When it makes sense that the PCs go first, I let 'em.  But most of the time it's group initiative, then they act individually in whatever order makes the most sense given the setup.  Several of the players in my current group had a rough time adjusting to group rather than individual initiative.

I vaguely recall in the 2e days doing individual initiative modified by weapon/casting speed.  No real desire to go back to anything that fiddly, I'm on a simplification kick.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;501671For those that have responded (except those on my ignore list), why do you rule that the player characters ALWAYS go first when it is combat situation and you do NOT use initiative???

I don't use initiative in S&W because it means less dice rolling.

As for the PCs always going first, rather than the monsters, it seems fairer to give them the first-move advantage of 'playing white'. It also seems kind of natural in a dungeon environment where the PCs can be thought of as 'attacking' and the monsters 'defending'.

All of this changes if the PCs are caught on the hop, of course, and monsters will often try to win the advantage of surprise. Hopefully the players don't ever start to feel too complacent about it.

I have to use it. Pathfinder is rocket tag, and going first is a big advantage.

Some classes rely on it. If a rogue sneaks up on you, he gets backstab damage. Then, when you turn around and roll initiative, if the rogue wins, he gets sneak attack damage again!

Spell casters have some great spells that can end the fight. Going first is life or death. If their spell is a full round to cast, it can be the difference between being hit once or twice.

Plus I think initiative is a fun roll.

While I never throw it out, sometimes I roll before the game and put it on a chart. Usually I only roll once fir initiative, unless it is a one on one fight. Then I might have them reroll each round.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;501671For those that have responded (except those on my ignore list), why do you rule that the player characters ALWAYS go first when it is combat situation and you do NOT use initiative???

As I said in my original post, ditching initiative can be quicker and can give the players an edge, which for a heroic kind of game like Star Wars or superheroes is in my book a good thing.

If I were elaborate I'd say your not just saving a bit of time removing the initiative dice roll, you are also reducing the overall memory load. I'm actually a fan the sort of hand free "only the players roll dice" GMing. I use it Icons and in my Fudge homebrew. The less a GM has to do in terms of bookeeping and sweating over the minutia the more he can focus on bigger picture.

But it's not a deal breaker and in some games I will use initiative rules.

I like Initiative in 1e Warhammer - everyone has a constant number, modified by their use of armour/shields. And moving first can be quite important there, since you get to slay someone before he hits you - or force him to parry instead of attacking.

The One Roll Engine, does exactly that. It runs without initiative. The sky hasn't fallen yet, so I guess we are fine

Good question.

There are two important facts about initiative which are little appreciated, particularly the sequencing of melee attacks:

1-
Rounds/Turns do not accurately reflect the character of engagement of adversaries in the real world. They do seem to be an essential gaming conceit however. Initiative is intimately related to rounds/turns and so also is not a realistic idea.

Initiative if it is to be used *must* therefore be a purely random concept. Why? Because those attributes (dex etc) which many wish to bring to bear on initiative would in fact increase *RATE* of attack and it makes no sense that these attributes if considered would leave RATE unchanged but merely allow the swifter to repeatedly attack early then pause longer than his slower adversary.

2-
The advantage of Initiative, in melee at least, is insignificant outside of one-shot kill scenarios.

Consider a fighter who wins *EVERY* round of initiative *ALWAYS*. His advantage is limited to at best a single extra attack at the beginning. Visualize the sequence for a winner-in-every-round A:
ABABABABABAB
which only differs from A being a loser-in-every-round:
BABABABABABA
by a single attack for A placed at the beginning.

===

There is an aesthetic problem with the DM deciding who goes first. There will be situations, particularly at the end of a fight where it feel like a story-like intrusion. It is an unnecessary responsibility for the DM and initiative remains  one of the cheapest forms of excitement in gaming.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;501629A .")

(2) I now use a Combat Sequence for OD&D based on the Mmmmmmm! system and the pre-Runequest Perrin Conventions. This doesn't use an initiative system in the sense of determining which character goes first, but instead determines the sequence in which different actions are resolved. (With all actions of the same type still being resolved simultaneously.)


This, too, has worked pretty well.

I've long considered adoptin a system like this but have had two reservations. The first is speed of play; have you found this sequenced method takes longer than standard D&D initiative? The second is what happens after round one; does this present believability issues after the first round. For example, it makes sense the archers go first when there is some distance between combatants, but what happens when my swordsman is right next to the archer?

Quote from: _kent_;501819Visualize the sequence for a winner-in-every-round A:
ABABABABABAB
which only differs from A being a loser-in-every-round:
BABABABABABA
by a single attack for A placed at the beginning.

The effect of this depends on the length of combat.
Compare
ABA
to
BAB

In 3e D&D with optimized characters, combat often takes 2-3 rounds so going first has a bigger effect.  For games of this nature, I use initiative.  I also use it at other times as suited but generally play it loose with the players reacting first most of the time.  In way the adversaries have taken an action in doing whatever the DM describes.  The players going first is a reaction to the initial description.

