TheRPGSite

When running OSR games, what's your preferred initiative system?

Group initiative, with limited modifiers for exceptional Dex.

When I was running AD&D, low initiative was good, and casting times indicated the fastest you could possibly cast a spell. Weapon speed was used on ties.

My next OSR game is likely to be ACKS. I plan to give +1 initiative for 16 Dex and +2 for 18. You can also potentially get a +1 from a proficiency.

One initiative roll for the group, but if you have a modifier, you can apply it to your personal initiative.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1127702When running OSR games, what's your preferred initiative system?

With Original D&D
Determine if either party is surprised. Any group ambushing a surprised party gets a full and complete round of melee and movement actions.

Melee Initiative is in order by Dexterity. If the player(s) are tied with the monster, npc, or other players, the attacks are considered as simultaneous.

I usually start a countdown from 20.

Archers (except for crossbows) get to shoot once immediately before the melee round begins, and then again during the players count based on their Dexterity. Crossbowmen shoot immediately prior to melee.

Reach weapons, i.e. lances, long spears, regular spears, polearms, and 8' or large staffs get +2 for their initiative count.

Players with multiple attacks (4th level or above)  get their first attack during the Initiative countdown, and any subsequent attacks at the end of the melee round, in order, based on their Dexterity.


For Traveller Combat

Determine if either party is surprised. A party with the element of surprise may elect to avoid contact with the other party..

There is no initiative in Traveller.

With Traveller, each combat round lasts 15 seconds and all combat is considered simultaneous, meaning everyone gets to attack the target of their choosing at least once, and results are not applied until the end of the combat round to all parties affected. Endurance determines the number of melee blows that can be made during a combat, and once the blows are all used, the character must rest for at least thirty minutes before being able to engage in melee combat again. Some weapons require a minimum strength to use and additional strength deals extra damage. Dexterity determines the accuracy of shots and other missile weapons, and a high dex confers bonuses "to hit".

Traveller does have a special rule for conducting duels or "fast drawing" with slung or holstered weapons.
A character attempting to use a holstered or slung weapon in a combat round is subject to a DM of -3 when drawing. When two or more people draw against each other each rolls two dice and adds their dexterity, the character with the highest modified throw achieves surprise for the purpose of the first shot.

Players using full automatic fire get to make two attack rolls against their target(s). Up to two non-evading targets adjacent to the primary target are also attacked by the burst of automatic fire. Each secondary target is subject to a to hit roll with a DM of -3. Each burst delivers damage of 4 individual rounds. Larger Machine with a higher rate of fire deliver even more damage.

Shotguns can target up to three additional targets adjacent to the primary target and recieve a +2 bonus to hit.

I use Team Initiative. Each side rolls 1D6 (with possible situational modifier), ties go to the PCs. It's my one rule where I explicitly lean toward the players and for me, it works because I am a wargamer and I play the foes to the hilt so it acts as a balance mechanism (and false hope). In certain circumstances, a particular PC or monster may warrant their own modifier and that would put them in their own slice of the initiative order.

It's fast, easy to adjudicate, gives a "fog of war" randomness and creates table tension, but without any paperwork.

OSRIC initiative, which is basically straight dice rolls for most classes with small delays for casting spells or using magic items.

Here's my combat sequence house rules from my original D&D campaign. It starts off the full combat sequence, but at the end there is the "simplified sequence." I often default to the using the "simplified sequence," but with rulings informed by my familiarity with the details of the full sequence.

# Combat

A round of combat is approximately 10 seconds of time.

## Surprise

At the start of an encounter, each side checks for surprise, if applicable.
The standard chance of surprise is 2 in 6, as follows:

 Die Roll (d6)   Result
---------------  -----------------------------------------
      1          Complete surprise (enemy gets 2 actions)
      2          Surprise (enemy gets 1 action)
     3-6         Not surprised

Circumstances may modify the chance of the surprise. For example, a certain
monster may surprise with a 3 in 6 chance. In such cases, a die roll of 1
indicates complete surprise, and a die roll of 2 or 3 indicates surprise. In
other words, only a roll of 1 indicates complete surprise.

### Surprise Actions

Surprise actions are free actions which occur (or start) before the regular
melee round begins. Examples include movement, firing a loaded crossbow, melee
attacks, et cetera. Spells cast as a surprise action take effect as normal,
according to the rules for casting times (e.g., 1st-2nd level spells, power
words, and item activations would take effect immediately; higher level spells
cast as a surprise action would take effect during the normal phase of the
melee round). As always, the caster may only cast one spell during the round,
even if it was cast as a surprise action.

Movement taken during surprise is a maximum of a 1/4 move for surprise and a
half move for complete surprise.

Archers may fire one arrow per surprise action. Crossbowmen and slingers may
only fire once during surprise, even if they have two surprise actions. If a
character has multiple hurled weapons in hand, one weapon may be hurled in
each surprise action.

## Encounter Distance

### Underworld/Dungeon/Indoors

Standard encounter distance is 20-80 feet (2d4). However, if surprise is
indicated for either side, then encounter distance is 10-30 feet (1d3).
The DM may adjust encounter distance according to the circumstances.

### Wilderness/Outdoors

Standard encounter distance is 40-240 yards (4d6). However, if surprise is
indicated for either side, then encounter distance is 10-30 yards. The DM
may adjust encounter distance according to the circumstances.

## Movement Rates in Combat

In a combat round, a character's full move is his standard movement rate
divided by three. A charge doubles that.

