Quote from: 1of3;591403Even if the game were poorly written (I understood the rules just fine and I'm not even a native speaker), that doesn't inform whether the "who goes first" with other elements is a good or bad idea.

I can't comment on whether it's a good idea because I don't understand what the rules are.

Initiative in a game is nothing.more than.an order of combat. Period.  It represents a stressful, chaotic point of.confusion. For fairness to players and translation to a workable, statistical modeling system for game purposes, it is abstracted to an order of combat. It is just to determine.which player.can act and in what sequence. Anything more is based on how that character.was built and what their skills and training allow them to do.

If your.character has the ingrained training to do something other than react to.the situation (in Sixcess this is represented by various edges) then it is possible to use strategy and tactics to "take the initiative" but my research showed that the.vast majority of people,.unless hardened, veterans of combat, do little more than "react" in combat - and most of.them freeze-up more often than they act. Hence the advice, "in time of panic, do *something*."  (A motto posted on my dad's ship in World War 2.) I interviewed both hand-to-hand and marksman specialists from the Marines, Army, and Special Forces. I also interviewed weapon experts and Martial Arts specialists. The data was remarkably consistent.

Ingrained and continuous training allowed someone to "take initiative" in combat - but the vast majority of non-trained fighters were extremely random in how they reacted to the stress of combat.

Combat is also very random and unpredictable. It is the training that allows someone to minimize the unpredictability - which they referred to as "drive". Hence the initiative roll in Sixcess is a "Drive" roll. And ingrained training (edges) allow you to maniulate that. Only a trained soldier would have those edges. The rest are "stuck" with a random and unpredictable environment.

That is how we handle it in Sixcess.

(Please pardon any choppy wording or Oddness. I'm on my phone while manning tables at a gun show.  I'm dodging sales and customers and my signal is iffy, at best...-

Quote from: StormBringer;591376I think we eventually settled on individual by-round initiative back in the day.  d10 minus Dex Bonus plus weapon speed/casting time and that was the segment you performed your actions.  It was extremely helpful for determining if spells were disrupted, but sometimes having most of the party go first was just the little bit of edge we needed to turn a looming defeat into a (somewhat ragged) victory.

This is almost exactly what I ended up with in D&D, and almost exactly what I do in my d20 variant (Accis).

For Guildschool my main game, which is skill based, uses a continuous initiative system, and has for over 2 decades.

Caveat: I have not run a game with Weapon or Casting speeds since 2nd Edition, so YMMV.

Typically, we use one die roll at the start of combat, and use that initiative for the rest of combat.

Back in 2nd Edition, we declared actions on our rolled initiative, and they finished when the weapon/casting speed was added, giving other players a chance to intercede (the all important "Stop the Spellcaster!"). It made for more tactical play (and A LOT of dagger throwing).

Quote from: Ben Rogers;591433Initiative in a game is nothing.more than.an order of combat. Period.

Not just that. In 1e/2e Shadowrun (and the original Deadlands), it's also how many times you go in a round. Spinachcat pointed out the Better Games system, where going in the Active or Reactive round has various benefits attached to it.

In other words, there are different ways of doing initiative, and not all of them are limited just to "which order do we go in?" (Though action scheduling is an integral function of an initiative system.)

For Destiny, my own little RPG, I'm doing things a little differently. Action scheduling is a game mechanical part of it, but strategy, tactics, and gaining a psychological advantage over your enemies is the point of Initiative.

It always is. People who lose the Initiative sooner or later loose the combat, battle, or war.

I'm not saying your approach is wrong or unrealistic. Just that's its only one approach, out of a large number of valid methods.

Quote from: Ben Rogers;591433my research showed that the.vast majority of people,.unless hardened, veterans of combat, do little more than "react" in combat

That is certainly true.

EDIT: Fuck. Deleted inadvertent dickery. Here's what I meant to say:

"The things you're pointing out are real, and true. I've been thinking of ways to incorporate them into my game. From a strict realism standpoint, neophytes in combat shouldn't be allowed to just act at will; combat is a terrifying thing. However, I haven't found a decent way of incorporating the concept, and moreover most players will find it frustrating. So, I decided to elide over that piece of realism. As Destiny is a cinematic action movie game, that's alright."

Sorry for the inadvertent dickery. Back to the original message:

There's a reason this kind of realism isn't included in most RPGs. One, it's not fun to lose control of your character, or have them "freeze up" in combat. Two, most PC's in most settings are, or soon become, hardened killer veterans.

But Destiny is an action-movie system, and realistically reflecting the "you lose control of your actions as a result of extreme stress" part of real-world combat is contrary to the "action movie" part. Such states can be induced (via suppressive fire, Intimidation, or whatever) but they're not the assumed default.

