Quote from: Bren on September 29, 2020, 02:26:56 PM
"Roughly simultaneous" works fine in an inflating hit point system like D&D where PCs aren't usually going to end up with a simultaneous kill of PC and NPC combatant.

I don't have an issue with this. People killing each other roughly simultaneously is something that happens in real life. The idea of "winning" initiative so you can kill your enemy before they kill you is largely a game construct. It's something that only happens in real life if you manage to decapitate your enemy, shoot them in the head or somehow incapacitate them completely first. Otherwise there's always a chance that they might get a final strike in before dying from your attack.

Besides, getting killed (as a PC) cuz your enemy rolled higher initiative, so you were frozen in time without being able to get a strike in, isn't any preferable to both characters (PC & NPC) killing each other.

My general feeling on this is that whether one or both characters end up killing each other should all be left up to attack success (which is still random, but made as part of an actual action) rather than order of actions from initiative.

Quote from: Bren on September 29, 2020, 02:26:56 PM(Apologies if you meant a strike rank like mechanical means of figuring out who hit first when you said, "just declare order of actions." Totally with you though on the oddity of systems using any form of freeze-tag initiative.)

I'm not familiar with RuneQuest, but based on descriptions I've seen in comments before about its strike rank mechanic, I'd say I was referring to something similar. Basically the idea that certain actions or types of attacks may take extra preparation or grant you an edge over some opponents (such as long reach weapons, like spears, vs short melee weapons, like daggers) that allow some characters to act "first" due to circumstantial factors. I think that order of actions should be based around those types of factors (like a type of phased initiative) rather than random initiative.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 29, 2020, 03:22:05 PM
My general feeling on this is that whether one or both characters end up killing each other should all be left up to attack success (which is still random, but made as part of an actual action) rather than order of actions from initiative.

The attack roll is still in there. If you miss the other guy gets his chance. Just like he would with simultaneous initiative.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 29, 2020, 03:22:05 PMI'm not familiar with RuneQuest, but based on descriptions I've seen in comments before about its strike rank mechanic, I'd say I was referring to something similar. Basically the idea that certain actions or types of attacks may take extra preparation or grant you an edge over some opponents (such as long reach weapons, like spears, vs short melee weapons, like daggers) that allow some characters to act "first" due to circumstantial factors. I think that order of actions should be based around those types of factors (like a type of phased initiative) rather than random initiative.

I'll use RQ2 as an example. There are 12 strike ranks (SR) in a round. (A round is 6-12 seconds . Either 6, 10, or 12. It's been more than 35 years since I ran RQ2 so I can't recall which it is.) Weapons have a SR based on length--longer is better. Better is lower. So the best weapon, a pike or lance, is SR= 0, a long spear might be SR=1, and a A 1 handed sword might be SR=2. Characters have a base strike rank based on Dex and (I think) their Size (simulating longer reach). I very high Dexterity might be SR=1 and human size might be SR=1 (I'm spitballing that part). So all else being equal a Pike armed opponent will always get to strike before a sword armed opponent. Which makes sense.


Drawing and firing an arrow is +5 SRs. So if I've readied an arrow I can fire once on my DEX strike rank, then again 5 strike rates later. So first arrow on SR=1, second one on SR=6. If I'm not a very high DEX person, my DEX strike rank would be SR=2 or SR=3. I could still get off 2 arrows in one round if one is already prepared, but my shots come after than high DEX Aldryami archer.

Spells take the same time as an arrow - except you add in 1 SR for every magic point in the spell (usually in the 1-4 point range, but you might stack extra magic points if you think you need to break through a defensive spell). So you know what the SR is when the archer hits, whether he can shoot the spell wielder before they get off their spell, and when that guy with a 2-handed spear charging you will hit.


Strike Ranks take getting used to the number crunching, but your SR for each weapon is written on your character sheet so it isn't any harder than checking your initiative bonus in 5E. So with practice it goes faster than rolling initiative each round and it avoids the freeze until's your turn.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 29, 2020, 11:49:01 AM

Quote from: Nerzenjäger on September 29, 2020, 05:24:05 AM
I would also postulate, that removing initiative from earlier editions of D&D also makes combat more immersive.