 Base Move   Combat Move   Charge
----------- ------------- --------
    24           80'        160'
    21           70'        140'
    18           60'        120'
    15           50'        100'
    12           40'         80'
     9           30'         60'
     6           20'         40'
     3           10'         20'

## Combat Sequence

1. _Initiative_: Both sides roll 1d6. High roll has initiative.
2. _Missiles & Spells_: In initiative order, both sides fire missiles,
   cast spells, et cetera.
3. _Movement (Side A)_: Side with initiative moves up to half move.
4. _Movement (Side B)_: Side without initiative moves up to half move.
5. _Missiles & Spells_: In initiative order, both sides fire missiles, cast
   spells, et cetera.
6. _Movement (Side B)_: Side without initiative moves up to half move.
7. _Movement (Side A)_: Side with initiative moves up to half move.
8. _Missiles & Spells_: Unengaged combatants fire missiles, cast spells, et
   cetera.
9. _Melee_: Engaged combatants fight one round of melee.

### Rules Governing Missiles/Ranged Attacks

* Archers standing still may fire twice (in phase 2 or 5, and in phase 8 if the
  archer remains unengaged).
* Archers taking a half-move may fire once (in phase 2 or 8). However, archers
  with split-move-and-fire ability (e.g., elves, mounted archers) that take a
  half-move may fire once in a missile phase of their choice (2, 5, or 8).
* Archers taking a full move may not fire. However, archers with split-move-and-
  fire ability (e.g., elves, mounted archers) may take a full move and fire
  once, in phase 5, only.
* Slingers standing still may fire once (in phase 2, 5 or 8).
* Slingers taking a half-move may fire once (in phase 2 or 8).
* Slingers taking a full move may not fire.
* Crossbowmen standing still may fire once (in phase 2 or 5) and reload*.
* Crossbowmen standing still may reload* and fire once (in phase 5 or 8).
* Crossbowmen taking a half-move may fire once (in phase 2 or 8) or reload*.
* Crossbowmen taking a full move may reload*, but may not fire.
* Combatants hurling spears, axes, or hammers may fire once (in phase 2, 5, or
  8) and take a full move, including charge, if desired.
* Combatants hurling daggers or javelins may fire once (in phase 2, 5, or 8)
  and take a full move, including charge (and melee), if desired.
* Combatants hurling daggers or javelins may fire twice (in phase 2 or 5, and
  phase 8) and take a full move without charge (no melee attacks allowed).
* Combatants hurling in-hand weapons without moving may fire once and still
  engage in melee attacks if charged (but may not set spears or similar
  weapons against a charge).

\* Heavy crossbows require a full round to reload, and no movement is allowed
   while reloading.

### Rules Governing Spells

* Spells may be cast as "spells," from "item activation" (e.g., wands), from
  scrolls (this is not considered an item activation), or from innate spell
  abilities (due to race, et cetera).
* With the exception of power words and item activations, a spell caster cannot
  move and cast a spell in the same round. Power words and item activations
  can be combined with up to a full move without charge, and may be cast in
  phase 2, 5, or 8.
* With the exception of power words, item activation, and spells designed to
  be cast in melee, spell casters may not cast a spell while engaged in melee.
* If a caster is engaged in melee or takes damage after a spell is commenced
  but before it is finished, the spell is interrupted and lost.
* A spell caster may cast a maximum of one spell per round.
* Casting time depends on the level and type of spell.

Spell                                Casting Time
--------------------------  -------------------------------
1st-2nd level spells                  Immediate
Power Words                           Immediate
Holy Words                            Immediate
Word of Recall                        Immediate
Item activation                       Immediate
Innate spell abilities                Immediate*
3rd-6th level spells               +1 Spell Phase
1st-2nd level scrolls              +1 Spell Phase
7th-9th level spells                 Full Round
3rd-6th level scrolls                Full Round
7th-9th level scrolls          Full Round + 1 Spell Phase

\* unless otherwise specified by the ability being used

### Rules Governing Melee & Movement

* Combatants who take a full move may not make any melee attacks unless they
  charge, even if they move into engagement range.
* A charge into engagement gives the charging combatants a +2 to hit in the
  initial round of melee. Charging characters suffer a -1 penalty to AC in the
  initial round of melee (this does not apply to ranged attacks against them).
  When combatants are charging, weapon length decides who strikes first (rather
  than initiative).
* Only one charge may be taken per turn (not per melee round). This probably
  means only one charge may be taken in most melee engagements.
* Combatants are considered engaged in melee when the distance between them is
  equal to or less than the longest reach or 10 ft, whichever is larger.
* A moving combatant who becomes engaged may not leave engagement or continue
  movement to the flanks or rear of his opponent during the initial round of
  engagement. A combatant not already engaged in melee may move a maximum of 5'
  right or left in order to confront and contact an enemy attempting to bypass
  or move into a flanking position.
* If one combatant in a melee has allies to his immediate left or right, and
  these allies are not engaged with other enemies, the allies may move into
  flanking positions against their common enemy after the first round of melee.
* Flanking position grants a +1 bonus to hit and negates any benefit from the
  target's shield.
* Rear positioning grants a +2 bonus to hit and negates any benefit from the
  target's shield.
* Flee Melee: an engaged combatant may flee melee at full movement, but he
  loses the benefit of his shield and engaged enemies get a free attack with a
  +2 bonus to hit.
* Retreat: an engaged combatant may retreat from melee at half-move. Non-elite
  combatants (applies only to NPCs) must make a morale check when retreating.
  Retreating combatants may not attack in the round they move, and they end
  their movement still facing their enemies.
* Fall Back: an engaged combatant may fall back while fighting. Melee proceeds
  normally, but only 10 ft. of movement is allowed.


