I ran a great 5e D&D game session on Sunday for 8 players, it went well but the 3e-5e D&D individual initiative system is slow for that size of party. I'd like something faster, geared at large parties in traditional dungeon-crawl play, and something that doesn't give the stop-motion feel of 3e-5e combat. What is your favourite fast-playing initiative/action-sequence system for games with large parties? How does it work?

One initiative score for each group type (fixed at an average) and the players roll individually.

i.e. one fixed score for the 12 goblins, one fixed score for the charmed Ogre and one fixed score for the Evil Wizard.

Players roll each round but you don't. You just keep three numbers in your head.

i.e. Intiative becomes a target to roll each round for the players.

Diplomatic initiative. There are no initiative rolls. When a player goes, they pick who goes after them; usually they must pick an enemy. Same for the GM.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038175One initiative score for each group type (fixed at an average) and the players roll individually.

i.e. one fixed score for the 12 goblins, one fixed score for the charmed Ogre and one fixed score for the Evil Wizard.

Players roll each round but you don't. You just keep three numbers in your head.

i.e. Intiative becomes a target to roll each round for the players.

I like this.

So something like: the GM sets a target number (eg 11+monster DEX mod) to act before the monsters act. Players roll, those who beat number go as a group, those who lose go after the monsters. Repeat each round.

I think this could work out a lot faster than iterative init needing a tracker board, and from the player side they should be happy as they still get to roll init - perhaps even happier.

Iterative cyclical intiative is one of those things that looks good in theory but has deleterious effects in practice, such as players 'switching off' after their turn. Restoring a proper round-based system I think has a lot of advantages.

Quote from: S'mon;1038179I like this.

So something like: the GM sets a target number (eg 11+monster DEX mod) to act before the monsters act. Players roll, those who beat number go as a group, those who lose go after the monsters. Repeat each round.

I think this could work out a lot faster than iterative init needing a tracker board, and from the player side they should be happy as they still get to roll init - perhaps even happier.

Iterative cyclical intiative is one of those things that looks good in theory but has deleterious effects in practice, such as players 'switching off' after their turn. Restoring a proper round-based system I think has a lot of advantages.

I agree with you. And the players don't notice the simplification of the math "behind the screen" either. So win-win.

Someone rolls d6 for party (rotates each time), referee rolls d6 for monsters. High roll side goes first by dex (or in the order it wants). Ties re-rolled. Simple, fast.

Quote from: Chainsaw;1038181Someone rolls d6 for party (rotates each time), referee rolls d6 for monsters. High roll side goes first by dex (or in the order it wants). Ties re-rolled. Simple, fast.

Seems to me it would be simpler & better to just roll a d6 and 4-6 players go first.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038180I agree with you. And the players don't notice the simplification of the math "behind the screen" either. So win-win.

I'm playtesting it Saturday. thanks!

Quote from: S'mon;1038179I like this.

So something like: the GM sets a target number (eg 11+monster DEX mod) to act before the monsters act. Players roll, those who beat number go as a group, those who lose go after the monsters. Repeat each round.

I think this could work out a lot faster than iterative init needing a tracker board, and from the player side they should be happy as they still get to roll init - perhaps even happier.

Iterative cyclical intiative is one of those things that looks good in theory but has deleterious effects in practice, such as players 'switching off' after their turn. Restoring a proper round-based system I think has a lot of advantages.

I've been doing this since about halfway through the 3E run, then adapted it to 4E, and now 5E.  It works great in 5E.  

The one minor difference from what Mike the Mage said is that I use "initiative groups" a little more abstract.  I've found that one initiative target number is usually enough, occasionally two target numbers when the opponents have drastically different native initiatives, and very rarely (as in, once or twice in a 100+ hours of play), using three target numbers.  Usually that last one is a mixed group with a boss.  Likewise, if you have a really large group of monsters, even if all the same type, it's better to have two targets, just to keep the monsters from all going at once.  More than 3 targets, and usually more than 2, is a waste of time, because of the way your typical set of player rolls will clump anyway. Sometimes with a boss, it is better to just roll for them as if they were a player, and have their target move every round.

For example, if it's just a few goblins and hobgoblins, I'll average their initiative values, and give one target.  If it's 30 goblins, instead of one group at TN 12, I'll do two groups with targets at 10/14 or 9/15.   My reasons are practical.  I've found that this creates the best flow to the combats--both in speed and in the feel of how it plays.  With 7-9 players, I routinely run typical combats in 40% of the time that it takes with the standard rules.  (I measured this very carefully while playtesting, and then redid the tests in each edition as I adapted and tweaked.)  Though part of my savings is due to players get bored in the standard rules, but now stay engaged, rather than due to anything inherent in the system.  I'm happy to go faster whatever the reason, but I don't how that would translate exactly to a group of, say 7 very engaged players.  Some benefit, but not as much as I saw.

The only other thing you need to work out in 5E (and 4E) is how to adjudicate "end of creature's next turn" or similar phrases in the rules.  I'm still not 100% settled on my method, but am probably 90%+ settled.  Basically, I've gone almost entirely with "the round is a round, and at the end of it, stuff stops."  Even if that doesn't help you very much if you are moving at the end of the round.  End of your "next turn" thus translates to "end of the next round" regardless of when they occurred in the round.  Also, I don't allow coordination in an initiative group, unless the players are decisive and vocal about exactly what they are doing.  Everyone that goes before monster group A all goes together.  If player A says right off that they attack Monster X, and B immediately joins in on the same one without knowing results, I'll allow some coordination (such as sneak attack).  But B doesn't get to wait to see how A's attacks went before deciding, unless they want to go after X.  