Or from any edition of any game. "Initiative" is the most unnecessary rule in RPG history, and one of the biggest sacred cows. It's clunky, unrealistic and you don't actually need it to run combat, so it doesn't even serve a purpose from a strictly "it's a game" point of view.

You can just declare order of actions based on readiness and character proximity to their target (or whatever "makes sense" based on circumstance), and just resolve enemy actions at the same time that PCs attack them (assuming that they're ready/able to counter-attack the PCs), treating all actions from ready combatants as roughly simultaneous. And combatants that need to make preparations (slow reloading weapons like crossbows, getting into position before attacking, etc.) may have their actions interrupted by combatants who were ready at the start of the round (fast loading weapons like bows, melee already in melee reach, etc.).

That eliminates one useless roll at the start of combat and ensures everyone pays attention rather than look at their phone while their character is frozen in time waiting for their "turn".

I could not possibly disagree more.  "Going first" actually happens,  it makes a big difference, and there is an element of chance.  A video was posted here not too long ago showing sword vs spear work.  Spear guy always usually got first poke, but not always.  Or look at old west gunfighting.  If both guys are accurate, then the faster guy wins.  You say that getting rid of a roll makes the game quicker, but tracking states like you're talking about sounds like a lot more work and time.

Re: Initiative:
Wow, talk about derailing the thread... Initiative rolls are useful if both sides are surprised or if there is obfuscation of which side should go first. Rolling for anything all the time is useless - not just init.


Re: Dramatic Scene Structure - the point of this thread:


As a GM/DM/Ref, I never liked the idea of breaking a game session(s) up into discrete forms and rules. Way back in the day, I avoided the newer Modules (like Dragonlance) because I found it took agency away from both the players and myself, and placed it into the hands of the authors of the thing. This is detrimental to the type of play we all liked. HOWEVER: When running CoC, Paranoia, and Toon I used a 2-Act structure and made sure to leave a type of buffer between "Story Agency" (meaning, the plot's requirements) and the "Player's Agency" (meaning, the PC's requirements) which my players called "The Unnecessary Event".
The Unnecessary Event is to rectify what needs to be going on with what has occurred to derail/bring it off-topic. For example: In Toon, we had a fight sequence in a hospital, but one of the PCs had the unfortunate circumstance of having her character's leg in a cast. Her Zip was toast. But the next 'scene' was a chase scene (the climax). Therefore, I used the bright idea of the PCs being introduced to a Doctor Wu, who had his nurses carry him throughout the hospital (from ward to ward) via a rickshaw. The event which the PCs witnessed was to stress they could USE the rickshaw for the damaged PC (I know, PCs aren't supposed to be damaged in Toon like this, but that was the group's insistance... as always.) Therefore, it became an entire 20 minute thing. (BTW: They did manage to steal the rickshaw, chase the insane doctor on foot across the jungle, and the damaged PC used their good leg to power the thing... why I loved Toon as a GM!)
In closing, I hate hate hate the idea of taking agency away from the players and PCs, and would much rather like to see this 'trend' die the ignoble death it deserves... mostly. Depending...

Quote from: Bren on September 29, 2020, 04:10:21 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 29, 2020, 03:22:05 PM
My general feeling on this is that whether one or both characters end up killing each other should all be left up to attack success (which is still random, but made as part of an actual action) rather than order of actions from initiative.

The attack roll is still in there. If you miss the other guy gets his chance. Just like he would with simultaneous initiative.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 29, 2020, 03:22:05 PMI'm not familiar with RuneQuest, but based on descriptions I've seen in comments before about its strike rank mechanic, I'd say I was referring to something similar. Basically the idea that certain actions or types of attacks may take extra preparation or grant you an edge over some opponents (such as long reach weapons, like spears, vs short melee weapons, like daggers) that allow some characters to act "first" due to circumstantial factors. I think that order of actions should be based around those types of factors (like a type of phased initiative) rather than random initiative.

I'll use RQ2 as an example. There are 12 strike ranks (SR) in a round. (A round is 6-12 seconds . Either 6, 10, or 12. It's been more than 35 years since I ran RQ2 so I can't recall which it is.) Weapons have a SR based on length--longer is better. Better is lower. So the best weapon, a pike or lance, is SR= 0, a long spear might be SR=1, and a A 1 handed sword might be SR=2. Characters have a base strike rank based on Dex and (I think) their Size (simulating longer reach). I very high Dexterity might be SR=1 and human size might be SR=1 (I'm spitballing that part). So all else being equal a Pike armed opponent will always get to strike before a sword armed opponent. Which makes sense.


