This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Preferred OSR initiative?  (Read 12100 times)

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #45 on: April 30, 2020, 03:11:16 AM »
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128302
However, on top of my primary two motives, I also want if I can get it, minimal changes to the character sheets.  Since I was playing 3E, then 4E, and now 5E, each character has individual adjustments to initiative. So it is convenient for me to let every player roll while I put the monsters into 1 to 3  groups at a set initiative DC, and put the players into 2 to 4 groups going before, after, or between the monster groups.  If the first group of monsters is DC 13, anyone rolling better than that goes before them. And so forth. For most fights, I use one monster group, which means every round players go before or after the monsters.  Very simple, very fast, easy to teach new players as a house rule.  The reroll each round is now a group nexus of excitement instead of a slog.


Ah, I get now where the group split comes from; enemies have a passive initiative as a DC, and PCs that beat their initiative fall into one group (going first) and those that fail fall into another group (going after the enemies), with things getting more complicated if multiple enemy groups (with their own DC) exist.

That's interesting take on how to handle initiative. It kind of incorporates elements of individual and group initiative into a single thing, handled as a task resolution roll. Kinda best of both worlds sort of thing, with some of the variability of individual initiative with each PC's personal speed playing a role, but some of the speed and ease of play group initiative. Also reduces chances of either side overwhelming the other if they win initiative, as might be the case with full blown group initiative.

Also, I guess this...

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128302
One way to get that is the early D&D stand by that others have described, where you handle ranged, then melee, then magic.  Another way is to have "side by side" initiative but have more than sides (perhaps arbitrarily chosen by the GM).  Another way a broad, phased approach similar to what you've described using in your own system.


Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1128301
Hmm, I'm seeing lots of ways to handle phase initiative. Was there no default way for older D&D?


...Somewhat answers mAcular Chaotic's question.

Glancing at the 0e Rules Encyclopedia it looks like they used a combination of group initiative and orders of action, going:

1. Check Morale (Optional)
2. Movement
3. Missile Combat
4. Magic
5. Hand to Hand

nDervish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • n
  • Posts: 750
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #46 on: April 30, 2020, 05:49:33 AM »
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128258
When the declaration is something like, "I'll hang back and start a spell," or "I'll charge the group of orcs by the doorway," people seem to avoid all of the negative stuff.  Since all I wanted out of a declaration was the general idea, that works for me.


If I'm going to do a declaration phase (I don't currently, but I have in the past), I want declarations which are more specific than that, because the main thing I want out of a declaration is to get rid of the "optimal play" pattern of everyone focus-firing one enemy into oblivion and then instantaneously changing to the next target as soon as the previous one drops.  I want declarations so that players will spread out their attacks to avoid the risk that the first hit drops the enemy, and then everyone else's attacks are wasted on beating the corpse to a bloody pulp.

I guess I'm also a fan of re-reolling initiative each round, and making declarations - especially for spells or withdrawal from melee - before initiative is rolled.  So it seems the main thing I want from declarations is that they be specific enough to have a risk that, by the time you actually get to act, your declared action may no longer be relevant, or no longer possible (e.g., you declared to cast a spell, but got thumped in the noggin before getting it off, so it fizzles).  In theory, at least, that encourages actual planning and strategy around the declarations, rather than every turn's action being "what is the optimal way to react to the exact situation at this instant?"

Philotomy Jurament

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1971
  • Prisoner 24601
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #47 on: April 30, 2020, 06:14:32 AM »
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1128301
Hmm, I'm seeing lots of ways to handle phase initiative. Was there no default way for older D&D?

Well, original D&D didn't include initiative or a formal combat sequence, it relied on the Chainmail rules for handling those things. And Chaninmail has various ways of handling the sequence, including a phased approach. When Swords & Spells came out, it took the Chainmail phased sequence and tweaked it for D&D specific use (although focused on miniatures combat/mass battle).

The combat sequence I posted earlier in the thread is based on the Swords & Spellls and Chainmail sequences, which I tweaked for smaller-scale D&D combat instead of mass battle.

I think there was a different phased sequence published in one of the later BECMI sets. I don't recall which set, though. Maybe Immortals or Masters.
The problem is not that power corrupts, but that the corruptible are irresistibly drawn to the pursuit of power. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #48 on: April 30, 2020, 08:50:20 AM »
Quote from: nDervish;1128323
If I'm going to do a declaration phase (I don't currently, but I have in the past), I want declarations which are more specific than that, because the main thing I want out of a declaration is to get rid of the "optimal play" pattern of everyone focus-firing one enemy into oblivion and then instantaneously changing to the next target as soon as the previous one drops.  I want declarations so that players will spread out their attacks to avoid the risk that the first hit drops the enemy, and then everyone else's attacks are wasted on beating the corpse to a bloody pulp.

