What would happen, you think, if someone were to play D&D (or any other RPG) without using initiative rules? What if the GM just got to pick who went first? Or it was assumed that actions went simultaneously more or less, based on common sense?
Would hamburgers eat people?
Have any of you actually done this?
RPGPundit
For most games I don't use initiative rules. I just let the player characters go first (unless of course it's a ambush). It's quicker this way and it gives the party a bit heroic edge allowing them to take on a larger number of foes than a more formal initiative system would allow.
I will use initiative rules if they are hardwired in the system or if I want combat to feel more scary, but mostly I find I can do without them.
Tunnels and Trolls has no initiative system. Mercenaries Spies and Private Eyes has a sloppy phase system. Both are decent games in play but require a great deal of narrative decision making. Classic Traveller is similtaneous combat so sequence doesn't matter but there are a suspicious number of dogs and cats living together eating cheese burgers in Classic Traveller.
Yes. I stopped using most forms of RPG initiative systems more than a decade ago as they were so cumbersome.
Initiative is pointless in any game without one-shot kills (where grinding through encounter takes typically 3-10 rounds). In such a case I use a system where side A that ambushes the other side B gets a free attack (actually a turn) followed by A -> B -> A -> B et cetera ad nauseatum grinding...
I use have used following initiative system in my own game system for games where one-shot casualties are rule (for example game simulates firearms use). if one side ambushes the other the ambushing side gets a free attack (actually a turn) followed by A -> B -> A -> B. If one sides does not ambush the other there is a single roll for initiative per side at the beginning of encounter which states which side gets to be A and then the game goes as A -> B -> A -> B.
The advantage of my system is that it is very fast and I as well as my players have better things to do than grinding. However, for last few years I've occasionally used a system where player characters simply go always first (A). It makes the game go even faster.
Since there are wargames with rules for simultaneous attacks (like Warhammer) I don't see why those rules couldn't be taken as the norm in an rpg.
I've done this with D&D.
I thought it was a useful exercise, because it put initiative in perspective and made me realize exactly how useful and important common sense should be, when determining who goes first.
It went like this:
Players tell me what they want to do. I decide the order of events based on common sense and situational factors.
Often, the answer was obvious. For example, if an orc is charging from 30' away, the PC crossbowman shoots before the orc can reach him and attack. If the orc is charging a spearman, the orc will cross the space but the spearman gets a chance to hit before the orc. If the orc and the PC are both trying to reach a magic portal, their speed and the distances involved determine who gets there first. A magic user casts sleep on some charging goblins. Sleep takes 1 segment (6 seconds) to cast; if the goblins' movement rate allows them to reach the magic user, they get to attack, first -- if not, then spell goes first. Et cetera.
However, other answers were not so obvious. For example, in a melee already joined, two swordsmen attack one another. Who goes first? You could go by Dex. Or you could flip a coin. Or you could...(wait for it)...roll a die! A magic user is engaged with an orc and is casting shocking grasp, while the orc is attacking with an axe. Who goes first? Again, this seems like a good place for a die roll and/or some additional rules.
So what I ended up with is that common sense will cover the demands of initiative for many situations, but a die roll and additional rules are useful in some cases. Coupling common sense with group initiative in this manner works fast and well. This is basically what I do, now.
Quote from: Soylent Green;501550For most games I don't use initiative rules. I just let the player characters go first (unless of course it's a ambush).
I have pretty much done the same with Swords & Wizardry. The good guys go first unless surprised. Individual party members go in whatever order they want, or we just go left to right around the table.
Big Bads still get to soliloquize before the action starts obviously.
Philotomy, do players get to revise their actions after hearing what others want to do?
Quote from: two_fishes;501568Philotomy, do players get to revise their actions after hearing what others want to do?
Not typically. I don't recall it coming up as an issue.
In our OD&D game the players go first, then the monsters. It doesn't seem to run any different than running D&D with initiative rolls.
Quote from: RPGPundit;501547What would happen, you think, if someone were to play D&D (or any other RPG) without using initiative rules? What if the GM just got to pick who went first? Or it was assumed that actions went simultaneously more or less, based on common sense?
A few experiences:
(1) When I first started playing OD&D, I used simultaneous action. (Everyone told me what they were doing, then I wove the action resolutions into a single, continuous moment.)
After a few sessions, I modified this slightly by ruling that characters who are knocked out of the action during a round don't get their action for the round. (Exception: Two characters are allowed to knock each other out.) This generally favored the PCs and could also lead to good moments of tension. ("I know that the goblin is going to hit me for a pretty nasty blow unless I succeed on this roll and knock him out first.")
This worked well with 3-5 players. It became too difficult to keep everything simultaneous once I got up to 6-10 players each running multiple PCs, hirelings, etc.
