For D&D my preferred method has always been D20 + Dexterity modifier, as per Third Edition.

Shatterzone was pretty awesome with its group-based Initiative based on its card deck.

My favorite these days in Savage Worlds because the visual aid of the cards displayed on the table means everyone can see who is going first with high cards down to the lowest cards on the table and this helps keep up the pace of combat or chase by going in order.

I'm a big fan of the A&8/HackMaster count system. It keeps everyone involved and is very quick.

As I see it, traditional initiative (such as in recent D&D) really doesn't matter after the first turn. It's just an arbitrary ordering.

If you do turn-by-turn rolling, then sometimes there will be double actions, but those average out - since every double action leads to a double-action by the opposing side.

Example 1: Super-fast guy A fights super-slow guy B. Order of actions is ABABABABAB. There are never double actions. The only benefit of A's super-high initiative is the first action.

Example 2: Medium-fast guy A fights average guy B. There will be some doubled actions, but it averages out.  Actions might be ABBAABABAB or BAABABABAB.


That's why I tend to go with special handling for initial actions, and then just go around the table after that.

Quote from: jhkim;823475As I see it, traditional initiative (such as in recent D&D) really doesn't matter after the first turn. It's just an arbitrary ordering.

... And it was always just an arbitrary ordering. It's just that somehow, a lot of gamers have come to the conclusion that it models something real, instead of just being a way to keep people from fighting over who speaks first.

That's why your method, which probably isn't that different from my method described earlier, works just as well as the complicated systems in some RPGs. The only time order matters is when one action might interrupt another, so you could actually not bother with initiative at all and have simultaneous rolls until an interrupt condition shows up.

"Anyone have any unnusual actions they want to do this turn? OK, everyone roll their attacks or actions... These opponnents were injured or killed. Now they attack... OK next turn."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;823036I mean the problem of handling 5000 attacks.

How on earth could all 5000 of them make attacks on a single target in a given round?

Quote from: TristramEvans;823544How on earth could all 5000 of them make attacks on a single target in a given round?

Really long, skinny arms?

2,000 year old mummy morning breath. Times 5,000.

Quote from: TristramEvans;823544How on earth could all 5000 of them make attacks on a single target in a given round?

Think of it cinematically. When you have a swarm of undead they don't just stand in line, they literally flood over you until you disappear in the swarm. At that point, it doesn't really matter.

Quote from: jhkim;823475As I see it, traditional initiative (such as in recent D&D) really doesn't matter after the first turn. (...)

Example 1: Super-fast guy A fights super-slow guy B. Order of actions is ABABABABAB. There are never double actions. The only benefit of A's super-high initiative is the first action.

Example 2: Medium-fast guy A fights average guy B. There will be some doubled actions, but it averages out.  Actions might be ABBAABABAB or BAABABABAB.

Two counter points:

If you went with a "first in, last out" method (low initiative has to declare actions first, but resolution is in opposite order) then it would very much make a difference who won initiative, and in your example 1 the super-fast guy would have a tactical advantage even in "boring" ABABAB order.

And even if everything averages out in your second example it would also make a big difference if in round 5 of a given combat one of the combatants is down to 1 hp - yes, probably the orc is toast next round but do I get to take him out before he can deal another d6 damage to me? Can I loose my arrow before the bad guy cuts the rope of the portcullis?

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;823691Two counter points:

If you went with a "first in, last out" method (low initiative has to declare actions first, but resolution is in opposite order) then it would very much make a difference who won initiative, and in your example 1 the super-fast guy would have a tactical advantage even in "boring" ABABAB order.

And even if everything averages out in your second example it would also make a big difference if in round 5 of a given combat one of the combatants is down to 1 hp - yes, probably the orc is toast next round but do I get to take him out before he can deal another d6 damage to me? Can I loose my arrow before the bad guy cuts the rope of the portcullis?

I can't recall if jhkim is using simultaneous resolution. If so, then the 1hp combatant doesn't matter since the result of both hits occur simultaneously. So it doesn't matter who rolls first. as both will still hit. (Though I would argue that simultaneous resolution isn't really a difference in initiative, just a difference in rolling procedure and of course it that case one might as well just go around the table.)

Quote from: Telarus;8236622,000 year old mummy morning breath. Times 5,000.

I sit corrected. It actually is 5000 attacks.

Over the years I've tried various forms of initiative - per side or per individual, every round or once at the start. I experimented with various systems before stumbling upon this system which immediately stuck:

Attacks/spells are resolved one group of combatants at a time. Within each group everyone rolls a d6 and it is resolved in that order. (Ties are simultaneous).


For example, if one round A&B are fighting X and C is fighting Y then first A,B and X roll initiative and resolve their attacks in order, next C&Y roll initiative and resolve their attacks in order.

Because it is resolved in small groups, there is not a big gap between A attacking X and X attacking A, so you only need player A's attention once to cover both attacks. Hence despite rolling initiative for every character every round, it counter-intuitively goes faster. There is no book-keeping required, or counting down of initiatives. As we all sit round a table and use miniatures or counters, I just point to the group to be resolved, everyone in that group rolls a d6 and puts it next to their miniature or counter, then we remove it when it's our go.

If you make a missile attack or cast a spell at someone in a group then you are part of that group, but area attacks always go last (this seems plausible, but the true reason is because otherwise the whole combat would be one group and everyone would have to roll initiative together).

Note that this system assumes all actions for the round are declared first, and then all actions are resolved; that is, there is no initiative order for declarations. The order is simply players declare, followed by the DM. It is incumbent upon the DM to strive to be impartial.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;823691Two counter points:

If you went with a "first in, last out" method (low initiative has to declare actions first, but resolution is in opposite order) then it would very much make a difference who won initiative, and in your example 1 the super-fast guy would have a tactical advantage even in "boring" ABABAB order.

I agree - and this isn't a counter-point, because I was referring specifically to traditional initiative, as in D&D and other games.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;823691And even if everything averages out in your second example it would also make a big difference if in round 5 of a given combat one of the combatants is down to 1 hp - yes, probably the orc is toast next round but do I get to take him out before he can deal another d6 damage to me? Can I loose my arrow before the bad guy cuts the rope of the portcullis?

I agree that doubled actions - i.e. AABBAABB - makes a difference to the game play. The question is, what is that supposed to represent? Is it important for believability or some other reason to have that occasional doubling?

In general, I find that doubled actions is bad for believability to me. It increases the feeling that one character is standing still while the opponent does a bunch of stuff.

Just wrote something about initiative. Sorry for the necro...

http://blog.guildredemund.net/2017/04/03/roll-initiative/

Quote from: nDervish;819670I also think that "popcorn initiative" (after acting, you choose who goes next) looks interesting, but I've never actually tried it.

IMO, it's absolute garbage in absolute play. The decision of who to toss initiative to is completely dissociated and introduces a boatload of awkward record-keeping that bogs down combat.

Of course, I have a similar dislike for rolling initiative every round -- busy-work bookkeeping just isn't that interesting for me.

So... I keep seeing mention of the Hackmaster counting up initiative system.  I wouldn't mind finding an initiative system that takes things like weapon reach, speed or type of action into consideration - as long as it isn't too difficult or fiddly.  I kinda like what LordVreeg has posted, though it seems like a lot of extra die rolling. In all my years, I never tried AD&D segments.  Is the hackmaster system worth checking out?  Can someone give a short description of it? Does anyone have experience with it good or bad?