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

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...

   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:
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

...

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...