(2) I now use a Combat Sequence for OD&D (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/7842/roleplaying-games/justins-house-rules-for-odd) based on the Mmmmmmm! system and the pre-Runequest Perrin Conventions. This doesn't use an initiative system in the sense of determining which character goes first, but instead determines the sequence in which different actions are resolved. (With all actions of the same type still being resolved simultaneously.)
This has worked well, although some experienced players really struggle with the conceptual shift.
(3) I've recently been playing and running a lot of
Technoir. It uses a sequence system (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/9595/roleplaying-games/technoir-sequences-vs-skill-challenges) to resolve all conflicts (whether combat or otherwise). It has no initiative system: The only rule is that each participating character gets to take one action before anyone gets their second action. The GM is given the power to determine who goes next, with the general advice that going PC-NPC-PC-NPC is a pretty effective way of handling it.
This, too, has worked pretty well.
I use group initiative, and then within each group I pick the order people go in. Sometimes I sweep left to right, or vice versa, and sometimes I let whoever shouts out what they're doing first go first, and sometimes the logic of the situation makes it obvious what has to resolve first. Players announce their character's actions and then we resolve them before going on to the next person. People will occasionally shout out advice to one another, which I sometimes treat as IC (especially if the guy with the Crystal of Unfortunate Truths says it).
In one case, I resolved everyone's saving throws to survive an explosion from the periphery inwards, to heighten the tension, as saving throws across the group went from easier to harder.
The remarkable thing here, I suppose, is that it causes no confusion whatsoever and basically works without a hitch.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;501629This doesn't use an initiative system in the sense of determining which character goes first, but instead determines the sequence in which different actions are resolved. (With all actions of the same type still being resolved simultaneously.)
Interesting.
What I'm doing is a phased sequence, but the phases are always in the same order. Within a phase, the group initiative for the round determines the basic order. So, for example, missile fire and movement always goes or begins before melee attacks, but if both sides are firing bows, the side with initiative gets to roll its bow attacks first.
http://www.philotomy.com/combat_sequence.html
http://www.philotomy.com/simple_sequence.html
For those that have responded (except those on my ignore list), why do you rule that the player characters ALWAYS go first when it is combat situation and you do NOT use initiative???
The common thread is that it is faster.
It's something I've never considered - but it makes good sense. It's easy enough to compensate for any advantage it gives the PC's, if you feel that's necessary.
When it makes sense that the PCs go first, I let 'em. But most of the time it's group initiative, then they act individually in whatever order makes the most sense given the setup. Several of the players in my current group had a rough time adjusting to group rather than individual initiative.
I vaguely recall in the 2e days doing individual initiative modified by weapon/casting speed. No real desire to go back to anything that fiddly, I'm on a simplification kick.
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;501671For those that have responded (except those on my ignore list), why do you rule that the player characters ALWAYS go first when it is combat situation and you do NOT use initiative???
I don't use initiative in S&W because it means less dice rolling.
As for the PCs always going first, rather than the monsters, it seems fairer to give them the first-move advantage of 'playing white'. It also seems kind of natural in a dungeon environment where the PCs can be thought of as 'attacking' and the monsters 'defending'.
All of this changes if the PCs are caught on the hop, of course, and monsters will often try to win the advantage of surprise. Hopefully the players don't ever start to feel too complacent about it.
I have to use it. Pathfinder is rocket tag, and going first is a big advantage.
Some classes rely on it. If a rogue sneaks up on you, he gets backstab damage. Then, when you turn around and roll initiative, if the rogue wins, he gets sneak attack damage again!
Spell casters have some great spells that can end the fight. Going first is life or death. If their spell is a full round to cast, it can be the difference between being hit once or twice.
Plus I think initiative is a fun roll.
While I never throw it out, sometimes I roll before the game and put it on a chart. Usually I only roll once fir initiative, unless it is a one on one fight. Then I might have them reroll each round.
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;501671For those that have responded (except those on my ignore list), why do you rule that the player characters ALWAYS go first when it is combat situation and you do NOT use initiative???
As I said in my original post, ditching initiative can be quicker and can give the players an edge, which for a heroic kind of game like Star Wars or superheroes is in my book a good thing.
If I were elaborate I'd say your not just saving a bit of time removing the initiative dice roll, you are also reducing the overall memory load. I'm actually a fan the sort of hand free "only the players roll dice" GMing. I use it Icons and in my Fudge homebrew. The less a GM has to do in terms of bookeeping and sweating over the minutia the more he can focus on bigger picture.
But it's not a deal breaker and in some games I will use initiative rules.
I like Initiative in 1e Warhammer - everyone has a constant number, modified by their use of armour/shields. And moving first can be quite important there, since you get to slay someone before he hits you - or force him to parry instead of attacking.
The One Roll Engine, does exactly that. It runs without initiative. The sky hasn't fallen yet, so I guess we are fine :p
Good question.