## Simplified Combat Sequence

1. Both sides roll 1d6 for initiative; high roll wins.
2. Winning side fires missiles, starts spells (and finishes spells of level 1-2)
3. Losing side fires missiles, starts spells (and finishes spells of level 1-2)
4. Both sides move
5. Spells that were started in 2-3 take effect (if they weren't completed
   earlier); archers who didn't move and haven't been engaged in melee may fire
   again.
6. Melee

The DM may use the details of the full sequence to inform rulings made when
using the simplified combat sequence.

When I run AD&D, I use my own interpretation of the 1e AD&D initiative rules. I've also used my original D&D sequence, above, with AD&D. That works fine, but when I'm running AD&D I prefer to keep the rules on segments, etc., so I usually stick to my interpretation of "BTB."

I don't run OSR games per se, though I've played D&D--mostly 2e and 3e, briefly 0e when introduce into the hobby, and recently 5e. But I despise the concept of "Initiative" with every fiber of my being. I consider initiative to be unnecessary and strictly a game convention with very little resemblance to actual combat. You don't need initiative. The game will NOT break down if you don't randomly determine order of actions, even when playing with new players. If anything the notion of being paralyzed while everyone else acts will confuse noobs more than simply going in whatever other "makes sense" given the circumstances.

My preferred "initiative" system is to use my own judgement and break down combat in terms of battle-readiness and proximity. Everyone who's ready to act at the start of the round goes first--ranged with loaded and drawn weapons, melee already engaged in melee, etc. These are followed by anyone who needs to make minor preparations--move into melee range, draw a holstered weapon to attack, reload fast loading weapons, etc. Finally, anyone who needs to make lengthier preparations goes last--load a crossbow, full round actions, recite lengthy incantations, etc.

All actions within these three phases (which I would call Fast Actions, Standard Actions and Delayed Actions) take place at roughly the same time. Attacks are rolled at the same time and opponents that hit each other in the same phase don't interrupt each other's actions, even if one or both dies--which they will if that's the case, cuz that's the way it goes in real life. Avoiding an enemy's attack cuz you killed them first cuz "initiative" is largely just a game convention.

People can and do kill each other simultaneously in real life. The way you avoid getting hit and you killing them first is if their attack missed but yours didn't. OR if you attacked and killed them at an earlier phase than their chance to act. Attacks against people who may only act at a later phase can get their actions interrupted when appropriate.

Individual initiative, rerolled every time, with initiative modifiers for weapons speed, casting time, etc.  I usually start off with "who's got the lowest initiative?"  Then count up in ticks.  I know a lot of people prefer 3E style initiative because it moves faster, but the game lost a _lot_ of tactical depth with that change, most importantly spell interruption.  The way I do it just so much more fun for my groups.

For my current OSRIC game I use

Declare actions
Actions start simultaneously, esp movement
Roll group init on d6s
Where the two sides are in melee, init determines who goes first.
Spells go off in segments after the init roll depending on casting time. If caster is hit while casting then spell is lost.

If archers are shooting at foes closing to melee, then the chargers will only get in first if they win init by so many segments that they can close to melee and attack before first shot - eg move 90' and win init by 3, can close 9x3 = 27' before first shot. If weapon has 2 shots then second shot is 5 segments after first; if 3 shots then 3 segments, if 4 shots (specialised dart thrower) then 2 segments.

Last D&D-ish game I ran was ACKS a few years ago.  We experimented with several different variations on initiative over the course of the campaign.  We started with straight "individually-rolled initiative and do what you want when your turn comes up", then tried "declare all actions before rolling initiative, roll individual initiative, and resolve the declared actions in initiative order", and maybe went through a couple other things that aren't coming to mind at the moment before finally settling on "declare spellcasting or other extended actions, roll side-based initiative with individual modifiers, act in initiative order".

The two things which were constant through all the variations were:

1) Initiative re-rolled each round, because combat is chaotic, not an orderly round-robin where you know that, after you act, each other combatant will always take exactly one action (and always in the same order) before you act again.

2) Individual initiative modifiers were always applied, even when using group initiative, because many classes have initiative bonuses as class abilities, and characters can also get bonuses from proficiency picks, and I didn't want to say that something which a character had invested scarce resources in (class ability or proficiency picks) would simply be disregarded.

I use a modified version of Mike Mearls' alternative initiative system in my DCC game.

Lower is better. Attack initiative is based on your weapon's damage roll. A move is a 1d6. A spell is a 1d12.

Any initiative modifiers are only applied to the first action taken in a round (in DCC you get at least two actions (one of which is a move) in a round). Spell casters can apply their spell check stat modifier to the initiative roll for casting a spell.

The one part that takes a bit to get used to is that I normalize initiative to the fastest participant in the encounter (this avoids negative initiative). So if the highest initiative modifier is a +4, then everyone adds +4 to their initiative roll for their first action.

For example, a warrior and an orc are attacking each other. The warrior has a short sword (damage = 1d6) and a +2 Agility mod; the orc has a club (1d3+1) and a +1 Agility mod.

warrior initiative = 1d6 - 2 + 2
orc initiative = 1d3+1 -1 + 2

Let's say that each roll a "1"

warrior initiative = 1 - 2 +2 = 1
orc initiative = 1+1 -1 + 2 = 3

I've played little to no OSR in the last several years.  In D&D, whether OSR or not (and in fact, most games), my initiative preference is some variation of side A vs side B initiative. For D&D 5E, I prefer a flat initiative target for the monsters (or most of them, anyway--make exception for dragons and the like), with the players all rolling every round to beat that target. Thus it is fast PCs, monsters, slow PCs every round--with the only changes which PCs are fast or slow in a given round.  