Quote from: two_fishes;501568Philotomy, do players get to revise their actions after hearing what others want to do?

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;501570Not typically.  I don't recall it coming up as an issue.

I'm picturing a situation like, a fighter player says he's charging into a fray only to change his mind when he realizes he's leaving the wizard unguarded for an attack declared by the GM--before any dice are rolled. Or a thief-player changing his mind about stealing a bit of treasure after the GM declares he's the target of an attack. Stuff like that.

Most Initiative systems in RPG's assume it's only about who goes when and why. This is fine, but for my Destiny system, I decided to go a different way.

Initiative, in real-world combat, is about this: making decisions faster than your enemy, taking actions to press your advantage, keeping them off balance, and using their confusion to defeat them.

That's how conflict works. The Initiative isn't about who goes first, it's about who is in control of the conflict. One side is making decisions and acting, the other reacting. Those reacting will eventually lose.

(You can see a more full explanation here.)

The more you press your attack, the more you keep the opposition off balance, the more effective you are in the combat, and the less effective the enemy is. Each round you keep The Initiative, your enemy will grow more demoralized and more confused.

I think this is an interesting take, both mechanically and from a roleplaying standpoint. Again, the above linked post (in the Game Design forum) explains this in more detail.

If you're really intent on rethinking Initiative, well this is one example of it being rethought from first principles. It is a fundamentally different conception of Initiative than most other RPG's.

Quote from: Cranewings;501749I have to use it. Pathfinder is rocket tag, and going first is a big advantage.

Some classes rely on it. If a rogue sneaks up on you, he gets backstab damage. Then, when you turn around and roll initiative, if the rogue wins, he gets sneak attack damage again!

Spell casters have some great spells that can end the fight. Going first is life or death. If their spell is a full round to cast, it can be the difference between being hit once or twice.

Plus I think initiative is a fun roll.

While I never throw it out, sometimes I roll before the game and put it on a chart. Usually I only roll once fir initiative, unless it is a one on one fight. Then I might have them reroll each round.

Initiative is a must for PF and that I can agree on for the reasons you mentioned.  I mean it would be useless to get Improved Initiative if you did not roll for initiative...  

QuoteI don't use initiative in S&W because it means less dice rolling.

LESS dice rolling in a fantasy RPG especially one that is supposed to be a clone of D&D whereas dice rolling is one of the MAIN staples of the game???

QuoteIf I were elaborate I'd say your not just saving a bit of time removing the initiative dice roll, you are also reducing the overall memory load.

A simple piece of paper and a pencil removes that from the initiative process.

QuoteLESS dice rolling in a fantasy RPG especially one that is supposed to be a clone of D&D whereas dice rolling is one of the MAIN staples of the game???

Yeah, sure.  Rolling dice is a means to an end; there's nothing wrong with realizing some practice is slowing down your game flow and trimming back on that.  Not everybody plays RAW, Ancient, we've covered that.  DMs decide when to go through a process ("the merchant wants to haggle") or not ("just buy your equipment and lets get started"); this is true for any part of the game.

I see what you're getting at, I think - essentially "if you want less dice-rolling, then why are you playing that particular game", maybe.  But some folks front-load their decisions, and others make 'em on the fly.

Quote from: two_fishes;501848I'm picturing a situation like, a fighter player says he's charging into a fray only to change his mind when he realizes he's leaving the wizard unguarded for an attack declared by the GM--before any dice are rolled. Or a thief-player changing his mind about stealing a bit of treasure after the GM declares he's the target of an attack. Stuff like that.

When I'm playing a game where declaring moves is part of the rules the moves are declared in reverse initiative order, then rolled in order, because the benefit faster characters have is knowing what the others are doing. If one were to change one's mind in the rolling process, they take a penalty to the action. This creates a de facto feint rule.

In some games, declaring your move impacts your initiative. If they were to change their minds in the middle, it requires recalculation and rerolling. I don't let folks do that.

In games with simultaneous actions, what you roll usually depends on what people said they were doing. There's not usually aopportunity to change your mind. Those games tend to go pretty fast.

If your doing sort of simultaneous actions, in order of Dex, but without rules for multiple actions or feints or what have you, you have to go case by case. If players start to make things complicated with stunts and whatnot, you have to consider the length of time of your round. Many games with simultaneous actions are pretty loosey-goosey with round length. So again, you have to make a case-by-case ruling. You have to figure out which kinds of rulings you're bertter at making, and frame rounds accordingly.

With the examples you gave, I would tend to say the characters were committed to their actions and they must roll the dice. If in that situation, I felt that was harsh, I'd allow the change, but at a substantial penalty.

Making changes to mechanics of RPG?



Preposterous.