There are two important facts about initiative which are little appreciated, particularly the sequencing of melee attacks:
1-
Rounds/Turns do not accurately reflect the character of engagement of adversaries in the real world. They do seem to be an essential gaming conceit however. Initiative is intimately related to rounds/turns and so also is not a realistic idea.
Initiative if it is to be used *must* therefore be a purely random concept. Why? Because those attributes (dex etc) which many wish to bring to bear on initiative would in fact increase *RATE* of attack and it makes no sense that these attributes if considered would leave RATE unchanged but merely allow the swifter to repeatedly attack early then pause longer than his slower adversary.
2-
The advantage of Initiative, in melee at least, is insignificant outside of one-shot kill scenarios.
Consider a fighter who wins *EVERY* round of initiative *ALWAYS*. His advantage is limited to at best a single extra attack at the beginning. Visualize the sequence for a winner-in-every-round A:
ABABABABABAB
which only differs from A being a loser-in-every-round:
BABABABABABA
by a single attack for A placed at the beginning.
===
There is an aesthetic problem with the DM deciding who goes first. There will be situations, particularly at the end of a fight where it feel like a story-like intrusion. It is an unnecessary responsibility for the DM and initiative remains one of the cheapest forms of excitement in gaming.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;501629A .")
(2) I now use a Combat Sequence for OD&D (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/7842/roleplaying-games/justins-house-rules-for-odd) based on the Mmmmmmm! system and the pre-Runequest Perrin Conventions. This doesn't use an initiative system in the sense of determining which character goes first, but instead determines the sequence in which different actions are resolved. (With all actions of the same type still being resolved simultaneously.)
This, too, has worked pretty well.
I've long considered adoptin a system like this but have had two reservations. The first is speed of play; have you found this sequenced method takes longer than standard D&D initiative? The second is what happens after round one; does this present believability issues after the first round. For example, it makes sense the archers go first when there is some distance between combatants, but what happens when my swordsman is right next to the archer?
Quote from: _kent_;501819Visualize the sequence for a winner-in-every-round A:
ABABABABABAB
which only differs from A being a loser-in-every-round:
BABABABABABA
by a single attack for A placed at the beginning.
The effect of this depends on the length of combat.
Compare
ABA
to
BAB
In 3e D&D with optimized characters, combat often takes 2-3 rounds so going first has a bigger effect. For games of this nature, I use initiative. I also use it at other times as suited but generally play it loose with the players reacting first most of the time. In way the adversaries have taken an action in doing whatever the DM describes. The players going first is a reaction to the initial description.
Quote from: two_fishes;501568Philotomy, do players get to revise their actions after hearing what others want to do?
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;501570Not typically. I don't recall it coming up as an issue.
I'm picturing a situation like, a fighter player says he's charging into a fray only to change his mind when he realizes he's leaving the wizard unguarded for an attack declared by the GM--before any dice are rolled. Or a thief-player changing his mind about stealing a bit of treasure after the GM declares he's the target of an attack. Stuff like that.
Most Initiative systems in RPG's assume it's only about who goes when and why. This is fine, but for my Destiny system, I decided to go a different way.
Initiative, in real-world combat, is about this: making decisions faster than your enemy, taking actions to press your advantage, keeping them off balance, and using their confusion to defeat them.
That's how conflict works. The Initiative isn't about who goes first, it's about who is in control of the conflict. One side is making decisions and acting, the other reacting. Those reacting will eventually lose.
(You can see a more full explanation here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21597).)
The more you press your attack, the more you keep the opposition off balance, the more effective you are in the combat, and the less effective the enemy is. Each round you keep The Initiative, your enemy will grow more demoralized and more confused.
I think this is an interesting take, both mechanically and from a roleplaying standpoint. Again, the above linked post (in the Game Design forum) explains this in more detail.
If you're really intent on rethinking Initiative, well this is one example of it being rethought from first principles. It is a fundamentally different conception of Initiative than most other RPG's.
Quote from: Cranewings;501749I have to use it. Pathfinder is rocket tag, and going first is a big advantage.
Some classes rely on it. If a rogue sneaks up on you, he gets backstab damage. Then, when you turn around and roll initiative, if the rogue wins, he gets sneak attack damage again!
Spell casters have some great spells that can end the fight. Going first is life or death. If their spell is a full round to cast, it can be the difference between being hit once or twice.
Plus I think initiative is a fun roll.
While I never throw it out, sometimes I roll before the game and put it on a chart. Usually I only roll once fir initiative, unless it is a one on one fight. Then I might have them reroll each round.
Initiative is a must for PF and that I can agree on for the reasons you mentioned. I mean it would be useless to get Improved Initiative if you did not roll for initiative... ;D
QuoteI don't use initiative in S&W because it means less dice rolling.
LESS dice rolling in a fantasy RPG especially one that is supposed to be a clone of D&D whereas dice rolling is one of the MAIN staples of the game???