My primary motivation is handling time, as I find such a system radically speeds up combat.  The secondary motivation is creating uncertainty for the players as to when they will act.  My only real issue with such a system is the monsters all going in a clump, which  is why with a large monster group I'll sometimes split them into two groups, faster and slower, leading to fast PCs, fast monsters, average PCs, slow monsters, slow PCs.  I've also found such a system to be much easier to new players to grasp, for some bizarre reasons of player psychology that I don't fully understand.  Or maybe it's just my players.

No initiative is my preference.

Otherwise, D6 per side, per round, no modifiers.

I prefer Holmes initiative in Dex order, with ties either resulting in simultaneous action or broken by rolling 1d6.

When playing SWN, I roll initiative for my bad guys as one group, without bothering with modifiers.  The players all roll individually with a dex modifier.  Players who beat my bad guys go first, in any order they want.  Then my bad guys go.  Finally, players who's roll was less than mine go last, in any order they want.  We roll only once and keep that sequence for the rest of the combat.

When playing Swords & Wizardry, I keep it even simpler.  One roll for my bad guys and one roll for the player group, with no mods.  IGOUGO.  We do that once and keep the sequence for the rest of the combat.

I find almost all initiative systems to be ridiculous and I ascribe the persistence of this type of mechanic to laziness. Or more precisely, a triumph of gamer mentality over common sense and over any interest in emulating the fictional genre or historical period that is supposed to have inspired the game in the first place.

At its limit you get nonsense like a guy with a bow and arrow standing there while somebody runs up and bashes him over the head.

Mythras tries to soften initiative with action points but the price is it ups the complexity quite a bit (or looks like it would, I've never got to play). The old Runequest strike ranks were not a bad solution, but a bit static.

I haven't come across a system I'm particularly happy with. I'd like to see a system that captures the ebb and flow feel you get from fights in cinema or from what little boxing I've seen. One side has the advantage and presses it until they try to land a telling blow, and either make it or fluff it and let the other guy come back. There's tension in the choice between playing it safe and gradually wearing the other guy down, or taking a gamble to put him down quickly.

OSR is not my main jam, but I'm gonna go with the standard side-based d6 initiative rules from B/X page B23 (or any variant that is in that ballpark). I think in D&D individual initiative slows everything down for no real gain, and that side-based initiative also results in players cooperating and coordinating their efforts better, like a team getting together, calling their play, then running it. It also keeps players engaged, instead of checking out while other characters run their actions, IMO. Relatedly, I don't think D&D's combat system is super fun to run as a game in itself, but it works well enough in B/X when considered to be just one of the things that pops up sometimes during the the 10 minute dungeon turn structure. I think the loss of the 10 minute turn structure, or it's de-emphasis as editions progressed (or even its de-emphasis in some modern OSR materials) is a bit unfortunate.

This is the latest version of my Majestic Fantasy Rules
http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf

As far as initiative goes I use 1d6 + dexterity bonus + to hit bonus if a fighter. This mean individually per player.

My combat sequence is built around the idea that you can do a half-move and attack.

I like individual initiative even in OSR games, because if the opponents take all their turns at once (https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2017/06/wargames-design-igougo-does-not.html), then it can lead to situations that the PCs can't react to in time, like a devastating Alpha Strike that effectivley decides the outcome of the encounter before the players even take their first turn.
At least every PC rolls init, and then "batches" of opponents roll (Orcs with bows, orcs with axes, orc shaman with spells.) if there's a lot of opponents.

I like the initiative system in Savage Worlds so much I've grafted onto my Stars Without Number games with little effort. The tactile nature of having cards, holding your action by just holding your card, and the epic joy of drawing a Joker have made it lots of fun.

Because of the pandemic and moving to Roll20 for the duration, we've reverted to the RAW: d8 for each PC, add Dex modifier, only roll once in the combat. It's fast, but less fun. But the card drawing mechanics of Roll20 leave much to be desired.

I like initiative fast and very simple. If it's obvious who goes first (one side is waiting to see what happens, only one side has ranged attacks, etc.) we don't roll. If we do need to roll, it's d6, per side, once per encounter. Ties are simultaneous.

Any surprise is entirely determined by the circumstances of stealth vs perception, and if one side surprises the other they automatically win initiative and have bonuses during the first round.

In my experience, rolling initiative each round makes a huge difference in how long each battle lasts, and how dynamic it feels.

Quote from: Marchand;1127773I haven't come across a system I'm particularly happy with. I'd like to see a system that captures the ebb and flow feel you get from fights in cinema or from what little boxing I've seen. One side has the advantage and presses it until they try to land a telling blow, and either make it or fluff it and let the other guy come back. There's tension in the choice between playing it safe and gradually wearing the other guy down, or taking a gamble to put him down quickly.

Ars Magica 4th edition does something like that.  It still uses conventional initiative (d10 + modifiers, but modifiers are large enough that the d10 can become little more than a formality), but both to-hit and damage are opposed rolls (Attack vs. Defense and Damage vs. Soak, respectively), with the margin of success on the to-hit roll being applied as a bonus on the damage roll - if you choose to do damage.  Instead of doing damage, you also have the option of carrying that margin over to the next round and using it as a bonus on either your Attack roll or your Defense roll, thus allowing you to build up an arbitrarily large carryover bonus over the course of multiple turns until you finally blow it all to land a solid blow.

I've also read (but not played) another system which does what you describe - unfortunately, I can't seem to recall what system it was - by implementing a split similar to the split between "luck HP" and "meat HP" that some have implemented as house rules in D&D.  The "meat HP" are a static quantity for each character, but the "luck HP" are rolled anew at the beginning of each fight.  In order to inflict meaningful damage, your damage roll has to exceed your opponent's remaining "luck HP", but attacking "luck HP" is a different action than attacking "meat HP" and, when after you attempt to damage the "meat HP", they reroll their "luck HP", regardless of whether you do actual damage or not.  So the flow of combat would be that you repeatedly attack their "luck HP" to wear it down until you think you can successfully get through to inflict actual damage on their "meat HP", then the "luck HP" resets and you fence for position (wearing down the "luck HP") again.  The "luck HP" in this system is called Stance, or Poise, or something like that, making it clear that the process this is intended to model is that you're working to create an opening in their defense and then, when you attempt to exploit that opening, they reposition themselves, and cover the weakness you targeted.

