TheRPGSite

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.:D

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.

Quote from: S'mon;1038185Seems to me it would be simpler & better to just roll a d6 and 4-6 players go first.

Except that doesn't feel like D&D to me, so I can't agree with "better."

I have come to like players only roll, dex check (ie dex or less). If success, they go before monsters. If fail, they go after. Players sort out their own order. DM doesnt have to roll anything, and players know their own dex, so they can just yell out if they go before or after, or just yell out what they do (if before). Short and sweet.

Does make Dex more desirable. If that's an issue, possibly give each PC an initiative target (eg: avg of Int and Dex) instead. Or maybe the TN is set at 10, similar to 4e saves.

In one group that I GM for, where there are a whole lot of players, I place everyone to sit clockwise in descending Dexterity order. Initiative goes clockwise, and monsters go whenever their Dex allows. Ties are rolled off.

Also, I talk a bit about initiative in one of my blog posts.

We've been having each side roll a d6, highest goes first and re-roll ties (which I think has the added bonus of making Dexterity less important).

But to make things even faster I've sometimes just let the players go first unless they're surprised. That way I don't break up the flow or tension or whatever by pausing everything and having everyone sort out who goes when.

Group Initiative, Group Mod. Best for large battles. Don't break ties, let collisions happen. Reactions and Ready Action up in value, line of sight rules can be affected by concurrnt movement. As usual, use Declaration Before Initiative, (GM decides NPCs before Declarations).

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1038278This 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.  

I've seen this initiative problem happen repeatedly in both TSR and WoTC editions, so I don't really understand what this means. Can you explain further how WoTC initiative solves this issue?

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038212Oh that is a fun rule!:cool: Though, I might rule that a natural 1 means you freeze with panic or indecision.:D

Yeah, and do the monsters also get to go twice if they roll a 20?

Quote from: Moracai;1038307In one group that I GM for, where there are a whole lot of players, I place everyone to sit clockwise in descending Dexterity order. Initiative goes clockwise, and monsters go whenever their Dex allows. Ties are rolled off.

Also, I talk a bit about initiative in one of my blog posts.

That was a very interesting post about initiative on your blog.

I'm particularly interested in this bit:
One forum post that got me thinking was about one guy's houseruled D&D(5e) initiative. They declare everything in ascending Intelligence order and resolve everything simultaneously. If any two actions are in direct relation to each other, then and only then initiative would be rolled. In one example he wrote about was some wolves attacking the party. One guy was the bait, while others took defensive positions where they would be able to shoot at the wolves when they'd run after the bait guy. No other initiative rolls required for the round except for the bait guy vs. the wolves.

I wouldnt necessarily want to declare by Int, but this is a novel idea to me.

I guess I've always kinda assumed a you go, I go approach. But why cant everything just be resolved simultaneously. Player 1 declares attacking his orc in melee. The orc is also attacking. Cant these just both roll, maybe they hit each other and the orc dies. That's fine. I suppose where you get problems is Player 2 wants to shoot the orc with his bow while this is going on. Is that still simultaneous, or maybe ranged attacks always go first. What about magic? Hmm ok ok I think there is a dnd version that does something like this, an early one, I'm sure someone will remember. Off the top of my head I would probably do something like ranged, then melee, then magic, then move.

Quote from: Zalman;1038422I've seen this initiative problem happen repeatedly in both TSR and WoTC editions, so I don't really understand what this means. Can you explain further how WoTC initiative solves this issue?

WotC initiative does not solve the issue.  If you use the "side initiative" option in the 5E DMG, you'll have much the same issue you discussed.  

What does mostly solve the issue is the asymmetrical nature of players rolling and monsters going in the middle.  There is a big difference in flow and play at the table between "Side A, Side B; then round 2, Side B, Side A" versus "Some players, monsters, Rest of Players; then round 2, Some different players, monsters, Rest of players".  It may not seem like much, but in actual play it matters.  And then if the monster group is too large or too varied to work well with that, you split into two monster groups, which leads to three player groups.  

Where the TSR/WotC distinction comes in is that it is easier to adapt WotC initiative to such a system, mainly because the players already roll individually.  Heck, in this house rule, the players barely change what they are doing at all, as far as initiative rolls.  Just say whether they beat the target or not instead of being organized in a line based on the order of their initiative rolls.  Mainly, the change in the players is one of habit and mindset--getting the players in a group together to habitually act without waiting on others, which has to be taught if they are WotC players.  

A very similar rule would probably work in TSR D&D, but I haven't done it, much less extensively play tested it.  So I don't know what exactly would be the best way to go about it.  I suspect it would require some tweaks, because it is coming at the problem from the other direction.  That is, if starting from TSR side initiative, you are mainly trying to address the objection you raised.  If starting from WotC cyclic initiative, you are mainly trying to address the speed and tedium of cyclic initiative, without going all the way to the problem of side initiative, while keeping the standard rolls much the same.  