I guess I'm also a fan of re-reolling initiative each round, and making declarations - especially for spells or withdrawal from melee - before initiative is rolled.  So it seems the main thing I want from declarations is that they be specific enough to have a risk that, by the time you actually get to act, your declared action may no longer be relevant, or no longer possible (e.g., you declared to cast a spell, but got thumped in the noggin before getting it off, so it fizzles).  In theory, at least, that encourages actual planning and strategy around the declarations, rather than every turn's action being "what is the optimal way to react to the exact situation at this instant?"

I'm getting that by how I handle the flow of combat within the "group" actions.  Let's say I've got 9 players, and 4 of them win initiative and thus go before the monsters this round.  Two of the players want to keep wailing on the same monster as last round.  So they don't need to say anything, just start rolling. But, I don't take the results yet.  Meanwhile, the other two need to clarify something with me, which takes a few seconds.  I get them sorted and they start rolling. By now, I can start taking the results from the first two. And so forth.   It's a little chaotic, but I rather like the chaos because it gets 80% of the effect you discuss, which is good enough for me.  Every now and then, someone at the table overhears excitement from a good roll and can guess that another player has pounded some monster good, but its incidental enough that I don't mind, the same way that players can guess AC after enough close hits and misses.

New players all eventually ask me if they can wait and see what happens before they act.  Sure, if you don't mind losing initiative. Or if already lost initiative, giving up your action to automatically get initiative next round. That usually puts an end to that thought.  Plus, general declares work both ways.  If they say they are firing at the group of goblins, I'm usually fairly generous about letting additional hits spread over once a monster is downed.  OTOH, I'm the one choosing the exact targets, and I spread them out when multiple people attack. If there are 8 goblins and 2 ogres, and all 4 initiative winners said they were concentrating on the first ogre, then that's what they do, waste or not.  Their reward for an overkill is an over the top description of how the ogre goes down (or reels but stays up or whatever). Or the 4 players can all say the ogres, in which case I choose the exact targets. More often, a player will sense that a monster is reeling, and that player will declare to lock on to the target until resolved, but other players will be more general.  

There is a certain element of training the players for all of this to work, due to the chaos.  I'm usually running without a grid.  So in return for less control over the exact targets, I'm also fairly generous with movement.  The scene is imagined more as a confused melee over here and skirmishing over there, and the ranged opponents trying to hang back.  A character may not get to pick their exact target, but a successful attack has a target somewhere, even if that sometimes means the target was already going down.

Mainly, it lets me run my work game which has 1:15 sessions, such that I can do a fight with 10 players and up to twice that in opponents, and resolve the whole thing in 20 minutes.  We've had exactly one giant fight that took a session and a half, but that was when they let themselves get trapped on top of a rugged hill (admittedly a great defensive position) by 4 encounters at once. :)

Edit:  I don't get the spell declaration effect as strong as you describe in my D&D games.  In my own system, I'm approaching that from a different angle, but it is dependent on how magic works in that system (usually multiple actions to cast all but the simplest of spells, and skill rolls needed).
« Last Edit: April 30, 2020, 08:52:55 AM by Steven Mitchell »

Zalman

  • RPG Evangelist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #49 on: April 30, 2020, 11:10:03 AM »
Quote from: VisionStorm;1128300
But with group initiative (I'm guessing) even if you're currently doing nothing you still have to pay attention while your party members resolve their actions cuz yours might be next, and it might play off something someone else did.

Indeed, and in my experience this is exactly what keeps players more engaged. I use a (single) group initiative: monsters are one group, PCs are the other. I find that players knowing they can take their turn at any time during the PC's initiative keeps them looking for opportunities, and that means paying attention to what opportunities are being opened up by other player's actions throughout the sequence. When a player knows their turn won't be for "another 3 characters", for example, I find instead that the player is more likely to zone out until their turn, and then ask for a recap of the current situation before they even get to hemming and hawing about their own actions. Of course, as you note, a single-group initiative also means that players who are ready to go immediately do so, while those that need more time have it.
Old School? Back in my day we just called it "School."

mAcular Chaotic

  • All Evils of this World
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #50 on: April 30, 2020, 10:53:49 PM »
Quote from: VisionStorm;1128318
...Somewhat answers mAcular Chaotic's question.