Drawing and firing an arrow is +5 SRs. So if I've readied an arrow I can fire once on my DEX strike rank, then again 5 strike rates later. So first arrow on SR=1, second one on SR=6. If I'm not a very high DEX person, my DEX strike rank would be SR=2 or SR=3. I could still get off 2 arrows in one round if one is already prepared, but my shots come after than high DEX Aldryami archer.

Spells take the same time as an arrow - except you add in 1 SR for every magic point in the spell (usually in the 1-4 point range, but you might stack extra magic points if you think you need to break through a defensive spell). So you know what the SR is when the archer hits, whether he can shoot the spell wielder before they get off their spell, and when that guy with a 2-handed spear charging you will hit.


Strike Ranks take getting used to the number crunching, but your SR for each weapon is written on your character sheet so it isn't any harder than checking your initiative bonus in 5E. So with practice it goes faster than rolling initiative each round and it avoids the freeze until's your turn.

Yeah, that's basically what I've seen posted before, I think. It's a bit more complex and granular than I probably would prefer for game play purposes, but seems more accurate than random initiative. I tend to just reduce it to just Ready, Standard and Delayed actions.

Ready: Anyone who may act immediately at the start of the round (loaded ranged, melee within reach, etc.).

Standard: Anyone that needs minor preparations (move into position, drawing weapons, load fast loading weapons, etc.).

Delayed: Anyone who needs lengthy preparation (full move distance, full round actions, crossbow, etc.).

And treat long reach weapons like a weapon property that grants attack of opportunity against opponents attacking them with shorter reach weapons. That way if a spearman is set to meet a long charge their action still takes place at the end of the round (since their opponent must move their full move distance to get there), but they may still attempt an attack before their opponent due to a weapon-specific advantage. So orders of action don't get entirely skewed around weapon reach, but reach is still a factor.

Quote from: Mishihari on September 29, 2020, 07:22:58 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 29, 2020, 11:49:01 AM

Quote from: Nerzenjäger on September 29, 2020, 05:24:05 AM
I would also postulate, that removing initiative from earlier editions of D&D also makes combat more immersive.

Or from any edition of any game. "Initiative" is the most unnecessary rule in RPG history, and one of the biggest sacred cows. It's clunky, unrealistic and you don't actually need it to run combat, so it doesn't even serve a purpose from a strictly "it's a game" point of view.

You can just declare order of actions based on readiness and character proximity to their target (or whatever "makes sense" based on circumstance), and just resolve enemy actions at the same time that PCs attack them (assuming that they're ready/able to counter-attack the PCs), treating all actions from ready combatants as roughly simultaneous. And combatants that need to make preparations (slow reloading weapons like crossbows, getting into position before attacking, etc.) may have their actions interrupted by combatants who were ready at the start of the round (fast loading weapons like bows, melee already in melee reach, etc.).

That eliminates one useless roll at the start of combat and ensures everyone pays attention rather than look at their phone while their character is frozen in time waiting for their "turn".

I could not possibly disagree more.  "Going first" actually happens,  it makes a big difference, and there is an element of chance.  A video was posted here not too long ago showing sword vs spear work.  Spear guy always usually got first poke, but not always.  Or look at old west gunfighting.  If both guys are accurate, then the faster guy wins.  You say that getting rid of a roll makes the game quicker, but tracking states like you're talking about sounds like a lot more work and time.

A guy with a sword striking a spearman first is a outlier, and largely a matter of skill, not chance. A random initiative roll does not take any of this into account. Most systems don't even acknowledge reach outside of "you can strike someone 10 feet away". And people in gunfights can kill each other as well. If they don't get shot in the head they might even get one out before dying even after being shot.

All of these factors are better handled through attack rolls. If the spearman fails his attack, but swordsman hits, maybe the spearman couldn't angle his spear into position in time and the swordsman managed to slip by his side and sneak one hit in. If a dueling gunman hits by a wide margin, causing enough damage to mortally wound their opponent, and the other fails by a wide margin as well, maybe the winning gunman struck before the other one even shot.

