Quote from: deathknight4044 on May 29, 2021, 03:52:25 AM
I like the idea of split side initiative (I believe that's what its called)

Basically everyone rolls initiative independently (though monsters are grouped together) and anyone who goes higher than the enemy is "group A", while anyone who goes after the enemy is "group B".

Every round is group A, enemy, group B.

I think it does a good job of merging the strengths of group initiative with the strengths of individual initiative.

This is very cool. The idea seems to have been around for a few years, and according to the comments in that link some games used a passive version of it prior to that. (First I've heard it though).

Quote from: Zalman on May 29, 2021, 09:53:58 AM

Quote from: deathknight4044 on May 29, 2021, 03:52:25 AM
I like the idea of split side initiative (I believe that's what its called)

Basically everyone rolls initiative independently (though monsters are grouped together) and anyone who goes higher than the enemy is "group A", while anyone who goes after the enemy is "group B".

Every round is group A, enemy, group B.

I think it does a good job of merging the strengths of group initiative with the strengths of individual initiative.

This is very cool. The idea seems to have been around for a few years, and according to the comments in that link some games used a passive version of it prior to that. (First I've heard it though).

Ahem!  https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/initiativeorderaction-for-large-groups/.

I'd been doing some variation of it since around 2006.  It wasn't exactly new with me, though my particular slant on it is.  I think I picked up the nugget in an ENWorld topic but could have been from a website.  I know I've discussed it multiple times since on BGG before getting fed up with them and coming here. 

One idea I've been mulling over but haven't actually experimented with is simultaneous initiative. Every participant declares what they want to do as a hidden action. Once all participants have decided, actions are revealed and then the GM adjudicates how to resolve conflicts.

e.g.
Declare Action Phase:
Fighter: "I move up and attack the Shaman"
Cleric: "I cast Bless"
Shaman: "I summon an Imp to fight with me"
Orc: "I guard the shaman against foes"

In this example we have a situation where a Fighter is going to move up and potentially get intercepted by the Orc. DM has to ad-hoc how to resolve that, "Do you take a hit and continue moving, try to tumble out of the way, or stop and fight the Orc?" To me that seems appealing because it builds in complex unplanned chaos like you would actually get in a fight, rather than hyper micromanagement of individual 5' increments and turn orders.

It's probably not a good fit for something like 4E where the tactical boardgame must be precisely defined, but seems appealing to me and I'm hoping to run a game with this in the near future.

One of the things I liked about FFG's Star Wars (and Genesys) lines was the initiative system.

Each PC and NPC rolled and generated a slot based on successes and advantages. The slots were ordered by successes with advantages used as tie breakers. So far, just the usual stuff.

What was different was that the slots were then allocated to a side (usually PC & allied NPCs vs. hostile NPCs, but sometimes there were three or more sides) and anyone on that side could use a slot from their side, but nobody could use more than one slot per turn.

It created some tactics where it was best for one character to set up a situation for another, so the characters would act in that order this turn. Next turn, they might choose differently. It also had the effect that some characters were not that good in combat directly, but they had skills & talents that let them score high on initiative and help the group's heavies to go faster than they would if they had to use only their own generated slot.

A fun question. I have three ways:

1) In our fantasy games, roll d6, and 1-3 the foes go first, 4-6 the PCs go first. They decide how to proceed on their own (sometimes we default to round-the-table, especially when we have 6+ players).

2) The shot clock method, we use for anything cinematic (it's from Feng Shui, which we love in crazy ways).

3) Playing cards: this is the Savage Worlds method, and it is very functional and easy for us. Love the stylized decks, too, and the way that edges can interact.

I want to try an initiative system where each combatant rolls a D6 and adds their dex bonus, and that number is the second in the six-second combat round, when their actions resolve. 

Large groups of creatures of the same type would get lumped together in one initiative roll.

Numbers of greater than 6 would be: 6, and numbers of less than 1 would be: 1.

Ties happen simultaneously.  If two opponents kill each other, then so be it.