But, then, neither of those subsystems are based on initiative, and neither game is OSR (in the "emulating early-era D&D" sense)...

I'm quite fond of what the Arcanis developers did when they tried building their own game system. Most of it was a wreck, but their initiative and action system was gold.

Each combatant rolls a number of d10s based on their reflexss attribute and takes the LOWEST. Combat starts at a count of one and goes up. When the count reaches your number you act. That action has a speed, which you add to your number to determine when you go next (ex. you go on a 3 and swing a sword with speed 4. You go next when the count reaches 7). If several people end up on the same count you go from high to low reflexes with ties happening simultaneously.

For OSR this number could easily be weapon or spell speed with other actions given appropriate values in relation to those.

As such, you aren't "sitting around waiting while others act around you" in the sense that you wait to do multiple things at once. Rather you're literally in the middle of doing something (you can't swing your axe again until you've brought it back up from your last swing) when someone else acts.

Quote from: Marchand;1127773I haven't come across a system I'm particularly happy with. I'd like to see a system that captures the ebb and flow feel you get from fights in cinema or from what little boxing I've seen. One side has the advantage and presses it until they try to land a telling blow, and either make it or fluff it and let the other guy come back. There's tension in the choice between playing it safe and gradually wearing the other guy down, or taking a gamble to put him down quickly.

I came up with a mechanic for this in the system I'm currently writing, but it's not based on initiative.  There's a combat modifier called momentum that adds to all melee actions, attack and defense.  If you successfully execute a combat action, which includes attack and a bunch of other things, then you get +1 to your momentum, which is significant since it's a d6 system.  If you take damage or do not make a successful combat action in your turn it drops back to 0.  Still needs work, but I'm happy with it so far.  It interacts with a lot of the combat actions and adds significant depth to decisions.

The Better Games systems from Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer magazine had an interesting take on Initiative. Players choose to go before or after the enemy. If you went before, you got first strike, but your attacks were more wild strikes. If you went afterward, you gained the advantage of aiming, heavier blows, ability to dodge what the enemy did, etc. I ran their Rogue Swords of the Empire for many years and it worked great in actual play.

Quote from: Marchand;1127773At its limit you get nonsense like a guy with a bow and arrow standing there while somebody runs up and bashes him over the head.

For me, that's a feature, not a bug.

That's crazy cinematic in my mind. The archer is trying to get his arrow readied and lift his bow, but at the last second, the orc charges in and hacks him down. And if the archer had readied previously, they would have shot first. Like Greedo.

1d6 per side, until any tie is broken; then side based initiative.

I prefer using a strict combat resolution over using initiative. I prefer:

1) Melee attacks - already engaged
2) Charging / missile attacks
3) Melee attacks - not yet engaged
4) Spells
- Loyalty \ Morale \ retreats \ any non-combat actions

Resolve each step. Actions are resolved in roll order within each step, highest to lowest. (and you only need to do it in roll order if both sides act on the same step)

Why roll initiative at all?

Quote from: Graytung;1127916Why roll initiative at all?

I used to use a strict combat resolution like yours above. It's good stuff and everybody knows what happens when...and that's what became a problem for me. I need the random factor so its a surprise who has the upper hand this round.

But the fixed order has lots of advantages. It allows for simultaneous actions which adds depth.

Quote from: Graytung;1127916I prefer using a strict combat resolution over using initiative. I prefer:

1) Melee attacks - already engaged
2) Charging / missile attacks
3) Melee attacks - not yet engaged
4) Spells
- Loyalty \ Morale \ retreats \ any non-combat actions

Resolve each step. Actions are resolved in roll order within each step, highest to lowest. (and you only need to do it in roll order if both sides act on the same step)

Why roll initiative at all?

as a 5e player im interested in phased combat

what happens if you need to move to get in range to fire a missile? youre just sol? same with melee attacks

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1127933as a 5e player im interested in phased combat

what happens if you need to move to get in range to fire a missile? youre just sol? same with melee attacks

I break it down into Fast, Standard and Delayed Actions.

Fast Actions are anything that can immediately be attempted at the start of the round, such as melee already engaged in melee or ranged weapons already drawn and loaded.

Standard Actions are anything that takes a minor degree of preparation before you can act, such as drawing weapons or moving into position. Ranged combatants who must move to get into range would act here.

Delayed Actions are anything else that takes more preparation but can be attempted in the round, including loading a crossbow, full round actions, complex skill checks (pick locks, disarm traps) or casting a spell with lengthy incantations.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1127702When running OSR games, what's your preferred initiative system?

Monsters roll d6 by side or type. Player characters roll individually, using their hit die as their init die.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1127933as a 5e player im interested in phased combat

what happens if you need to move to get in range to fire a missile? youre just sol? same with melee attacks

I don't bother with exact positioning, and visualize combat as anyone in melee being "engaged", and everyone else not in melee being on the periphery. Anyone can elect to attack anyone else, unless there is some obvious obstacle in the way. (i.e. if fighting in a tight corridor, then you can't obviously charge a spellcaster at the back)

The order in which actions are resolved account for the time it might take for a character to get into place, which is why melee attacks for those already engaged go first, then missile attacks, then melee (not yet engaged attacks). Spells always go last because there should be a chance to interrupt the casting.