Needing to Seize the Initiative and Press Your Advantage is included, because they're fun and add a layer of tactics and strategy to the battle. They give players an immediate, important goal to strive for, other than just "we shoot." It makes the game more interesting.

IMHO, YMMV, and so forth.

EDIT 2: Though the mechanics of Destiny do support the "librarian thrust into a terrorist plot" or "FNG" scenario. Just take the Character Trait of "I'm a Librarian, Not a SEAL" or "Never Seen Combat", and it is an impediment in certain situations. (Think FATE aspects.)

Your game assumes freezing up is the default, edges overcome it. Appropriate for a more gritty game. My mechanics assume PC's can act freely, unless they take a Trait that reflects their FNG status. Appropriate for an action-movie game.

Same real-world concepts, different solutions, but ones that work within our respective approaches.

EDIT 3: Also, "neither side has Initiative" due to confusion or panic is represented as well: both sides act at the same time, in descending order of Dexterity. When no one has a plan, and there is nothing but confusion, those with quickest reactions go first. See this post for a real-world example, and the mechanics that represent it.

Quote from: Ben Rogers;591433Initiative in a game is nothing.more than.an order of combat. Period.

Nope, it's not even that.

It's *order of play*. Which player gets to go first.

In the original D&D books, the word "initiative" was never used. Not once. There isn't even a mention of a mechanic like the initiative die roll used in later editions (which is why that mechanic changed so much.)

In Chainmail, there's no initiative roll that I can find, either. There *is* a simple "who goes first" roll, with the player with the highest roll deciding whether to go first or last. This is because there are advantages to going first and advantages to going last; dicing for turn order helps eliminate unfairness. The other way is to use written simultaneous orders. Actual order of actions is based on the order of combat and weapon type, not the "initiative" roll.

Other games, including AD&D 1e and later and some versions of Basic D&D, have confused this simple issue, trying to make an initiative mechanic that represents something "real". But really, "players go first unless surprised" works just as well, as does a single group roll with no modifiers.

Quote from: LordVreeg;591442This is almost exactly what I ended up with in D&D, and almost exactly what I do in my d20 variant (Accis).

For Guildschool my main game, which is skill based, uses a continuous initiative system, and has for over 2 decades.

Continuous initiative systems intrigue me, I will look into this more.

Quote from: talysman;591492with the player with the highest roll deciding whether to go first or last. This is because there are advantages to going first and advantages to going last;

In Destiny, having the Initiative means you have the choice to go first or last in a round. For exactly the reason you said: there are times when it can be advantageous to go last.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;591472Your game assumes freezing up is the default, edges overcome it. t.

Actually, you only get a "freeze up" situation on a the roll of a double.  So, Sixcess Core fits more into the "cinematic" side of "gritty".  

Random action in combat is the norm -- being able to overcome that randomness and "take initiative" is an edge (actually, several).

Otherwise, it's a 5 round combat turn and the result on the die is the segement of the combat round where you act.  Freezing up only occurs on the roll of a double.  So, it's not so much an "assumed default" as it is "possibility."

It also has the benefit of keeping the number of actions to a reasonable amount -- a deliberate desire to keep things homogenized.  I hated playing games of Shadowrun (as a player and as a GM) when one player had a high Reaction when everyone else in the group was average or low.  It became "the high initiative guy show!" and everyone else was bored to tears or annoyed that they couldn't do anything.

No, if we made games that truly emulated reality, no one would enjoy them.  Reality sucks.  Especially if you aren't trained to deal with it.  We play these games to get away from reality -- not to live it. We play them to pretend we're larger than life -- even if we are playing the sweet little librarian.

That being said, a fairness and egalitarian treatment of everyone around the table is in order.  

In Sixcess, everyone gets their action -- but some who have paid build points for their special training can change their sequence or act ahead of others (thus "taking the initiative").  While at the same time, we ensure that everyone at the table has a good time and has a chance to act during combat -- even if they do roll a "freeze up" situation, it's no more than a "Bummer!  Well, I better use my action wisely, then!"

Simple initiative system for D&D; Each side rolls a d6 every round, highest 'has the initiative' that round.  Having the initiative gives you;

 1)  Choice of which side goes first that round.

 2)  +1 bonus on further initiative rolls.

 3)  +1 on attack rolls.

Not sure what to do about ties.

Quote from: The Traveller;591242How do you prefer your initiative?

As a default I like either roll once at the start of combat (D&D3e/4e) or static initiative. Though I don't mind randomising or rolling, I prefer this aspect to be quick.

I don't tend to like roll per round (pre-D&D3e) or continuous initiative (Exalted) as I fine they both take too much time.

I quite like the initiative system in Anima and Tenra Bansho, where you have a normal system but defenders can immediately counter-attack, as it gives a good immediacy to the combat.