I try to use Initiative as little as possible as it generally doesn't really matter. IMC Melee is resolved longest weapon first. Any shooting vs shooting will be highest attack roll resolves first. I only ask for an Initiative type roll if there is a conflict and the roll used will vary based on what action the character is doing. So if one character is trying to run up and engage a wizard before the wizard casts a spell, the moving character rolls D6+Speed value while the Wizard rolls D6+Int Mod. Again, this roll is only made if the actions can't be resolved otherwise.

Like I said, usually Initiative only matters if one of the two characters dies as a result of the attack and I have absolutely no issue with double kills.

The end result of using this system has really sped up combat resolution. It also leads to more tension during the combat round as players don't know if they will go first until after they commit to their action.

AD&D 1st Ed initiative nails it perfectly.

Each side rolls d6. Highest goes first. Common sense exceptions apply.

I've yet to find an initiative that is simpler and more comprehensive. I mean, you could try to go simpler by chopping off the exceptions part. But then part of the DM's job is to adjudicate, and the first time a player says "How could he possibly attack me first, my spear is so much longer?" rulings are back on the table. You could also try to make it more comprehensive by adding a litany of modifiers and hard special cases, but it isn't clear you could ever conceivably achieve anything that way that common sense couldn't. And it also isn't clear that such a system would even exist beyond just theory--that if in practice things get dropped because they're bogging the game down too much, have they really achieved anything?

One example of what I like about 1E initiative is when it comes to weapons speed. Instead of making it a universal modifier, something you have to add or subtract with each and every roll but that doesn't necessarily determine the outcome, it saves the hassle of having to consider it each and every round. And when it does count, it really counts. And it's just lower goes first. No math. In the end, it's roughly the same overall impact. It just saves doing lookup on 85% of initiative rolls, and saves doing arithmetic on 100% of initiative rolls. At the end of the day, handling by exception is just quicker and cleaner than handling by one bloated rule.

My ideal for game mechanics in general is I want to see a general rule that covers at least 80% of cases in a very simple way, as in I don't even want to see a '+' anywhere in it kind of simple. Let the < 20% of cases that don't fit the mold be given the extra attention they need by having own special rulings. This is also part of why I find d6 initiative to be a sweet spot. Ties are as common as can be while staying below the 20% exception threshold. This is in keeping with the Pareto rule, that

I'd also like to note something about group initiative. One of the benefits, apart from simplicity, is that it creates dramatic swings. When one side loses one round but wins the next, they get to go twice back to back and it can really produce the feel that a battle is swinging. But what I really wanted to point out is that you also don't lose anything. The GM can toy with exactly what constitutes the "group" and sub-divide all the way down to the level of the individual if that sort of detail is necessary.

So with phase group systems the one problem I see is the long strings of attacks that would tend to result. Mostly do to the tendency to focus fire. Though that tends to be less of a problem in big fights as the shear number of combatants lead to that any way.

One of the tricks I've found with initiative is that there are some versions that work really well for some scenarios, but just fall apart in others.

A prime example is actually D&D Minis... which works fantastically for combats where force size is roughly equal. The initiative winner moves any two of their units, then the loser moves any two, the winner does two more, the loser another two, etc. until every unit has moved. There was an added layer of tactical depth in which order of units you chose to activate.

You have a unit in bad shape with enemies close by? maybe activate it first if you win initiative to either go down in a blaze of glory or beat a retreat. You have an enemy unit on the ropes and won initiative? Activate units that might take it out before it can even be activated during the coming turn.

It also worked really well as a house rule with the 4E style encounter building that encouraged encounters with a roughly equal number of opponents; team initiative roll, alternate PC and opponent with each side determining who from their side goes next.

Where it falls apart is when you have a wildly disparate number of opponents on one side or the other. A guy with two really powerful units vs. 8 weaker ones gets all his actions in before at least 6, possibly all of his enemies every turn. There will never be a situation where 4 or six or even all 8 get to act ahead of those two.