And tracking order of actions through phases is extremely simple through GM fiat. I just have to resolve actions in whatever order I want to as GM. Who goes when is usually a matter of common sense, and I can use the guidelines I mentioned in the reply above to keep it consistent. I don't even have to note down who goes when or who rolled what, and players don't have to know. They just have to be ready for when I call out to resolve their action.

Quote from: VisionStorm link=topic=42740.msg1149039#msg1149039

Quote from: Mishihari link=topic=42740.msg1149022#msg1149022I could not possibly disagree more.  "Going first" actually happens,  it makes a big difference, and there is an element of chance.  A video was posted here not too long ago showing sword vs spear work.  Spear guy always usually got first poke, but not always.  Or look at old west gunfighting.  If both guys are accurate, then the faster guy wins.  You say that getting rid of a roll makes the game quicker, but tracking states like you're talking about sounds like a lot more work and time.

A guy with a sword striking a spearman first is a outlier, and largely a matter of skill, not chance. A random initiative roll does not take any of this into account. Most systems don't even acknowledge reach outside of "you can strike someone 10 feet away". And people in gunfights can kill each other as well. If they don't get shot in the head they might even get one out before dying even after being shot.

All of these factors are better handled through attack rolls. If the spearman fails his attack, but swordsman hits, maybe the spearman couldn't angle his spear into position in time and the swordsman managed to slip by his side and sneak one hit in. If a dueling gunman hits by a wide margin, causing enough damage to mortally wound their opponent, and the other fails by a wide margin as well, maybe the winning gunman struck before the other one even shot.

And tracking order of actions through phases is extremely simple through GM fiat. I just have to resolve actions in whatever order I want to as GM. Who goes when is usually a matter of common sense, and I can use the guidelines I mentioned in the reply above to keep it consistent. I don't even have to note down who goes when or who rolled what, and players don't have to know. They just have to be ready for when I call out to resolve their action.

I'm a bit confused.  You seem to be arguing both for eliminating initiative from games and for handling initiative by fiat.  Those are mutually exclusive positions.  Perhaps you could clarify?

Sure you can handle initiative through attack mechanics and then create the fiction to include order of attack, but I prefer to match the mechanics of a game a bit closer to the fiction.  Also removing initiative eliminates some tactical depth, which I generally prefer not to do.  And for me, the most compelling argument was my experience switching from D&D 2E to 3E.  I found 3E combat much less interesting exciting, and the biggest reason was switching from rolled initiative to cyclical.

Regarding: Initiative,


"Han Solo shot simultaneously." Just doesn't work.  Striking first is a real world tactic, both on the battlefield and in personal combat.  Numerous innovations have come i to being to ensure that a combatant can land the first blow, such as longer weapons (pikes, spears, rapiers) to lighter weapons (smallswords, spadroons), quick-draw holsters, even conbat techniques like the fencing lunge and Iai-Do.  What most initiative systems get wrong, is oftimes opponents will hit each other simultaneously.  With disasterous results. 

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 30, 2020, 07:11:30 AM
Regarding: Initiative,


"Han Solo shot simultaneously." Just doesn't work.  Striking first is a real world tactic, both on the battlefield and in personal combat.  Numerous innovations have come i to being to ensure that a combatant can land the first blow, such as longer weapons (pikes, spears, rapiers) to lighter weapons (smallswords, spadroons), quick-draw holsters, even conbat techniques like the fencing lunge and Iai-Do.  What most initiative systems get wrong, is oftimes opponents will hit each other simultaneously.  With disasterous results.

Removing the initiative roll doesn't remove "striking first". It just makes combat faster and wraps these things into the attack rolls made.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 30, 2020, 12:41:16 AMYeah, that's basically what I've seen posted before, I think. It's a bit more complex and granular than I probably would prefer for game play purposes, but seems more accurate than random initiative. I tend to just reduce it to just Ready, Standard and Delayed actions.

Yes, we seem to agree in principle with any disagreement about how segments to divide the round into for deciding who acts before whom.

Especially in a level-based, inflating hit point system like D&D your division into Ready, Standard, and Delayed seems workable. I think I'd like this better than the initiative the DMs of seen are using in 5E.

I have a question on your procedure. In what order are actions declared. Often there's an advantage if I know what my opponent is trying to do before I decide what I'm going to try.