QuoteIf I were elaborate I'd say your not just saving a bit of time removing the initiative dice roll, you are also reducing the overall memory load.
A simple piece of paper and a pencil removes that from the initiative process.
QuoteLESS dice rolling in a fantasy RPG especially one that is supposed to be a clone of D&D whereas dice rolling is one of the MAIN staples of the game???
Yeah, sure. Rolling dice is a means to an end; there's nothing wrong with realizing some practice is slowing down your game flow and trimming back on that. Not everybody plays RAW, Ancient, we've covered that. DMs decide when to go through a process ("the merchant wants to haggle") or not ("just buy your equipment and lets get started"); this is true for any part of the game.
I see what you're getting at, I think - essentially "if you want less dice-rolling, then why are you playing that particular game", maybe. But some folks front-load their decisions, and others make 'em on the fly.
Quote from: two_fishes;501848I'm picturing a situation like, a fighter player says he's charging into a fray only to change his mind when he realizes he's leaving the wizard unguarded for an attack declared by the GM--before any dice are rolled. Or a thief-player changing his mind about stealing a bit of treasure after the GM declares he's the target of an attack. Stuff like that.
When I'm playing a game where declaring moves is part of the rules the moves are declared in reverse initiative order, then rolled in order, because the benefit faster characters have is knowing what the others are doing. If one were to change one's mind in the rolling process, they take a penalty to the action. This creates a de facto feint rule.
In some games, declaring your move impacts your initiative. If they were to change their minds in the middle, it requires recalculation and rerolling. I don't let folks do that.
In games with simultaneous actions, what you roll usually depends on what people said they were doing. There's not usually aopportunity to change your mind. Those games tend to go pretty fast.
If your doing sort of simultaneous actions, in order of Dex, but without rules for multiple actions or feints or what have you, you have to go case by case. If players start to make things complicated with stunts and whatnot, you have to consider the length of time of your round. Many games with simultaneous actions are pretty loosey-goosey with round length. So again, you have to make a case-by-case ruling. You have to figure out which kinds of rulings you're bertter at making, and frame rounds accordingly.
With the examples you gave, I would tend to say the characters were committed to their actions and they must roll the dice. If in that situation, I felt that was harsh, I'd allow the change, but at a substantial penalty.
Making changes to mechanics of RPG?
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/8438152/2/stock-illustration-8438152-monocle-shock.jpg)
Preposterous.
Quote from: Nicephorus;501839The effect of this depends on the length of combat.
Compare
ABA
to
BAB
Sure. I did say ... ' insignificant outside of one-shot kill scenarios'
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;501852LESS dice rolling in a fantasy RPG especially one that is supposed to be a clone of D&D whereas dice rolling is one of the MAIN staples of the game???
Yep, and to paraphrase Pundit's original post, hamburgers have not begun to eat people, nor have fractures started to appear in the very fabric of reality. Dice rolling is a staple of the game, but it is not the game itself.
To elaborate, in S&W ( group) initiative is basically decided by d6 rolls, highest goes first. Nothing is factored into these rolls so who-goes-first remains entirely arbitrary. There is no added realism achieved by using this method so it seems to be no great loss. Arguably, it adds some random variation to combats but I choose to achieve variety through other means.
Quote from: km10ftp;501865Yep, and to paraphrase Pundit's original post, hamburgers have not begun to eat people, nor have fractures started to appear in the very fabric of reality. Dice rolling is a staple if the game, but it is not the game itself.
To elaborate, in S&W ( group) initiative is basically decided by d6 rolls, highest goes first. Nothing is factored into these rolls so who-goes-first remains entirely arbitrary. There is no added realism achieved by using this method so it seems to be no great loss. Arguably, it adds some random variation to combats but I choose to achieve variety through other means.
I am well aware of the extreme simplicity of S&W's combat phases/sequence of events and I embrace simplicity solely on the fact that that I do not inject realism into a fantasy rpg. If I wanted that, I would play more complexed fantasy RPG's.
this is a part of why I like abstract combat mechanics over supposedly real mechanics. I almost never agree with game designers ideas about how fighting works.
In my martial arts, I'm not strong enough to grapple wrestlers or fast enough to overwhelm someone with strikes, but my technique and size let me hurt people really badly with single techniques. I let people stand at their comfortable distance and endure their attack. If they are predictable, I interrupt it. If they are too strong, I endure it and strike when they settle. In either case I'm a counter fighter and I excel both when my opponent is too comfortable or too angry. What I don't do is go first - I have plenty of hit points.
By trying to be realistic, your system would shatter my immersion because it is trying to tell me how fighting works, which is counter to my experience. I think it is superior to answer the question of attack. I know how I can be hit but the attacker can't know how I will respond.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;501850Most Initiative systems in RPG's assume it's only about who goes when and why. This is fine, but for my Destiny system, I decided to go a different way.
