, that person acts, etc.

Assuming I understand him correctly, that sounds like a pretty interesting system and one I'd like to try sometime, although I'm not sure if there's a good way to handle individual initiative modifiers in such a system other than by inserting multiple cards in the deck for some characters.

Quote from: nDervish;955772Yeah, that's what I thought, too, until Psikerlord said "You dont know who acts next until the card is drawn."  In Savage Worlds, you deal out regular playing cards to everyone, then act in descending order of the card values.  In the system Psikerlord is describing, it sounds like each combatant has their own card in the deck and you draw one card, that person acts, then you draw the next card, that person acts, etc.

Assuming I understand him correctly, that sounds like a pretty interesting system and one I'd like to try sometime, although I'm not sure if there's a good way to handle individual initiative modifiers in such a system other than by inserting multiple cards in the deck for some characters.

Ahh!... hmm that does sound interesting. BUT I'M SKEPTICAL!!!!!

Quote from: Tristram Evans;955679I like outlaws of the water margin's system, where dice are rolled simultaneously, with the high score being the attacker and the lower score defender.

Sounds interesting.

Quote from: nDervish;955772Yeah, that's what I thought, too, until Psikerlord said "You dont know who acts next until the card is drawn."  In Savage Worlds, you deal out regular playing cards to everyone, then act in descending order of the card values.  In the system Psikerlord is describing, it sounds like each combatant has their own card in the deck and you draw one card, that person acts, then you draw the next card, that person acts, etc.

Assuming I understand him correctly, that sounds like a pretty interesting system and one I'd like to try sometime, although I'm not sure if there's a good way to handle individual initiative modifiers in such a system other than by inserting multiple cards in the deck for some characters.

Yeah it does suffer from that problem, little initiative bonuses are hard to reflect in the deck, except by adding another card for that person. We've found it fun as a change from the usual (and we dont use Dex mod to initiative anyway).

I've used this scheme for surprise/initiative -all in one roll- for over 20 years:

Each side rolls a d6 (or d10 if you prefer) plus mods for DEX, magic, etc.

• If your roll is higher you win initiative (you were just little quicker on the draw).
• If your roll is double you get a free round to act (you surprised them).
• If your roll is triple the other side's roll, you get one free round to act AND you win initiative next round (you caught them totally flat-footed).
  
• If the rolls are equal it's simultaneous action.

And vice versa.

While only one die is cast per side, modifiers are handled individually (except in cases where there are too many combatants for this to be practical).

My preferred system for initiative is what's going to show up in Lion & Dragon.  Similar to what's in Dark Albion's Appendix P.

Quote from: RPGPundit;957357My preferred system for initiative is what's going to show up in Lion & Dragon.  Similar to what's in Dark Albion's Appendix P.

Care to elaborate on that one?

Of published rules, I like the Holmes system: highest DEX goes first, in case of a tie roll d6 and go in order from highest to lowest. Personally, I'd simplify it even further: characters of the same DEX act simultaneously. Lots of people manage to kill each other in a fight.

Quote from: Moracai;957556Care to elaborate on that one?

Individual initiative, rolled on a D6+/-DEX, with modifiers based on certain actions, armor worn, or weapon being used. The same roll is kept for the whole combat, but different choices can alter the initiative count for a player.

Each group rolls d6, highest goes first. Common sense applies.

Some examples of common sense applied.

-Spell Casting. If it takes you one melee round to move 120 feet, and you want to try to disrupt the spell of the evil wizard who is 60 feet out of reach, then you must spend the first 5 segments of the round moving. That means if the casting time of the wizard's spell is less than 5 segments, he automatically gets his spell off first. If it's more than 5 segments, you automatically get to attack first. If it's exactly 5 segments, the initiative roll determines order of action.

-Ranged Attacks: If it takes you one melee round to move 120 feet, and you are fighting the evil archer whose rate of fire is 2 per round (and he wasn't prepared to fire) then he fires on segments 5 and 10. If you are less than 60 feet away, you can close to striking distance before he gets a single arrow off. If you are more than 60 but less than 120 feet, he gets a shot at you before your initiative die even matters.

-Weapon reach: Longer weapon automatically gains first strike during "charge" attacks. When closing to attack, speed is of equal importance and for convenience the two factors--reach and speed--are assumed to negate one another and you just defer to the unmodified initiative die. However, if you really need to be a stickler for such things, each character involved gets a modifier equal to their weapon length minus weapon speed.

-Groupings: It's "group" initiative. Not "side" initiative. If the bad guys consist of evil cleric with a bodyguard and acolyte and a dozen skeletons, the DM can make separate initiative rolls, one roll for all the skeletons, for example, and a second for evil cleric and his two henchmen. Likewise, large PC parties might get one initiative die for everyone who is fighting, and a second initiative roll for anyone who is doing anything else. Or very small PC parties (like 3 people) might just each get their own initiative roll. After all, their "side" is just three groups of one each group. Group initiative is versatile like that.

You know the more I think about it, I have been kind of stuck on an initiative system that I like. I really like how it is handled in T2K 2nd ed. Simultaneous and ordered at the same time.

As far as super hero games went, I liked the old DC Heroes method where you add your DEX + INT + INFL and then +2 for your Lightning Reflexes advantage (if you had it) and another +2 for Martial Arts skill (if you had it) to get your permanent Initiative score,  and then you rolled 1d10 and added to your Initiative score, then compared everyone's results to establish the order. I thought it was good because the smart, agile, and trained characters had an advantage and would usually go first but not always since there was still the random element of the 1d10. So sometimes if Batman rolled a 1 he might not get the drop on someone, but most times he would. Worked for me, anyway.

Oh, and if you had the Superspeed power you got to add that to your permanent Initiative as well so the Flash actually was faster than almost anyone else.