Glancing at the 0e Rules Encyclopedia it looks like they used a combination of group initiative and orders of action, going:

1. Check Morale (Optional)
2. Movement
3. Missile Combat
4. Magic
5. Hand to Hand

OK! So in this situation, let's look at movement. Does one whole team go first, then another, INSIDE the phase? Or does one team go through the entire series of steps, then the next? Or do both sides both act simultaneously inside each phase? If the latter, how do you decide how to declare things? Since if people can wait to see who's attacking what, they can decide what to do based on that information even though it's supposed to be both going at the same time.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #51 on: May 01, 2020, 08:22:30 AM »
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1128428
OK! So in this situation, let's look at movement. Does one whole team go first, then another, INSIDE the phase? Or does one team go through the entire series of steps, then the next? Or do both sides both act simultaneously inside each phase? If the latter, how do you decide how to declare things? Since if people can wait to see who's attacking what, they can decide what to do based on that information even though it's supposed to be both going at the same time.


In the simplest form, it's the declare before all that.  Then each side does each phase, with the winner of initiative going first in that phase.  Or sometimes initiative is tied and it is considered simultaneous.  Given the ranges of most ranged weapons and spells, movement rates, and the like, it really isn't that difficult to manage.  Your movement comes up.   Either you can close with the enemy or you can't.  Either you want to move or you don't.  If you want to move but can't close with the enemy (or put more distance between them and you or whatever), you do that.  If you run away, that may make it impossible for the side B folks to catch you this round, making their melee attacks moot (at least  against you, maybe not your friends). However, if they are still chasing you, next round they may get initiative.  

Typically, such systems make it somewhat difficult to disengage once someone gets in melee range.  Not impossible, but just running away usually has a significant cost.  Therefore the missle and magic inclined folk have a vested interest in avoiding getting into melee in  the first place.  Usually, with plenty of exceptions, and of course adventurers are often a little more flexible in that regards.  As with any system, it requires a little GM judgment to work well, and a little player understanding and experience to make it flow smoothly.  

Really, the main differences is that "sides" or "groups" encourages the players to function more as a party instead of individuals.  Or at least as a few "units" or "groups" within the party instead of individuals.   With enough henchman and hirelings, the party will often break down pretty naturally into missile, magic, and melee "groups" for any given round.  (I'm convinced part of the speed improvements, maybe most of them, are due to this switch in mindset.)  Like a lot of things, the only way to truly appreciate the difference is to try it, and do so with the understanding that it will take a few sessions for many players to really get it.  

Edit:  Meant to say, that there are a lot of variations on the simplest form, most dealing with interrupting actions of various types or providing nuance to engaged/disengaged situations.

Plus, I think if you've got 3 or 4 players with no NPC allies, it really doesn't matter what initiative system you use.  The GM could simply rule on the situation, and most of the time it would work.

nDervish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • n
  • Posts: 750
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #52 on: May 01, 2020, 08:50:30 AM »
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128335
I'm getting that by how I handle the flow of combat within the "group" actions.


Thanks for the expanded description!  Next time I'm running something where that type of initiative handling fits, I'll have to try to adapt some of what you've described.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128335
It's a little chaotic, but I rather like the chaos


Managing the chaos is the #1 reason I prefer to GM, and the lack of chaos to manage is why I get bored after a session or two on the other side of the screen.

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #53 on: May 01, 2020, 10:43:54 AM »
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128466
In the simplest form, it's the declare before all that.  Then each side does each phase, with the winner of initiative going first in that phase.  Or sometimes initiative is tied and it is considered simultaneous.  Given the ranges of most ranged weapons and spells, movement rates, and the like, it really isn't that difficult to manage.  Your movement comes up.   Either you can close with the enemy or you can't.  Either you want to move or you don't.  If you want to move but can't close with the enemy (or put more distance between them and you or whatever), you do that.  If you run away, that may make it impossible for the side B folks to catch you this round, making their melee attacks moot (at least  against you, maybe not your friends). However, if they are still chasing you, next round they may get initiative.  

Typically, such systems make it somewhat difficult to disengage once someone gets in melee range.  Not impossible, but just running away usually has a significant cost.  Therefore the missle and magic inclined folk have a vested interest in avoiding getting into melee in  the first place.  Usually, with plenty of exceptions, and of course adventurers are often a little more flexible in that regards.  As with any system, it requires a little GM judgment to work well, and a little player understanding and experience to make it flow smoothly.  