Initiative, in real-world combat, is about this: making decisions faster than your enemy, taking actions to press your advantage, keeping them off balance, and using their confusion to defeat them.
That's how conflict works. The Initiative isn't about who goes first, it's about who is in control of the conflict. One side is making decisions and acting, the other reacting. Those reacting will eventually lose.
(You can see a more full explanation here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21597).)
The more you press your attack, the more you keep the opposition off balance, the more effective you are in the combat, and the less effective the enemy is. Each round you keep The Initiative, your enemy will grow more demoralized and more confused.
I think this is an interesting take, both mechanically and from a roleplaying standpoint. Again, the above linked post (in the Game Design forum) explains this in more detail.
If you're really intent on rethinking Initiative, well this is one example of it being rethought from first principles. It is a fundamentally different conception of Initiative than most other RPG's.
Quote from: Cranewings;501888this is a part of why I like abstract combat mechanics over supposedly real mechanics. I almost never agree with game designers ideas about how fighting works.
In my martial arts, I'm not strong enough to grapple wrestlers or fast enough to overwhelm someone with strikes, but my technique and size let me hurt people really badly with single techniques. I let people stand at their comfortable distance and endure their attack. If they are predictable, I interrupt it. If they are too strong, I endure it and strike when they settle. In either case I'm a counter fighter and I excel both when my opponent is too comfortable or too angry. What I don't do is go first - I have plenty of hit points.
By trying to be realistic, your system would shatter my immersion because it is trying to tell me how fighting works, which is counter to my experience. I think it is superior to answer the question of attack. I know how I can be hit but the attacker can't know how I will respond.
On that subject - what do you think of Wick's advice on "fight's over after one - two blows"?
Quote from: Rincewind1;501890On that subject - what do you think of Wick's advice on "fight's over after one - two blows"?
It is mostly true. Watch either the UFC or Boxing. Most guys who get hit squarely are ruined. That isn't true for everyone. While I'm not keen on a direct comparison, Ali and Tito Ortiz are both under appreciated for their strong jaw. When they get hit in the face, you can see them go to sleep for a second, but they stay up and snap out of it - that's rare.
Important to note though, two good fighters can hit one another for minutes without landing a clean shot, at all.
Knife fighting is worse. If I were to make realistic knife rules, they would do stamina damage or some such thing - one point + one per round per hit. They would only do health damage on a crit or after stamina dropped. In any case, people that knife fight often don't feel it much and get cut a lot. Point of fact, a friend of mine stabbed herself in the hand recently, on accident while cutting an avocado, so hard it bent the knife on her bone. She said it just felt like a punch.
75% of people that competed in european sword dueling ended up dead. That wasn't just due to simultaneous final blows. That was the winner walking away with a bunch of puncture wounds. It really can be hard to stop someone with a blade.
All in all, willpower, pain perception, individual talent, skill at diminishing the blows that hit, endurance... all kinds of things feed into it. I have one friend I kicked recently who almost collapsed from a 10% heal kick to his leg. He is in the military and played soccer for 10 years. I have another friend who I kicked so hard in his inner thigh his ankle pooled with blood and he walked around like nothing was wrong.
Quote from: Cranewings;501898It is mostly true. Watch either the UFC or Boxing. Most guys who get hit squarely are ruined. That isn't true for everyone. While I'm not keen on a direct comparison, Ali and Tito Ortiz are both under appreciated for their strong jaw. When they get hit in the face, you can see them go to sleep for a second, but they stay up and snap out of it - that's f fact, a friend of mine stabbed herself in the hand recently, on accident while cutting an avocado, so hard it bent the knife on her bone. She said it just felt like a punch.
ong.
The timing of the punch is important too. Taking a punch you know is coming is very different from a punch you never saw. Knocks usually boil down to good combos. You follow through after you've rattled the guy, otherwise he will recover.
Quote from: two_fishes;501848I'm picturing a situation like, a fighter player says he's charging into a fray only to change his mind when he realizes he's leaving the wizard unguarded for an attack declared by the GM--before any dice are rolled. Or a thief-player changing his mind about stealing a bit of treasure after the GM declares he's the target of an attack. Stuff like that.
Quote from: stu2000;501859When I'm playing a game where declaring moves is part of the rules the moves are declared in reverse initiative order, then rolled in order, because etc...
But these are all systems that use initiative. I'm curious about how people handle this sort of issue if they don't use initiative. Philotomy said it hasn't really come up at his table, which is fair, but I wonder if anyone can comment where it has.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;501900The timing of the punch is important too. Taking a punch you know is coming is very different from a punch you never saw. Knocks usually boil down to good combos. You follow through after you've rattled the guy, otherwise he will recover.
It is a weird thing about the one you didn't see coming. Your body hates it - they hurt so much worse I guess to keep you scared of it.
Quote from: Cranewings;501888your system would shatter my immersion because it is trying to tell me how fighting works, which is counter to my experience.