Which is a similar problem with group initiative in games where damage is resolved at the same time hits are. Focus fire works far better than it would in real life because the moment the first critter drops the next person to go on that side can declare their attack on a new target, they aren't left wasting what in real life would be a simultaneous attack on a foe already being hit by two others with enough damage to bring it down.

Which means you need a separate hit and damage phase (common to many war games for precisely this reason; focus fire as a tactic is only an overwhelming advantage when there is little risk of wasting actions on overkill) which slows things down more than a lot of people enjoy.

You could probably get away with rolling immediate damage so long as the effects don't come into play until the end of everyone's turns, but initiative and turn order is always going to be an abstraction and the only question is where you decide that level of abstraction should be.

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 30, 2021, 05:40:13 AM
One of the benefits, apart from simplicity, is that it creates dramatic swings. When one side loses one round but wins the next, they get to go twice back to back and it can really produce the feel that a battle is swinging.

This swinginess is a drawback for me. I find it disrupts dramatic tension about as much as creates it, and meanwhile removes a lot of benefit of strategic play, leaving the players feeling a lack of useful agency.

However, in my experience this has very little correlation with group initiative. Rather, I find it is produced by rolling initiative every round, rather than only once at the beginning of battle. It's the doubling-up of attacks that I've found creates this swinginess, even using individual initiative, since the telling attacks often come from only one or two of the party members.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 31, 2021, 09:51:34 AM
Focus fire works far better than it would in real life because the moment the first critter drops the next person to go on that side can declare their attack on a new target, they aren't left wasting what in real life would be a simultaneous attack on a foe already being hit by two others with enough damage to bring it down.

Damn, y'all concerned about "focus fire" must have some seriously well-coordinated player groups, lucky you. I can count on my fingers the number of times any of my groups have used such a tactic in all my 40+ years of gaming. Even in groups where I was a player, and even after repeatedly pointing out the benefit of the tactic. "That guy's his, this guy's mine" is the overwhelmingly predominant attitude I have encountered in actual play.

Quote from: Zalman on May 31, 2021, 09:58:33 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 31, 2021, 09:51:34 AM
Focus fire works far better than it would in real life because the moment the first critter drops the next person to go on that side can declare their attack on a new target, they aren't left wasting what in real life would be a simultaneous attack on a foe already being hit by two others with enough damage to bring it down.

Damn, y'all concerned about "focus fire" must have some seriously well-coordinated player groups, lucky you. I can count on my fingers the number of times any of my groups have used such a tactic in all my 40+ years of gaming. Even in groups where I was a player, and even after repeatedly pointing out the benefit of the tactic. "That guy's his, this guy's mine" is the overwhelmingly predominant attitude I have encountered in actual play.

My last group loved focus fire. At least, they did when they were using it. They reasoned that "in-universe" the best way to take down tough opponents was to overwhelm them one by one. The moment the bad guys started using it against PCs, they felt that it was unfair. I used their own line against them and said that the opponents had reasoned that "in-universe" the best way to take down tough opponents was to overwhelm them one by one.

Quote from: Zalman on May 31, 2021, 09:58:33 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 31, 2021, 09:51:34 AM
Focus fire works far better than it would in real life because the moment the first critter drops the next person to go on that side can declare their attack on a new target, they aren't left wasting what in real life would be a simultaneous attack on a foe already being hit by two others with enough damage to bring it down.

Damn, y'all concerned about "focus fire" must have some seriously well-coordinated player groups, lucky you. I can count on my fingers the number of times any of my groups have used such a tactic in all my 40+ years of gaming. Even in groups where I was a player, and even after repeatedly pointing out the benefit of the tactic. "That guy's his, this guy's mine" is the overwhelmingly predominant attitude I have encountered in actual play.

My experience by contrast is that the benefits of focus fire are so overwhelming and the execution so basic that it, more than any other consideration, dominated the flow of combat and encounter design.

The main problem again is this... in real life three on three brawl there's no such thing as hit points or turn order. Everything happens simultaneously, some of those simultaneous actions will completely obviate others and any given strike could put anyone down temporarily or permanently.