There's still some amount of tactical play, because the place where the engaged combat takes place can limit the amount of creatures that can engage. So say, you funnel 20 orcs into a tight corridor, only 4 can engage in melee at a time. (1st and 2nd rank)

Not doing this in my D&D games (at least not yet), but elsewhere I'm experimenting with handling the phased/movement part of initiative by dealing with major movements as its own thing.   Roughly something like this:

1. Declare general intent.
2. Major moves.
3. Actions (repeat 3 times)
3.a. Resolve initiative
3.b. Actions mixed with minor moves.

The idea is that if A and B charge each other, then most or all of the closing to initiative happens as part of the major move.  Depending on distance, there may or may not be then enough time for ranged attackers to do something before they are engaged.  If B is instead taking a shot with a bow, and the major move by A won't engage him, then B can probably get his shot off.  The exceptions are edge cases where the major move puts someone within minor move distance but not engaged yet with the opponent.  Those happen to be the ones where I most care about initiative, anyway.  Plus, the repeat of the init/action/minor move sequence 3 times discourages the archer from wanting to hang around within that kind of distance.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1127936I break it down into Fast, Standard and Delayed Actions.

Fast Actions are anything that can immediately be attempted at the start of the round, such as melee already engaged in melee or ranged weapons already drawn and loaded.

Standard Actions are anything that takes a minor degree of preparation before you can act, such as drawing weapons or moving into position. Ranged combatants who must move to get into range would act here.

Delayed Actions are anything else that takes more preparation but can be attempted in the round, including loading a crossbow, full round actions, complex skill checks (pick locks, disarm traps) or casting a spell with lengthy incantations.

So, I'm liking this a lot. A 3 phase turn that allows for tactical interruption.

Once you more or less classify what actions are what, it is simply a matter of having a declaration phase, In order of; NPC's then PC's, delayed to fast.

Then going around the table with your players resolving each action.

"Initiative" would only matter if it made a difference in otherwise simultaneous actions that could effect each other - and a GM could simply go by the Dex scores - or have a roll-off.

How would you adjudicate something like mounted/moving combat situations; If a character wants to use his movement of 30' a turn to run up to an enemy 15' away, hit them, then continue running past for 15' more ?

Quote from: Jaeger;1128173So, I'm liking this a lot. A 3 phase turn that allows for tactical interruption.

Once you more or less classify what actions are what, it is simply a matter of having a declaration phase, In order of; NPC's then PC's, delayed to fast.

Then going around the table with your players resolving each action.

"Initiative" would only matter if it made a difference in otherwise simultaneous actions that could effect each other - and a GM could simply go by the Dex scores - or have a roll-off.

How would you adjudicate something like mounted/moving combat situations; If a character wants to use his movement of 30' a turn to run up to an enemy 15' away, hit them, then continue running past for 15' more ?

Yeah, I forgot to mention that there should be an Action Declaration phase as well, so technically there would be four phases in total, but only three dealing with actual actions. No actual actions take place during Action Declaration--only a general indication of what PCs can observe NPCs/enemies trying to do and players declare what they do in response. Then the GM determines at which phase everyone acts depending on what they're doing.

I would probably handle mounted movement just like any other type of movement--if you have to move to reach your target you act in the Standard Action phase. Though, that particular type of scenario you mention is an interesting case. But for purposes of this type of phased combat I would still ultimately treat it as a type of Move & Attack (Standard Action), but also require additional measures--treating it as an Overrun action perhaps, where the character might provoke an attack of opportunity for invading an enemy's space, and/or possibly require a Riding or Athletics check or something of the sort in order to complete the action.

The specifics may vary by system or edition, but it would basically be Standard Action phase, plus added complications.

I've always loved the idea of a declaration phase, but never once enjoyed it in play. It takes the immediacy out of all the player's actions. By separating the declaration and resolution it introduces a full-stop right in the middle of any potentially player-driven exciting sequence. I've heard lots of theories on how to "make it work", but none have ever played out at all satisfactorily at the table for me.

Anyone got a video example I can watch? Of real play that's awesome, using a declaration phase during initiative?

My general declaration seems to be working fine so far as a compromise.  The problems I've had with declarations in the past is that some players get analysis paralysis, some try to game it, etc.  So it just drags everything out.  I've got some of both kinds of players in my testing group.  When the declaration is something like, "I'll hang back and start a spell," or "I'll charge the group of orcs by the doorway," people seem to avoid all of the negative stuff.  Since all I wanted out of a declaration was the general idea, that works for me.

Quote from: Zalman;1128240I've always loved the idea of a declaration phase, but never once enjoyed it in play. It takes the immediacy out of all the player's actions. By separating the declaration and resolution it introduces a full-stop right in the middle of any potentially player-driven exciting sequence. I've heard lots of theories on how to "make it work", but none have ever played out at all satisfactorily at the table for me.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128258My general declaration seems to be working fine so far as a compromise.  The problems I've had with declarations in the past is that some players get analysis paralysis, some try to game it, etc.  So it just drags everything out.  I've got some of both kinds of players in my testing group.  When the declaration is something like, "I'll hang back and start a spell," or "I'll charge the group of orcs by the doorway," people seem to avoid all of the negative stuff.  Since all I wanted out of a declaration was the general idea, that works for me.

I've had more or less the same problem dealing with Random Initiative, except it gets spread out and repeated over and over again throughout the combat round. Players get distracted and lose focus playing with their dice or looking at their phone as they sit idly waiting for their "turn" to finally come. Then they get lost and I have to explain all over again what's going on and wait for them to make up their minds, trying to come up with the most advantageous course of action before they finally say "I attack X", and end up making a simple attack against the nearest enemy.

