What are the potential pitfalls of using the attack roll to determine initiative as well. So the plaeyrs/combatants declare their intentions, for example "i punch the guard", and they roll dice. Now success isn't immediately calculated, but assume a dice system where the higher the results the better, first the order of resolution is determined, again from highest to lowest out of all combatants. So the punch guy rolls his attack of let's say 12, while the target rolls to attack him (they are both trying to hit each other, let's also say) with a 10, the guard gets whacked first, then gets to resolve his attack - assuming no further complications (such as being knocked out).

One Roll Engine does this already.  Furthermore as part of that if my attack roll is better then yours not only do I go first and hit you harder there's a good chance my attack will diminish yours or cancel it out entirely.

But are there any potential pitfalls to such a system? That's the question.

Where are the bonuses to the attack rolls coming from?

That's not going to work with all games.  It doesn't distinguish between fast and powerful. For example, in D20, improved initiative and high strength modify different rolls and feel differently in how people think about their character.  But, for simpler games, it could improve things.
 
I could see it in a game modeling martial arts movies where power and speed are correlated.  Size and strength could be modeled by resistance to damage/hit points/soak.

One scenario where this could possibly work, is if the to-hit attack roll is only dependent on dexterity.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;424741But are there any potential pitfalls to such a system? That's the question.

The two obvious answers are - there are always potential pitfalls and that the pitfalls will come when you start to add in the different parts of the system.  In isolation there really aren't any pitfalls.

But a few questions you should think of are how do you compare none h-t-h actions with each other, non-combat actions with each other, tie's and the very simple who gets to say what they do first - not act, but just say.

Initiative is a bitch.   It is my zone of unhappiness with RPG rules.

Ghost Whistler's idea works fine if you assume Simultaneous Initiative and most successful attack occurs first, then followed by the lesser attacks.   You would need to have a Movement roll, maybe just assuming that if you are moving you are Dodging and that guy rolls his Dodge skill and if he's the highest roll, we assume his run happens first...of course, if he's no longer in the same space, what happens to successful "attack rolls" on him?

I don't like the 3e/4e/Palladium D20+Init bonus go-in-order chart for Init.  I dislike it so much that my default is 10 + Init as a fixed value to speed things up.

My "favorite" is GM D6 vs. Player D6, ties to Players and its not perfect, but its fast and allows Team PC to organize stuff among themselves before acting which players like.   However, its nowhere near perfect.

I've tried the All-Simultaneous-Initiative stuff, but that has its own headaches and gets VERY tricky with more than a couple of players and foes in the battle.

I've also tried the Init system talked about in some OSR circles which does Missile-Movement-Melee-Magic phases and that kinda works, but feels like I'm playing a minis wargame.

So I would LOVE to hear more people's thoughts on Init.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;424713What are the potential pitfalls of using the attack roll to determine initiative as well. So the plaeyrs/combatants declare their intentions, for example "i punch the guard", and they roll dice. Now success isn't immediately calculated, but assume a dice system where the higher the results the better, first the order of resolution is determined, again from highest to lowest out of all combatants. So the punch guy rolls his attack of let's say 12, while the target rolls to attack him (they are both trying to hit each other, let's also say) with a 10, the guard gets whacked first, then gets to resolve his attack - assuming no further complications (such as being knocked out).

People with initiative will also be the ones hitting most often. This means that everything around combat will revolve around getting initiative. Nothing else matters. Tactics are thrown out the window: what matters is how competent (how many points) you are with your weapon. Period.

Quote from: Benoist;424892People with initiative will also be the ones hitting most often. This means that everything around combat will revolve around getting initiative. Nothing else matters. Tactics are thrown out the window: what matters is how competent (how many points) you are with your weapon. Period.

But if we have a system that allows each combatant one action per round, then it's not a question of hitting most often, just who gets to hit first.

I'm also not proposing a particularly detailed system or simulation mechanism.

I guess I'm not particularly enthused by the propect of having the most optimized character always win. It's all about the system from there, and in the wrong way, to me. It's a question of tastes, really.

I just want actual player decisions to matter in combat, but resolution to be relatively quick. This wouldn't achieve what I'm searching for, personally, but maybe it scratches your itch nonetheless. And that's cool.

There isn't a down fall mechanically. If you were good at math, you could break down the % chance of any fight in the most complicated game of D&D and resolve it in one roll. Fair is fair.

What isn't good is that it doesn't let you emulate anything, so if like playing out a fight, it sucks.

Quote from: Cranewings;425027There isn't a down fall mechanically. If you were good at math, you could break down the % chance of any fight in the most complicated game of D&D and resolve it in one roll. Fair is fair.

What isn't good is that it doesn't let you emulate anything, so if like playing out a fight, it sucks.

agreed on the first...the second part is not allways so. Depends on how you interpret the flow of the combat (discription) regarding how much time represented etc. Maybe the combat is decided with two or more rolls depending on the degree of success or whatever, each roll subsuming the whole of that "round" or what-not. So lots of emulative dialogue is still possible if everyone respects the constraints.

Positioning,distance,timing,defense and attack can all be described in this manner so all the details are available! IMO this is more emulative and realistic as combat flows in a timely but intuitive way...

The other immediate problem with this approach is that you'll need to setup some rules for when people who aren't attacking go. i.e. use another more applicable skill roll in place of initiative? Roll a hit roll just for initiative?
The basic system really only has one benefit (reducing the number of rolls per combat round by one), but there are probably easier ways to do this, like counting down in order of Dex, or having whoever declared they were entering combat go first.

Another thought, an elaboration on the system here might be that a high attack roll might give more points, and you then spend some of these on initiative and the rest on other attack options like dealing more damage.

I like the idea of simplifying actions into a single (or fewer) processes. The one roll engine still has the same problems my idea has. It's also somewhat esoteric to penetrate (which if you do so it seems common sense enough).

I like the idea of a dice system that offers the possibility of multiple readings from a single result. The way you can read a result from 'width' and 'height' from the ORE interests me. But beyond ripping that off, I'm rather stumped.