I think this relates to part of the reason for why rolled initiative is so often seen. The GM can't hear if everyone talks at once, so someone needs to declare their action first, then second, and so on. Some people may be unhappy if the order of declaration is always the same, others may be unhappy if the order is unrelated to player action or character ability (e.g. player to the left of the GM declares first, then proceed clockwise), still others want an element of randomness to simulate the vagaries and uncertainty of combat. Rolling initiative (either each round or once for each combat) provides an order that isn't the same every single time and may partly satisfy the other desires.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 30, 2020, 07:11:30 AMWhat most initiative systems get wrong, is oftimes opponents will hit each other simultaneously.  With disasterous results.

That's yet another advantage of strike ranks. If, for example, if two opponents both hit on SR 8 then those attacks are simultaneous and a mutual wounding or kill may result.

Quote from: Mishihari on September 30, 2020, 06:35:10 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm link=topic=42740.msg1149039#msg1149039

Quote from: Mishihari link=topic=42740.msg1149022#msg1149022I could not possibly disagree more.  "Going first" actually happens,  it makes a big difference, and there is an element of chance.  A video was posted here not too long ago showing sword vs spear work.  Spear guy always usually got first poke, but not always.  Or look at old west gunfighting.  If both guys are accurate, then the faster guy wins.  You say that getting rid of a roll makes the game quicker, but tracking states like you're talking about sounds like a lot more work and time.

A guy with a sword striking a spearman first is a outlier, and largely a matter of skill, not chance. A random initiative roll does not take any of this into account. Most systems don't even acknowledge reach outside of "you can strike someone 10 feet away". And people in gunfights can kill each other as well. If they don't get shot in the head they might even get one out before dying even after being shot.

All of these factors are better handled through attack rolls. If the spearman fails his attack, but swordsman hits, maybe the spearman couldn't angle his spear into position in time and the swordsman managed to slip by his side and sneak one hit in. If a dueling gunman hits by a wide margin, causing enough damage to mortally wound their opponent, and the other fails by a wide margin as well, maybe the winning gunman struck before the other one even shot.

And tracking order of actions through phases is extremely simple through GM fiat. I just have to resolve actions in whatever order I want to as GM. Who goes when is usually a matter of common sense, and I can use the guidelines I mentioned in the reply above to keep it consistent. I don't even have to note down who goes when or who rolled what, and players don't have to know. They just have to be ready for when I call out to resolve their action.

I'm a bit confused.  You seem to be arguing both for eliminating initiative from games and for handling initiative by fiat.  Those are mutually exclusive positions.  Perhaps you could clarify?

Sure you can handle initiative through attack mechanics and then create the fiction to include order of attack, but I prefer to match the mechanics of a game a bit closer to the fiction.  Also removing initiative eliminates some tactical depth, which I generally prefer not to do.  And for me, the most compelling argument was my experience switching from D&D 2E to 3E.  I found 3E combat much less interesting exciting, and the biggest reason was switching from rolled initiative to cyclical.

I treat Initiative and Order of Actions are as separate things. Order of actions refers to the order in which actions are resolved in combat. Initiative, as used in D&D and most systems, is a game mechanic that is used to randomly determine order of actions. It is not order of actions itself, but a mechanism used to determine order of actions.

The problem with the initiative mechanic is that it organizes actions randomly instead of based around the tactical circumstances actually unfolding in the game. You don't really get additional tactical options, you get a random order of actions that may actually mess with your tactics and get told (by fickle dice gods) when you're allowed to resolve those actions, whether it makes sense or not. If you're already in the middle of a melee at the start of combat, but a guy charging from halfway across the room rolled higher "initiative" you get to wait your "turn"—inches away from your enemy—till the guy 60 feet away runs half the length of the room and cuts down the enemy right in front of you before you could. Somehow.

I've seen people use this sort of scenario as an opportunity to make up excuses to explain things in terms of initiative. A guy 60' away went first against an opponent inches away from you? Maybe you were distracted by the design of your enemy's cod piece and the other guy caught up! Someone always catches up when you're looking at someone else's dick, amirite?

I see it as an immersion breaking intrusion that interferes with game play and my ability as GM to manage combat how I want. I'm in a constant state of sucking it up and following the dictates of the dice gods rather than narrating WTF I think is going on in combat as the actual GM who's supposed be in charge of the whole thing.