I'm not saying your experience or observations are wrong. I'm saying you're wrong about the actual details of the Initiative mechanic.
Everything you've said can be represented by the mechanic. More, everything you said is deliberately included as part
of the mechanic.
I know these things happen, and wrote them into the system. Let me give some examples:
Quote from: Cranewings;501888What I don't do is go first
Initiative isn't about going first: it's about being able to chose when to act. People with the Initiative can strike before their opponent, or allow him to initiate an attack and interrupt it, or allow him to complete an attack, then counter-attack, or otherwise take advantage of an opening.
You have the Initiative, you have the choice.
Quote from: Cranewings;501888I know how I can be hit but the attacker can't know how I will respond.
You have situational awareness? Probably you have the Initiative and are choosing the appropriate moment to strike. You can choose to let him go first.
That's fine—that's your prerogative when you have the Initiative.
If you had no idea how he was going to hit you, if he did so quicker and faster than you, if he launched effective attacks that you couldn't endure or ignore, if he kept you off balance, on the defensive, unable to react quick enough to see a weakness and take advantage of it, he'd have the Initiative, not you.
That doesn't seem to be the case.
Quote from: Cranewings;501888I let people stand at their comfortable distance and endure their attack. If they are predictable, I interrupt it. If they are too strong, I endure it and strike when they settle. In either case I'm a counter fighter
This situation can be exactly represented within the mechanic (and one of the examples in the thread is identical to this situation.) In fact, it could be represented two ways:
Perhaps he has the Initiative, and is attacking you, but unable to meaningfully affect you. (Maybe you're taking the "full defense" action to protect yourself, so his Advantage doesn't increase.) Then you counterattack, and Seize the Initiative.
Or...
You could have the Initiative. You are in control. You choose to let him go first, he does, and you execute an attack.
Either way, your experience—as you've described it—and tactics are not only consonant with the mechanic, they were built into it on purpose.
Fighting isn't about going first. It's about observing the situation, making a decision, and carrying out that decision. Situational awareness, quick decision making, and keeping your opponent off-balance are key.
Or, if on the defensive, enduring (or avoiding) his attacks, preventing him from gaining a decisive advantage, and counter-attacking when the time is right. If you do this, you can Seize the Initiative.
That's what the Initiative (in this mechanic) represents: the party with the Initiative is the one acting on their observations and decisions, and the enemy is trying to do so, but failing.
So, I disagree with your post not because you are wrong about combat, but because you are right. And that's why those elements are included in the mechanic.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;501900The timing of the punch is important too. Taking a punch you know is coming is very different from a punch you never saw.
Situational awareness.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;501900Knocks usually boil down to good combos. You follow through after you've rattled the guy, otherwise he will recover.
In mechanical terms, in context of the Initiative system I linked to: you Press the Attack, and increase your Advantage. If you don't, you lose the Advantage point you just gained.
Press the attack vigorously enough, your enemy will get more and more rattled, eventually leading to his defeat. Fail to do so, you will squander your Advantage and he will recover, opening yourself up to a Counter-Attack, where he Seizes the Initiative.
Solid fighting advice, represented mechanically in the system.
Daddy, ha well, then if your game is actually immersion friendly, then it sounds perfect. Good job sir.
Quote from: Cranewings;501919Daddy, ha well, then if your game is actually immersion friendly, then it sounds perfect. Good job sir.
Thank you. You're very gracious.
I want to say this: I'm not claiming my rules are perfect. On the contrary there have to be gaps.
I want people like you, who know their shit, to rigorously criticize them to make them better. If you did so, I'd appreciate it.
I am not a soldier, nor a martial artist. But I have taken an immense amount of time and effort to learn how fighting works, to try and understand how it works from the inside. I want the mechanic to reflect that reality.
I don't want to be the oblivious newb who talks out of his ass about that which he hasn't the experience or knowledge to understand. I genuinely believe that the mechanic does a great job representing the back and forth of combat, the need to follow-up on an attack, or defend until you can counter attack, and so forth.
If I'm wrong, and where I'm wrong, I'd like to know. But, if it merely appears I'm wrong because I've explained it incorrectly or incompletely, then I'd like to correct that as well.
Again, you are gracious and I do appreciate the information you gave (as well as the other post about wounds and such). I've made notes on both.
Thank you for responding.
Quote from: _kent_;501864Sure. I did say ... ' insignificant outside of one-shot kill scenarios'
It's more than just that, one hit kills are just the endpoint. It has to do with how intense the damage tends to be, average damage per round compared to typical hp. The higher the damage output, the shorter the battles and the more important initiative is. 21 chances to hit vs 20 is a 5% advantage for going first. 3 chances to hit vs 2 is a 50% advantage.
It also depends on set up and encounter distance. Many of the adventures written for 3e and 4e don't have much terrain or long encounter distances. This means that whoever goes first also gets to get a good attack in first.