Really, the main differences is that "sides" or "groups" encourages the players to function more as a party instead of individuals.  Or at least as a few "units" or "groups" within the party instead of individuals.   With enough henchman and hirelings, the party will often break down pretty naturally into missile, magic, and melee "groups" for any given round.  (I'm convinced part of the speed improvements, maybe most of them, are due to this switch in mindset.)  Like a lot of things, the only way to truly appreciate the difference is to try it, and do so with the understanding that it will take a few sessions for many players to really get it.


Yeah, that's pretty much what I gathered from glancing at Rules Encyclopedia, but I was about to go to sleep so didn't read too deep. But like others have said there were many approaches in old D&D, and you could probably modify this to adapt it to your needs, if you don't want to roll initiative, for example. Personally, I'm a little iffy on the idea of handling Movement first, since a ranged combatant could technically attempt fire at moving targets before they move out of rage (at least in real life), so my sense is that both of those actions should happen roughly at the same time.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128466
Edit:  Meant to say, that there are a lot of variations on the simplest form, most dealing with interrupting actions of various types or providing nuance to engaged/disengaged situations.

Plus, I think if you've got 3 or 4 players with no NPC allies, it really doesn't matter what initiative system you use.  The GM could simply rule on the situation, and most of the time it would work.


That's pretty much how I arrived at my own phased system: I started using what I initially thought of as "Narrative Initiative", which was basically handling order of actions by GM fiat, based on what made "sense" in the situation. Eventually I started to dissect my process to identify what sort of criteria I subjectively/unconsciously used to determine order of actions and eventually arrived at the Fast Actions > Standard Actions > Delayed Actions framework I've mentioned before.

Cave Bear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 596
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #54 on: May 01, 2020, 11:34:53 AM »
As DM's do you guys track initiative yourselves? Or do you delegate the task to a caller?

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #55 on: May 01, 2020, 11:43:37 AM »
Quote from: Cave Bear;1128486
As DM's do you guys track initiative yourselves? Or do you delegate the task to a caller?

Depends on the exact system I'm using, but as a general rule, I'll delegate to the players whenever possible--and for much more than initiative.  There are a lot more of them than there is of me. :)

nDervish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • n
  • Posts: 750
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #56 on: May 02, 2020, 09:00:28 AM »
Quote from: Cave Bear;1128486
As DM's do you guys track initiative yourselves? Or do you delegate the task to a caller?


I'm a programmer by trade, so I tend to build basic database apps for whatever game I'm running at the time which keep track of character details, produce character sheets, and so on.  And one of the features I usually include is a screen that rolls initiative for everyone (PCs and foes alike), then lists them on the screen in order.  So I guess that counts as tracking it myself.

When I haven't had software support to deal with it, my usual tendency is to have everyone roll for themselves and then count down (or up, depending on system), relying on each player to announce when their initiative count is reached instead of collecting all the rolls into a centralized list.  This has some issues with players not paying attention ("Wait - we're on 7?  My initiative was on 11!  Can we go back?"), which I generally deal with on a "you snooze, you lose" basis.  (I don't actually make them miss their turns unless it gets to the end of the round and they haven't woken up yet, but I don't go back to previous counts, they go when they notice that it's past their count.)

Zalman

  • RPG Evangelist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #57 on: May 02, 2020, 10:08:47 AM »
Quote from: nDervish;1128609
I'm a programmer by trade, so I tend to build basic database apps for whatever game I'm running at the time which keep track of character details, produce character sheets, and so on.

I do this as well -- could be an interesting topic in its own right!
Old School? Back in my day we just called it "School."

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #58 on: May 02, 2020, 01:21:15 PM »
Quote from: Zalman;1128613
I do this as well -- could be an interesting topic in its own right!

Yes.   I'm also a software developer.  But I haven't written tools for my games since college (when I was an amateur programmer), because I like to keep my work out of the games. :)

Libramarian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • L
  • Posts: 81
Preferred OSR initiative?
« Reply #59 on: May 03, 2020, 10:29:57 PM »
I'm currently running Swords & Wizardry Crucible of Freya/Tomb of Abysthor in Roll20. I use simple d6 side-based, reroll each round. Spells have to be declared before initiative is rolled; if the other side wins initiative and somebody hits the caster, they lose the spell. I'm happy with this, given the reduced communication bandwidth online.

I have a good grasp of the AD&D 1e initiative rules, and would happily use those if my players were more familiar with 1e.

I find that online I can keep up a good pace, but only if I'm just running the NPCs and not teaching the rules at the same time. IRL I can teach & run at the same time no problem.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2020, 10:32:32 PM by Libramarian »