I have most recently become enamoured with Marvel Heroics "pass the initiative" system. Its quick (no rolling), avoid repetition (which tends to reduce predictable downtime), and it has more intricacy than most initiative. It also flows with the action better than most initiative systems.

Quote from: talysman;591492In the original D&D books, the word "initiative" was never used. Not once. There isn't even a mention of a mechanic like the initiative die roll used in later editions (which is why that mechanic changed so much.)

In Chainmail, there's no initiative roll that I can find, either. There *is* a simple "who goes first" roll, with the player with the highest roll deciding whether to go first or last. This is because there are advantages to going first and advantages to going last; dicing for turn order helps eliminate unfairness. The other way is to use written simultaneous orders. Actual order of actions is based on the order of combat and weapon type, not the "initiative" roll.

I agree with that sentiment. To me, initiative should be put into play ONCE actual tactics have been used on the battlefield. That is, if you ambush your foes, there's no initiative. If they are surprised, there's no initiative. The actions of the combatants themselves have already decided who would go first and how. In some tactical sense, depending on a single critical roll at the beginning of combat to tell you whether you'll go first and win is a tactical failure on your part as a player: you should strive to avoid the roll and get the initiative from the get-go. If you don't, you're just gambling with your character's life.

From there, the "initiative" roll or really the "order of play" roll comes into the picture for those specific tactical situations where there are no overwhelming tactical advantages: i.e. second round of combat after being engaged in a chaotic melee and the like.

In the O/AD&D paradigm, I am very tempted to houserule the roll of d6 itself to revert to an order of play and tactical choice, i.e. opposing parties roll each d6, and whoever rolls high then chooses which side goes first. Makes for more interesting hands-on tactical situations where even the chaotic circumstances of the d6 roll make for either an interesting tactical choice (if you roll high and make the decision yourself) or a potential look into the opponent's strategy (if the opponent rolls high and chooses).

What I really don't see the point of at this point is individual initiative rolls involving tons of modifiers and bullshit. I just had way enough of that with 3rd ed, it's tactically lame and boring bean counting where primarily the rules and dice decide the outcome of combats, and I'm happy it's out of my D&D picture now.

I like D&D 2e's mix. But then I like the gradation in options where I as GM can decide on the fly.

Group Roll + Group Mod = I like this for really large battles, or when I'm feeling lazy

Group Roll + Individual Mod = Prefer for mid-sized battles, and where people want to pull some weapon speed, casting time advantage, or the occasional called shot maneuver

Individual Roll + Individual Mod = I like this for much smaller battles to encourage more cinematic maneuvers.

But then I also like static initiative, like IN SJG where highest AGI, PRE, or PER goes first (depending on the reality realm and form of attack). Throw in a few pre-fab and GM discretionary mods and it's a 'go'. Quick, simple, fun.

Quote from: Benoist;591602I agree with that sentiment. To me, initiative should be put into play ONCE actual tactics have been used on the battlefield. That is, if you ambush your foes, there's no initiative. If they are surprised, there's no initiative. The actions of the combatants themselves have already decided who would go first and how. In some tactical sense, depending on a single critical roll at the beginning of combat to tell you whether you'll go first and win is a tactical failure on your part as a player: you should strive to avoid the roll and get the initiative from the get-go. If you don't, you're just gambling with your character's life.

From there, the "initiative" roll or really the "order of play" roll comes into the picture for those specific tactical situations where there are no overwhelming tactical advantages: i.e. second round of combat after being engaged in a chaotic melee and the like.

In the O/AD&D paradigm, I am very tempted to houserule the roll of d6 itself to revert to an order of play and tactical choice, i.e. opposing parties roll each d6, and whoever rolls high then chooses which side goes first. Makes for more interesting hands-on tactical situations where even the chaotic circumstances of the d6 roll make for either an interesting tactical choice (if you roll high and make the decision yourself) or a potential look into the opponent's strategy (if the opponent rolls high and chooses).

What I really don't see the point of at this point is individual initiative rolls involving tons of modifiers and bullshit. I just had way enough of that with 3rd ed, it's tactically lame and boring bean counting where primarily the rules and dice decide the outcome of combats, and I'm happy it's out of my D&D picture now.

I can see this and would not presume to argue.

But I like weapons choice and attack type and speed coming into play.  Even in my simple game it does, with weapons with faster speeds often going first, but particular in the continuous system in GS, i like that players actually have to really worry about the affect of each action and the affects of knockbacks or major blows.  It allows a minutia and still has a lot of flow to it.

However, there IS a lot of book keeping, and I understamd the trade off.

Weapon speeds and the like to me would come into play when (1) you are already in a situation where you are making a d6 roll for initiative (see previous post, e.g. no surprise, ongoing melee, etc), and (2) the results on both six-siders rolled in these specific situations tied. That's when it'd potentially matter, AFAIC.