Some aspects of action declaration are inevitable because you have to lay out what's going on in the battlefield and players have to make a choice regardless of how you handle initiative. In my experience there's usually no immediacy to player actions in random initiative because the whole combat gets bogged down on waiting for your turn rather than immediately taking action based on player and/or character readiness after I initially laid out the situation at the start of the round. Instead, the player that was attentive and ready to fire a preloaded and ready arrow at a charging orc at the start of the round forgets WTF they wanted to do 15+ minutes later when their turn finally comes up cuz they rolled a 2 on a d20, so they had to wait for every indecisive player whose character needed to move to engage their target anyway to take action first cuz "initiative" trumps common sense.

This issue gets compounded if you roll initiative every round, cuz then you have to add this additional layer of rolls and preparation at the start of each round to determine when everyone is allowed to act (and roll again), rather just make attack rolls immediately as players start declaring their actions following the GM's explanation of the current situation, and the GM immediately rolling back the attacks of each enemy they are engaging.

Quote from: Zalman;1128240Anyone got a video example I can watch? Of real play that's awesome, using a declaration phase during initiative?

Nope. I don't really watch much game play content (only game reviews, tips and related discussions), so I'm not familiar with any channel where people play this way specifically.

I just use standard individual initiative for the Players, individual initiative for boss monsters and group initiative for groups of monsters.

Vision Storm, I think the problems you are describing are more a symptom of cyclic initiative rather than random initiative.  I used random initiative but group the players, in a variation of sides.  That moves very quick, in part because roughly half the players  can do something right now, and the other half are on deck.

I use the simple LotFP version. Group (players-monster type) Ini every round. Instead of a d6 I use a d20. Re-rolling the d6 feels pretty stupid. I didn't have the situation where this overwhelmed the party at the start of combat yet.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128288Vision Storm, I think the problems you are describing are more a symptom of cyclic initiative rather than random initiative.  I used random initiative but group the players, in a variation of sides.  That moves very quick, in part because roughly half the players  can do something right now, and the other half are on deck.

I've never tried group initiative (if I understand what you're describing correctly), so I didn't consider this might be more an issue of individual initiative (rather than cyclical initiative per se) when writing that last post. But now that you mention it I think that might be part of the problem.

In group initiative everyone in the same group can act roughly at the same time, or at least declare who goes next by group consensus (and likely tactical effectiveness), then the other group gets to act. So combat should run faster, with greater player engagement, than individual initiative (either 1-time cyclical initiative or rolled each round), where everyone must roll individually then sit around getting distracted while they wait their turn to finally do something. But with group initiative (I'm guessing) even if you're currently doing nothing you still have to pay attention while your party members resolve their actions cuz yours might be next, and it might play off something someone else did.

I wonder how/why you divide PCs into multiple groups, though--assuming I understand correctly that you're using some variant of group initiative with split party actions.

Hmm, I'm seeing lots of ways to handle phase initiative. Was there no default way for older D&D?

Quote from: VisionStorm;1128300I
I wonder how/why you divide PCs into multiple groups, though--assuming I understand correctly that you're using some variant of group initiative with split party actions.

The outcome that I want is to have there be 3 to 5 initiative groups (or maybe 2 to 7 in extreme cases).  But also for players to not know from one round to the next exactly when they go relative to everyone else. And I want both things without a lot of wasted handling time.  I run games that can often have 7-10 players, and frequently more than that.  So speed is important.

One way to get that is the early D&D stand by that others have described, where you handle ranged, then melee, then magic.  Another way is to have "side by side" initiative but have more than sides (perhaps arbitrarily chosen by the GM).  Another way a broad, phased approach similar to what you've described using in your own system.  

However, on top of my primary two motives, I also want if I can get it, minimal changes to the character sheets.  Since I was playing 3E, then 4E, and now 5E, each character has individual adjustments to initiative. So it is convenient for me to let every player roll while I put the monsters into 1 to 3  groups at a set initiative DC, and put the players into 2 to 4 groups going before, after, or between the monster groups.  If the first group of monsters is DC 13, anyone rolling better than that goes before them. And so forth. For most fights, I use one monster group, which means every round players go before or after the monsters.  Very simple, very fast, easy to teach new players as a house rule.  The reroll each round is now a group nexus of excitement instead of a slog.

For my own system,  I'm experimenting with variations on the same idea, but not so beholden to an existing system.  I do currently still have an individual character roll same as my 5E game, but will see how it goes.  The initiative modifier in that is a smaller range, and the bigger changes to initiative are from actions taken.

A strict side A / side B initiative is just a little too pat for my tastes, but I do very much appreciate the virtues of such a system.  You can think of my variant as a modest complication of the same.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128302However, on top of my primary two motives, I also want if I can get it, minimal changes to the character sheets.  Since I was playing 3E, then 4E, and now 5E, each character has individual adjustments to initiative. So it is convenient for me to let every player roll while I put the monsters into 1 to 3  groups at a set initiative DC, and put the players into 2 to 4 groups going before, after, or between the monster groups.  If the first group of monsters is DC 13, anyone rolling better than that goes before them. And so forth. For most fights, I use one monster group, which means every round players go before or after the monsters.  Very simple, very fast, easy to teach new players as a house rule.  The reroll each round is now a group nexus of excitement instead of a slog.

Ah, I get now where the group split comes from; enemies have a passive initiative as a DC, and PCs that beat their initiative fall into one group (going first) and those that fail fall into another group (going after the enemies), with things getting more complicated if multiple enemy groups (with their own DC) exist.

That's interesting take on how to handle initiative. It kind of incorporates elements of individual and group initiative into a single thing, handled as a task resolution roll. Kinda best of both worlds sort of thing, with some of the variability of individual initiative with each PC's personal speed playing a role, but some of the speed and ease of play group initiative. Also reduces chances of either side overwhelming the other if they win initiative, as might be the case with full blown group initiative.

