I'll assume we're not taking into consideration of surprise which is a another whole kettle of fish.

Always been a fan of group initiative rather than individual rolls to speed up game-play and try to avoid the player waiting game as each person explains their actions.  It's one of the reasons I still like systems like 1e AD&D for speeding up the encounter.

The problem for me with 1e and other similar combat initiative systems has always been either the DM or the players is at a loss in declaring the actions, where one may react with a different strategy knowing the intentions stated as someone has to speak first when initiating combat.  I know 1e tried to solve this by making the DM's intentions for the NPC's secret but that may lead to players questioning the DM and if they changed things as well based on the players actions.  Not the best solution.

Been reading the recently released Dark Dungeons X pdf where the author has updated their earlier, more stringent Dark Dungeons with some of their own enhancements they deemed necessary to assist this situation.  One of the things they tackled with this statement of intent issue, breaking it up into 3 stages where the players who want to declare actions first get a bonus on their initiative die, then the monsters go and then the players who decided to see the monsters' intentions.  Of course the players who choose to go first also are at the mercy of the DM who can then adjudicate the monsters' actions based on the over-eager players.

For me, while this does break up the combat group idea it is still manageable as there are usually only 4 players on average and can be many more monsters, who still act as a group.  It keeps the players more engaged as their choice to go first or last is more of a tactical consideration rather than just waiting their turn to do something.

The pdf is free to check out more about it if this style interests anyone and they want to read more about it.

Quote from: Shasarak;1130348Does doing everything at once work well in your games?  I assume that it does because, as you say, that is how the real world works.

Yes, adjudicating combat without rolling initiative is really simple. You just handle actions in whatever order make most sense in any given scenario, perhaps using phased-based criteria like what I listed in the rest of my original post, or just let players coordinate their actions as appropriate depending on the circumstances and their strategy, with enemies reacting to their actions (or advancing with their own strategy) in the same turn, assuming that all actions are happening at roughly the same time. You can even tell players who are ready to act in the same battle group or whatever (as opposed to those still moving into position, etc.) to roll at the same time, while you make enemy rolls, and whoever "succeeds" hits and whoever doesn't misses. You don't have to break everything down into individual initiative, which didn't even exist (AFAIK) in the earliest printing of D&D for combat not to break apart in the game.

Has anyone tried Hackmaster?  It uses a count up system where every action takes a certain number of seconds so you are never really "frozen" in place.  You declare your action, act on your count, declare your next action, if something happens you can change actions, move a certain speed per second.  It really forces you to concentrate on what is going on because there is always something happening.

Is using dice rolls to reflect abstract representative concepts dumb? I guess.
I fuggin hate these sorts of 'Did you know you can MAKE your OWN butter?' type clickbait threads or articles.

The answer is 'Depends on the group and the reason'.
I swear for being grognards and in theory being against storygames, everybody here is constantly arguing for dropping any game aspect and focusing on a collective storytelling experience. A drama club activity with a coinflip.

It feels even a waste to argue this point because its not a point but a loaded question.

Quote from: Shasarak;1130348Does doing everything at once work well in your games?  I assume that it does because, as you say, that is how the real world works.

It helps a lot with actions being done in real-time as well. No one wants to sit at a slowed-down game that may be at a crawl's pace.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1130359I swear for being grognards and in theory being against storygames, everybody here is constantly arguing for dropping any game aspect and focusing on a collective storytelling experience. A drama club activity with a coinflip.

You can role-play situations without story-gaming. That's role-play 101.

Initiative (and other grouping mechanics and rules) are a means for the GM to get a handle on the flow of combat.  Initiative that helps the GM do that is useful, and initiative that doesn't, isn't.  Since each GM will process differently the statements of players trying to do essentially simultaneous actions, then it behooves the GM to pick a system that manages that flow as efficiently as possible, given the particular players at the table.

I do surprise and side initiative. Individual initiative I find dumb by producing very flawed outcomes such as the wizard not being able to throw a fireball into a room because the barbarian won initiative and if he doesn't act then he will lose his turn. And other Stupid stuff.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1130306Why not let the PCs go first all the time?

How does that hurt the game aspect?

I think rolling for initiative is archaic. It worked once but now it's dead.

Thoughts?

Why not have the players say what the characters are going to do (the GM knowing what the NPCs and monsters are going to do and not changing it) and then have it all happen in what I call the natural order.

Spells take effect
Missiles are fired.
Then everyone in melee range takes their attacks, parries or whatever and the results are applied.
Combatants moving into range act in order of reach. Sometimes, the character with less reach doesn't get to attack.

No initiative rolls, no PC exceptionalism.

Quote from: Shasarak;1130348Does doing everything at once work well in your games?  I assume that it does because, as you say, that is how the real world works.

It works in our games, so I bet it works in theirs.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1130361You can role-play situations without story-gaming. That's role-play 101.

I don't give a shit if people enjoy role-playing, roleplaying or storygaming in their personal games.

But I primarily see projection on the side of the grognards. Sort of like communists saying 'Nuh uh we have the TRUE communist will'

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1130382It works in our games, so I bet it works in theirs.

For a certain definition of "works"

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1130385I don't give a shit if people enjoy role-playing, roleplaying or storygaming in their personal games.

But I primarily see projection on the side of the grognards. Sort of like communists saying 'Nuh uh we have the TRUE communist will'

Learn how to role-play.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1130395Learn how to role-play.

You don't know my games. Maybe I don't even fucking use initiative but I can't stand when other people demand others not use systems just because they don't like them.

Get over yourself.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1130306Why not let the PCs go first all the time?

Because their foes might be quicker.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1130306How does that hurt the game aspect?

It hurts immersion because it means that PC's are automatically the quickest draw in the setting.

Quote from: Theory of Games;1130306I think rolling for initiative is archaic. It worked once but now it's dead.

Plenty of gamers have used static initiative for decades.

IIRC, Gamma World 1e determined Initiative by DEX.

Personally, I like side vs. side initiative each round because it mixes up the ebb and flow of combat with some surprise. FOR ME (and my players) it adds excitement via randomness to the battle. AKA, its scary when your side loses Initiative when you need it, and fun when you win Initiative when you need it.

Also, suddenly knowing you either win or lost Initiative often causes you to change up tactics. That's another bonus FOR ME.

A flaw or a blindspot came up when I did team initiative.

What do you do if PCs want to fight against each other or fight over getting some item, etc. (Like say, one of them is trying to steal the MacGuffin for their employer and another PC wants to stop them, when this happens in the middle of combat.) If they're all going at the same time...? They're not really on the same "side" anymore... but then there's the monsters too.

There's also people not coordinating and just stepping over each other, like someone wanting to fireball and everyone else just running into the melee every time and ruining it...