By contrast, in the WotC-era D&D cyclical initiative system, each person goes one at a time and each opponent has a buffer of hit points they are guaranteed of being able to take before they fall over. Tactics that make sense in a real brawl (everybody focuses on a one-on-one so that your attacks and defenses also keep your single opponent from being able to attack your allies) are downright dangerous relative to completely negating one set of opponent attacks by stripping away all their ablative hit points and knowing you can do this because you have your own ablative protection that means you're safe from a hit or two in the process and in the long run this reduces the damage you take. And because it's sequential actions rather than simultaneous, knocking a guy out before their next action comes up in the sequence is a real boon to your side.

Hell, one of the reasons in-combat healing is such a big deal in WotC-era games is because the system encourages focus fire, which in turn means instead of everyone getting ground down by 25% in a fight, it's one guy who took 100% of their hit points while everyone else is sitting at full and that guy needs to get back in the fight if he's going to be able to have any fun (whereas everyone being down a bit means everyone is still capable of acting so the need magic healing to keep it fun is lessened).

Basically, initiative isn't some separate system, it's integral to the entire greater combat system. Group initiative with everyone one one side going at once works fine if the system has a separate resolution phase so that the other side still gets their actions even if side A wipes out side B while everyone is going strong.

Group initiative also works better when the number of opponents isn't proportional; a party vs. one dragon is going to end up being "dragon goes, everyone else goes, repeat" by the end of the first turn. Rolling for side-based initiative each turn at least offers some variety in one side or the other potentially getting to go back to back.

It starts feeling less interesting when its a five on five fight and having all five of one side resolve everything then the other side's five all resolving everything. There a system that alternates sides more is probably going to feel more dynamic; particularly if resolution occurs at the same time as the action (we shoot the orcs and they all fall down should only be a thing during a surprise round when the opponent expressly doesn't get a turn... otherwise they're attacking simultaneously and even if they're dropped by an arrow during the round they were probably still smacking someone with an axe when the shaft impaled them.

Likewise, group initiative works great with theatre of the mind combat, but less so with a grid where having an entire group act and move before the other can reposition (something that would be happening simultaneously in real life) gives disproportionate advantages to the initiative winner (ex. Being able to completely seal off a choke point).

More and more, I'm thinking I prefer something akin to the shot-clock which was one of the few things I really liked from when the crew behind Living Arcanis tried to build their own system... initiative was a roll of multiple d10s (the higher your reflexes the more dice you rolled) and using the lowest (ex. a roll of 7, 3, 5 would be a 3).

The clock starts at 1, you go when your number comes up (so when the clock hits 3 from above you go) and add the speed of your action to the count (swinging a sword might be a 4, so 3+4=7) and go again when the clock catches up to your count. Special actions like Stuns work by adding to your count (ex. You get smacked by a stun 3 so your count goes from 7 to 10) and certain reactions (ex. Opportunity Attacks) also add to your count or can only go off once until you get to act again (it depended on the reaction... the system wasn't aiming for unified mechanics, just fun ones).

You could handle large formations in the system by just syncing them up with the slowest member and have them all use actions with the same speed (pretty easy if they all carry the same weapons) so they all go again on the same count, though stuns and reactions can throw that into chaos (you COULD run each separately, but the rule of thumb that developed was that large formations didn't do count-adding reactions and stunned members continued to delay after the stun ended until their unit's next count to stay coordinated with them).

I've tried "no initiative" (you roll once, a natural 20 means you attack first AND crit - this is good also for downplaying Dex) and "narrative initiative" (they are about 60 feet away, you can trade a volley of arrows before approaching"), sometimes both in combination.

Both work very well but make things a bit chaotic. Now I usually decide which side goes first based on circumstances, and let the PCs choose among themselves who goes next.

The idea that each player rolls for initiative and THEN roll their attacks is my least favorite. The fighter waits patiently while each kobold attacks him once... and THEN attacks THREE TIMES? I don't like it.