BTW, I came at this house rule originally from something I developed as an alternate initiative system in large groups of Fantasy Hero players.  What I found then was that you can a really good result at the table if:  

A.) You have a few initiative groups--more than 2, not so many that characters or monsters often end up being in a group by themselves.  Specifically, I want it to be a frequent occurrence that 3-4 players are acting at once, because that's what I can handle at the table easily.  For me, that works out to be almost always somewhere between 3 and 5 "initiative groups".

B.) If there is modest uncertainty from round to round as to which group a player will be in.  

How you go about achieving those two objectives, and exactly where you set the number of groups, will depend upon the system being modified and your comfort level at handling multiple players at once.

Quote from: Skarg;1038448Yeah, and do the monsters also get to go twice if they roll a 20?

No, because the system is deliberately asymmetrical, and the monsters all going at once is also an advantage in some situations.  Though it is a system designed for speed of resolution, not the intricate dance of tactics.

Well, you could just switch to a single initiative roll for each group, in the style of BECMI D&D.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1038670Well, you could just switch to a single initiative roll for each group, in the style of BECMI D&D.

Yes. One issue with that is that some PCs have init-boosting class abilities & feats the players might resent being denied.

By preference I co-opt Blue Planet's initiative system (slowest first, fastest can interrupt, but that's not quick).

When I need speed we tend to roll and keep initiative and all the baddies that have the same initiative act at the same time.

When I'm REALLY in a hurry I just let the players go first in whatever order they like, then take the turn of the enemies.

Usually we'll tend to keep the same initiative round to round - to speed things up - but let people take actions to 'take stock' and raise their initiative.

Quote from: S'mon;1038678Yes. One issue with that is that some PCs have init-boosting class abilities & feats the players might resent being denied.

Hmm, yeah, that is a problem. Maybe you could use a single roll for the group, but then each player who has some kind of initiative-modifying ability gets to modify that result just for them.

D&D inititive has always been a PITA.  Individual initiative changing every round with 9 players at the table is chaos.

I do enjoy the Fate of the Norns: Ragnarock initiative system. Each combatant gets a tile, shuffle tand deal at the begining of combat, that gives the base initiative order for the whole combat. Certain abilities allow combatants to move themselves up or down the initiative chain, and the option exists of spending an action to move up or down one space.  Quick and easy to see who goes when, and still allows for a dynamic flow.

With D&D initiative type games I end up rolling once for the monsters and then calling out initiative scores in a countdown for the players to jump in when their number is called.

Easiest thing with a large group is to ignore initiative and just go clockwise around teh table.

Mine has d6 for each side, but modified for individuals or sub-groups.

I don't really get the notion that initiative order is all that difficult. Even with large groups, I've never found it a hard idea to manage.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1039352I don't really get the notion that initiative order is all that difficult. Even with large groups, I've never found it a hard idea to manage.

My issues were with the stop-motion nature of individual initiative, and players treating it as part of the in-world reality - "The ogres can't be advancing on us! It's not their turn!"

Quote from: RPGPundit;1039352I don't really get the notion that initiative order is all that difficult. Even with large groups, I've never found it a hard idea to manage.

What S'mon said, plus running games for casual players frequently.  You can have a perfectly fine RPG session with casual players, but you can't convince all of them to make a decision in combat in a timely manner.  And as soon as one dithers, the rest of the casuals attention span goes out the window.  The old tried and true method of "skip your turn" doesn't work with them, because the dithering is mostly because they are casual.  (That is, you can make them skip their turn, but it doesn't accomplish anything, because they don't get substantially better.)  I like running for large groups of casuals, otherwise.  They are often very appreciative and engaged in other parts of the game. So I've taken steps to find out what works for them.

Like I said earlier, I tested it carefully.  Combat runs in 40% of the time, compared to the standard rules--and even the attention deficit players stay mostly engaged.

S'mon,

Did you end up using it this past weekend?  How did it go?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1039463S'mon,

Did you end up using it this past weekend?  How did it go?

I tested it in my short online game last Saturday, I'm not running my regular tabletop Sunday game right now.

I posted this conclusion to our Facebook group when someone asked:

Overall pretty well - online it works best when players don't go for a tea break before posting their action FW :p - at one point I overlooked KH's turn as I forgot she had lost init to the ogres and I declared start of next turn. I may go back to only rolling init once per fight, but let players act in any order before the monsters go. Having players roll vs task DC = monster DEX+11 was definitely much faster than rolling init myself then tallying it all, and felt better. In regular system a high or low monster roll effectively negates player rolls.

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.

Yes! I ran AD&D1e last year and when you add casting times to the mix, it makes for some interesting choices in combat.

Well, most initiative rules in RPGs, not just D&D, are turn-based.