If my players expressed an interest in playing with out initiative I would try it. I have no great commitment to any single method of gaming. I'll do what's the most fun for everyone.
Quote from: _kent_;501864Sure. I did say ... ' insignificant outside of one-shot kill scenarios'
I don't find this to be true for several reasons:
(1) Given identical performance, if the bad guys go first they will deal one extra round of damage. Even if this makes no difference on the outcome of the fight, it will accumulate over the course of several fights. IME, if I'm using group initiative and simply default to "the PCs get to go first" this can often add 1-2 combat encounters per day.
(2) In the course of a single fight, it's relevant if the fight gets close
at any point -- not just a first round knock-out shot. That extra round of damage can mean the difference between a PC that's near-death and a PC that's dead.
(3) It can also be mechanically significant if there are any abilities which become more significant or powerful if you gain the advantage of initiative. An easy example of this is sneak attacking in 3E.
(4) Moving beyond "pure melee", abilities like
fireball or
web are considerably more powerful if you can unleash them before the monsters split up and/or engage in melee.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;501820I've long considered adoptin a system like this but have had two reservations. The first is speed of play; have you found this sequenced method takes longer than standard D&D initiative? The second is what happens after round one; does this present believability issues after the first round. For example, it makes sense the archers go first when there is some distance between combatants, but what happens when my swordsman is right next to the archer?
Re: Speed of play. Doesn't seem to slow anything down. In fact, the only thing I've found that can really slow down play is confusion. (Which is why I abandoned the "everything is simultaneous" mode once we had too many characters to keep track of.) Method of initiative doesn't seem to have much effect.
Re: Believability of ranged vs. melee. If you follow the link (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/tag/reactions-to-odd), there are a couple key rules to note:
(1) If you're engaged in melee, all non-melee actions (spells, missile fire, etc.) are considered a miscellaneous action and delayed until that phase.
(2) Missiles: Firing into melee has 50% chance of hitting a random target.
(3) Magic: Includes turning and most magic item use. Characters preparing to cast cannot take other actions. Any damage suffered while preparing forces a prime requisite check (modified by damage taken) to avoid losing the spell / turning.
Basically, once you've become engaged in melee, trying to fire your bow or cast a spell becomes really difficult and the guy with a sword is going to have a chance to smash it into your face before you finish.
Another big conceptual shift is that you can actually do a lot of stuff in a single round: For example, you could cast a spell, then charge into melee, attack with your sword, and then drink the potion you had in your off-hand. Meanwhile, the guy you're charging could have fired his crossbow at you, tried to run away from your spell, then ran back towards you to engage in melee, and attack with the sword he has in his other hand.
That usually doesn't happen, but I've found it can be difficult for some people to break away from the concept of "I took my action this round". But once they do, the system is actually very fluid and responsive.
What's particularly nice about it is that it's everybody's turn
all the time. People don't take their turn and then tune out, because we're immediately into the next phase and they could potentially be taking an action again.
Here's the standard for RPG Initiative: a random roll, to determine where you act. Then attack rolls, or other miscellaneous activities.
Attacking a guy, and doing HP damage, moves your side closer to victory by ensuring they're dead, bleeding out, Taken Out, whatever. If battlefield tactics come into play, it's a matter of positioning (3.0 Flanking or Attacks of Opportunity), cover, or other such "at this moment" environmental benefits.
In Destiny, Initiative is a combat capsystem. Each attack or defense has greater weight, outside of just the damage it does. It bears on Initiative and the Advantages you gain from having it and keeping it.
You attack, and you gain an Advantage. You follow it up and see the Advantage increase; or fail to attack and see it shrink away. Follow up, because it keeps them off balance which makes it harder for them to hit you, and easier for you to hit them.
You defend, and the enemy's Advantage shrinks because he failed to affect you, which gives you a respite. Every time his Advantage shrinks, it becomes easier to counter-attack him, easier to go on the offensive, easier to gain the Initiative for yourself, and gain an advantage over them.
Every hit and miss has a greater purpose than doing damage. It aids one side or the other in gaining or loosing the Advantage in the engagement.
Each hit or miss plays into greater tactics. Not the tactics of positioning and cover (though those are present in the combat mechanics), but the tactics of managing the flow of combat.
Causing confusion and disorientation, or recovering from it. Taking charge of the battlefield, and hammering each blow home so you can keep them off balance, and make each future blow more effective, until they cannot resist you and must surrender or die.
Or keeping the enemy off your back, scrambling for cover (or blocking blows) so you can clear your head and take an active, not reactive role in the combat. So you can Counter-Attack and Seize the Initiative.
Initiative isn't about who goes first. It's about the press of battle, the need to increase your Advantage or decrease the enemy's Advantage. It's about making sure you keep them off balance. Or gaining the space to regain yours.
In the real world, individuals blows have a greater context. And defending against them does as well. Destiny brings this reality into combat, by providing a framework where all this makes sense and is given a numerical, mechanical basis.