Random initiative also assumes that actions can't occur or be resolved simultaneously, when in reality people can bash their heads at the same time, and telling players that are attacking the same group of enemies to make their attack roll at the same time (and the GM also rolling for those enemies) is perfectly doable as well. I don't lose track of WTF is happening in combat if I tell three players melee-attacking the same group of orcs to roll d20 at the same time. It's all part of the same engagement. It's really easy to parse.

Unless I have people doing different stuff, I don't need to break resolution into different slots to determine when I'm going to handle each action. And if that's the case, I don't need the dice telling me when I'm supposed to resolve those actions. I can figure that out on my own and handle it in whatever order I think it's appropriate based on whatever situation is going on, rather than at the moment the dice dictate that it should be.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on September 30, 2020, 07:11:30 AM
Regarding: Initiative,


"Han Solo shot simultaneously." Just doesn't work.  Striking first is a real world tactic, both on the battlefield and in personal combat.  Numerous innovations have come i to being to ensure that a combatant can land the first blow, such as longer weapons (pikes, spears, rapiers) to lighter weapons (smallswords, spadroons), quick-draw holsters, even conbat techniques like the fencing lunge and Iai-Do.  What most initiative systems get wrong, is oftimes opponents will hit each other simultaneously.  With disasterous results.

"Han shot first" is a surprise attack, not random initiative. Greedo failed to notice Han was lining up his gun and Han shot him first in the surprise round. Pretty much everything that people think could be explained as "initiative" is better handled through attack rolls, surprise or special weapon properties.

Quote from: Bren on September 30, 2020, 01:06:23 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 30, 2020, 12:41:16 AMYeah, that's basically what I've seen posted before, I think. It's a bit more complex and granular than I probably would prefer for game play purposes, but seems more accurate than random initiative. I tend to just reduce it to just Ready, Standard and Delayed actions.

Yes, we seem to agree in principle with any disagreement about how segments to divide the round into for deciding who acts before whom.

Especially in a level-based, inflating hit point system like D&D your division into Ready, Standard, and Delayed seems workable. I think I'd like this better than the initiative the DMs of seen are using in 5E.

I have a question on your procedure. In what order are actions declared. Often there's an advantage if I know what my opponent is trying to do before I decide what I'm going to try.

I think this relates to part of the reason for why rolled initiative is so often seen. The GM can't hear if everyone talks at once, so someone needs to declare their action first, then second, and so on. Some people may be unhappy if the order of declaration is always the same, others may be unhappy if the order is unrelated to player action or character ability (e.g. player to the left of the GM declares first, then proceed clockwise), still others want an element of randomness to simulate the vagaries and uncertainty of combat. Rolling initiative (either each round or once for each combat) provides an order that isn't the same every single time and may partly satisfy the other desires.

I ask everyone what they're going to do at the start of the round and advise them about possible consequences based on what going on and what they should be able know in those circumstances. If enemies are loading up a catapult or something and they're in view I let players know. If enemies are obscured I may ask for a Perception check or something, or PCs may have to move into a better vantage point (and potentially use up the round to gather intel) to see what's going on.

Once everyone's actions are declared, actions flow from there in whatever order I deem appropriate, letting players know ahead of time if their action is going to take longer due to extra preparations or having to move into position first, etc.

I recall sometime in 2nd edition initiative in some games became a mess based on weapon size/weapon speed etc; which I'm told made some logical sense but which I never bothered committing to memory and just went when I was told it was my turn, as I recall smaller weapons went before larger ones and that seems backwards to me due to reach.


I'm satisfied with the way it was handled in D6 Star Wars, episode/scene/round.

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 30, 2020, 05:32:37 PM
I ask everyone what they're going to do at the start of the round...

Is that asked of all the players as a group or do you ask each player individually? What I'm trying to figure out is in what order the players announce their actions and what is the order based on.

Quote from: Slipshot762 on September 30, 2020, 06:16:04 PM
I recall sometime in 2nd edition initiative in some games became a mess based on weapon size/weapon speed etc; which I'm told made some logical sense but which I never bothered committing to memory and just went when I was told it was my turn, as I recall smaller weapons went before larger ones and that seems backwards to me due to reach.

Reach was handled IIRC with "set for charge" rules.