Oh, and I should mention the one nonsensical thing that the players invented.  Roll a natural 20 on initiative, you get to go before and after the monsters.  If there are multiple groups, you go in the first and last groups.  We tried it on a whim, and the players love it.  It is has led to some interesting situations, too, especially in 5E, where the casters can't normally cast more than one spell.  Just a few weeks ago, we had a wizard tormented on whether to try a medicine check on a downed friend or cast a spell.  The player rolled a 20.  Problem solved.  Run over and try the first aid.  Fail the check miserably!  Problem back!  I call the rule "nonsensical" because in theory it has no symmetry and makes no sense, but in play it adds another twist to the flow that happens just enough to be interesting, and makes up a little for the monsters acting together.

Quote from: S'mon;1038195I'm playtesting it Saturday. thanks!

Have a great game and let me know how it goes!

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1038204Oh, and I should mention the one nonsensical thing that the players invented.  Roll a natural 20 on initiative, you get to go before and after the monsters.  If there are multiple groups, you go in the first and last groups.  We tried it on a whim, and the players love it.  It is has led to some interesting situations, too, especially in 5E, where the casters can't normally cast more than one spell.  Just a few weeks ago, we had a wizard tormented on whether to try a medicine check on a downed friend or cast a spell.  The player rolled a 20.  Problem solved.  Run over and try the first aid.  Fail the check miserably!  Problem back!  I call the rule "nonsensical" because in theory it has no symmetry and makes no sense, but in play it adds another twist to the flow that happens just enough to be interesting, and makes up a little for the monsters acting together.

Oh that is a fun rule!:cool: Though, I might rule that a natural 1 means you freeze with panic or indecision.

I use group initiative, and only (at most) 1 roll per encounter. After that we just take turns. Often there is no roll at all, because who goes first is made obvious by the circumstances. Surprise is treated as simply winning initiative (plus backstabbing opportunities of course). The players decide each round which of them acts first on their turn, and this allows them to develop more complex and interesting strategies.

Slightly OT tangent: it's always bugged me that "initiative" switches back and forth from round to round. As if every minute (or every 10 seconds or whatever) the combatants completely lose track of each other and have to re-establish who gets the jump on the other ... it's always seemed utterly absurd to me. Rationalizations involving separation and re-engagement during minute-long combat rounds don't mesh well with the idea that a single attack involves many strikes, feints, and parries to begin with -- after engagement. I understand folks piece out the seconds to make sense of it, and point somewhere in between a strike and a feint and say "now is when initiative happens, right there!". To me it creates a strong feeling of cognitive dissonance.

More importantly though is the game effect of going twice in a row -- which happens quite regularly when initiative is rolled each round. The power imbalance this creates during the course of any battle between even remotely equal forces will decide the outcome almost every time. The chaos of the dice becomes the primary staple of combat, and the players' actions mostly irrelevant. I've seen it happen time and again, and it's never felt either fun or "realistic" to me in any way. In fact, one side suddenly being able to attack/cast/whatever twice in a row -- for no other reason than the dice said so -- has always felt utterly artificial and ad hoc to me.

Quote from: Zalman;1038222The power imbalance this creates during the course of any battle between even remotely equal forces will decide the outcome almost every time.

Yes, but in D&D the forces are rarely remotely equal; usually the PCs are much more powerful and will reliably win.

Does D&D have you re-roll initiative every turn?

For GURPS, I write out (and/or lay out with counters) the initiative sequence, and use pencil (or counter movement) when there are changes.

For large battles, I've sometimes used a quick computer program to generate the sequence.

Roll a d6, go in the segment of the other side's roll.  Add casting time or activation modifiers for casters or magic item users if applicable.  Resolve corner cases (charging, tied rolls where both fighters are using weapons, etc.) by the various rules.

Simple is good, to a point.  But it isn't intrinsically better or a design preference unto itself, and I prefer reasonable complexity so long as the overall time overhead remains low.  I can resolve these corner cases in a few moments, so I prefer this level of complexity.  The players don't need to calculate their order of action so it isn't a burden on them.

Quote from: Zalman;1038222More importantly though is the game effect of going twice in a row -- which happens quite regularly when initiative is rolled each round. The power imbalance this creates during the course of any battle between even remotely equal forces will decide the outcome almost every time. The chaos of the dice becomes the primary staple of combat, and the players' actions mostly irrelevant. I've seen it happen time and again, and it's never felt either fun or "realistic" to me in any way. In fact, one side suddenly being able to attack/cast/whatever twice in a row -- for no other reason than the dice said so -- has always felt utterly artificial and ad hoc to me.

This is a far more relevant concern for TSR D&D than it is for WotC D&D.  The latter, being designed for cyclic initiative, has a different flow when you change to side initiative, than what the TSR versions do normally.  That said, the change that Mike the Mage and I use is more of a hybrid thing, going part way back to TSR D&D, but not all the way.  For one thing, there is a big difference between "Side A goes, then Side B, next time it may reverse" compared to "Some players go, monsters go, other players go, repeat next round with a slightly different list of players."  Then if you have a lot of monsters, divide them into two groups (however you want to do that), and you have "Fast players, Fast monsters, Average players, Slow monsters, Slow Players, repeat with different players in each group," you get yet another dynamic.  

The proposed change is more difficult to explain than it is to do, but it works extremely well once you get it.  At least it does with WotC D&D.  I have my doubts about how well it would go with TSR D&D.