Once again, if you want a radical rethink of Initiative, one that is interesting in concept and compelling in play, that's it.
Or so I think anyway.
The martial artists responses are interesting. Persoannly I think that Cranewing's point about the nature of the weapon needs to be looked at closer.
I think the difference between being punched or kicked and being stabbed with a blade are really about types of damage not about initiative.
When you talk about knife fighters taking lots of hits you are talking about superficial cuts most of the time. A deep stab wound or a deep cut can't be shrugged off.
So you need to think of combat in RPGs. Now I prefer combat in an RPG to feel like a contested game. It's why I can't stand T&T combat and love Amber combat. As a player I want to feel like my skill and the abilities of my character can have a direct effect on a combat outcome. At the same time I don't want to have a game where sword combat, hand to hand combat, knife combat etc all have their own subsystems, but I want them to feel different.
Initiative feels like a key part of any game. White starting in Chess has a major effect effect on the game, the starting player in a game of MTG has a real advantage over their oponent (whcih the rules try to limit), the player that serves in tennis has a real advantage etc etc ...
The gunfighter that drwas first wins, the Iajitsu practicioner learns how to draw, strike and win in one move.
In theory I prefer a sequenced model which faster Pcs completing actions faster. This lets the afrementioned Iajitsu guy respond to an attack by drawing his blade and killing his opponent before their strike connects or the theif get his dagger blow in before the ogre can swing his might club... Now I think this works well in Computer games but can slow down table top games (I am actually working on a mechanism that handles this but book-keeping is a real concerns) so a simple die role for initiative is a workable solution.
I have used the 2e d10 + Dex + wp Spd individually rolled for each PC and group rolled for monsters for 25 years and it seems fine ....
I used to love Boot hill where a hit reduces your initiative.
I think games where everyone gets the same number of actions per round for fairness sake are a bit stupid especially when it means a slow cumbersome guy gets 3 unanswered attacks at the end of a combat round.
Quote from: two_fishes;501902But these are all systems that use initiative. I'm curious about how people handle this sort of issue if they don't use initiative. Philotomy said it hasn't really come up at his table, which is fair, but I wonder if anyone can comment where it has.
Nobilis is such a game. Players can revise their actions as often, if they like. Problem being, if they spend any points on the aborted action, those are lost.
I run at least a few games without initiative. ICONS basically doesn't use initiative; the heroes are assumed to get to act first, unless they're taken by surprise; or there's a situation where two particular characters (PCs or NPCs) are racing against each other to accomplish something mutually exclusive.
Amber, as such, has no initiative either; you figure out what everyone announces they are doing first (or NPCs intended actions) and then try to resolve everything organically, looking at things like Warfare for cases where, again, two intended actions are mutually exclusive (does the NPC get his spell off before the PC can hit him, or vice-versa?).
In my current FR campaign, we roll group initiative, and then do things in action order: movement, ranged attacks, magic, melee attacks, then morale. I don't bother to have PCs roll individual initiative, except again if I need to know which of two PCs who were casting a spell get the spell effect off first.
RPGPundit
As an aside I have to say that I always thought that the phased action chart used in Hero system games was one of the best ways to handle who-does-what-when that I have ever seen.
It's a real shame that the system as a whole became such a bloated monstrosity.
Quote from: Nicephorus;50196021 chances to hit vs 20 is a 5% advantage for going first. 3 chances to hit vs 2 is a 50% advantage.
No you don't get the concept. One extra attack is an advantage *in the limit* as the number of rounds increases with one side winning initiative every time. There is no such advantage over one two or three rounds and your '3 chances to hit vs 2' above is nonsensical.
There is a separate concept at work for brief encounters which result in death because measuring the value of death versus hp loss is very tricky and in some part subjective.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;502026I don't find this to be true for several reasons:
(1) Given identical performance, if the bad guys go first they will deal one extra round of damage. Even if this makes no difference on the outcome of the fight, it will accumulate over the course of several fights. IME, if I'm using group initiative and simply default to "the PCs get to go first" this can often add 1-2 combat encounters per day.
Letting players or bad guys always go first is not the same as tossing a coin to see who begins a sequence of ABAB... at each encounter. It is the latter I suggest in indistinguishable in effect to determining initiative each round. But I hasten to add players enjoy rolling for initiative on the micro level so I let them at it.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;502026(2) In the course of a single fight, it's relevant if the fight gets close at any point -- not just a first round knock-out shot. That extra round of damage can mean the difference between a PC that's near-death and a PC that's dead.
That is just the difference between a priori and a posteriori probabilities. All nitty gritty blow by blow initiative probabilities can be subsumed into an initial probability at the beginning of the encounter - a fifty-fifty probability. I already argued above that initiative can only be a purely random phenomenon because modifiers often introduced by players would affect rate not sequencing.