Also, I guess this...

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128302One way to get that is the early D&D stand by that others have described, where you handle ranged, then melee, then magic.  Another way is to have "side by side" initiative but have more than sides (perhaps arbitrarily chosen by the GM).  Another way a broad, phased approach similar to what you've described using in your own system.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1128301Hmm, I'm seeing lots of ways to handle phase initiative. Was there no default way for older D&D?

...Somewhat answers mAcular Chaotic's question.

Glancing at the 0e Rules Encyclopedia it looks like they used a combination of group initiative and orders of action, going:

1. Check Morale (Optional)
2. Movement
3. Missile Combat
4. Magic
5. Hand to Hand

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128258When the declaration is something like, "I'll hang back and start a spell," or "I'll charge the group of orcs by the doorway," people seem to avoid all of the negative stuff.  Since all I wanted out of a declaration was the general idea, that works for me.

If I'm going to do a declaration phase (I don't currently, but I have in the past), I want declarations which are more specific than that, because the main thing I want out of a declaration is to get rid of the "optimal play" pattern of everyone focus-firing one enemy into oblivion and then instantaneously changing to the next target as soon as the previous one drops.  I want declarations so that players will spread out their attacks to avoid the risk that the first hit drops the enemy, and then everyone else's attacks are wasted on beating the corpse to a bloody pulp.

I guess I'm also a fan of re-reolling initiative each round, and making declarations - especially for spells or withdrawal from melee - before initiative is rolled.  So it seems the main thing I want from declarations is that they be specific enough to have a risk that, by the time you actually get to act, your declared action may no longer be relevant, or no longer possible (e.g., you declared to cast a spell, but got thumped in the noggin before getting it off, so it fizzles).  In theory, at least, that encourages actual planning and strategy around the declarations, rather than every turn's action being "what is the optimal way to react to the exact situation at this instant?"

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1128301Hmm, I'm seeing lots of ways to handle phase initiative. Was there no default way for older D&D?

Well, original D&D didn't include initiative or a formal combat sequence, it relied on the Chainmail rules for handling those things. And Chaninmail has various ways of handling the sequence, including a phased approach. When Swords & Spells came out, it took the Chainmail phased sequence and tweaked it for D&D specific use (although focused on miniatures combat/mass battle).

The combat sequence I posted earlier in the thread is based on the Swords & Spellls and Chainmail sequences, which I tweaked for smaller-scale D&D combat instead of mass battle.

I think there was a different phased sequence published in one of the later BECMI sets. I don't recall which set, though. Maybe Immortals or Masters.

Quote from: nDervish;1128323If I'm going to do a declaration phase (I don't currently, but I have in the past), I want declarations which are more specific than that, because the main thing I want out of a declaration is to get rid of the "optimal play" pattern of everyone focus-firing one enemy into oblivion and then instantaneously changing to the next target as soon as the previous one drops.  I want declarations so that players will spread out their attacks to avoid the risk that the first hit drops the enemy, and then everyone else's attacks are wasted on beating the corpse to a bloody pulp.

I guess I'm also a fan of re-reolling initiative each round, and making declarations - especially for spells or withdrawal from melee - before initiative is rolled.  So it seems the main thing I want from declarations is that they be specific enough to have a risk that, by the time you actually get to act, your declared action may no longer be relevant, or no longer possible (e.g., you declared to cast a spell, but got thumped in the noggin before getting it off, so it fizzles).  In theory, at least, that encourages actual planning and strategy around the declarations, rather than every turn's action being "what is the optimal way to react to the exact situation at this instant?"

I'm getting that by how I handle the flow of combat within the "group" actions.  Let's say I've got 9 players, and 4 of them win initiative and thus go before the monsters this round.  Two of the players want to keep wailing on the same monster as last round.  So they don't need to say anything, just start rolling. But, I don't take the results yet.  Meanwhile, the other two need to clarify something with me, which takes a few seconds.  I get them sorted and they start rolling. By now, I can start taking the results from the first two. And so forth.   It's a little chaotic, but I rather like the chaos because it gets 80% of the effect you discuss, which is good enough for me.  Every now and then, someone at the table overhears excitement from a good roll and can guess that another player has pounded some monster good, but its incidental enough that I don't mind, the same way that players can guess AC after enough close hits and misses.

New players all eventually ask me if they can wait and see what happens before they act.  Sure, if you don't mind losing initiative. Or if already lost initiative, giving up your action to automatically get initiative next round. That usually puts an end to that thought.  Plus, general declares work both ways.  If they say they are firing at the group of goblins, I'm usually fairly generous about letting additional hits spread over once a monster is downed.  OTOH, I'm the one choosing the exact targets, and I spread them out when multiple people attack. If there are 8 goblins and 2 ogres, and all 4 initiative winners said they were concentrating on the first ogre, then that's what they do, waste or not.  Their reward for an overkill is an over the top description of how the ogre goes down (or reels but stays up or whatever). Or the 4 players can all say the ogres, in which case I choose the exact targets. More often, a player will sense that a monster is reeling, and that player will declare to lock on to the target until resolved, but other players will be more general.  

There is a certain element of training the players for all of this to work, due to the chaos.  I'm usually running without a grid.  So in return for less control over the exact targets, I'm also fairly generous with movement.  The scene is imagined more as a confused melee over here and skirmishing over there, and the ranged opponents trying to hang back.  A character may not get to pick their exact target, but a successful attack has a target somewhere, even if that sometimes means the target was already going down.

Mainly, it lets me run my work game which has 1:15 sessions, such that I can do a fight with 10 players and up to twice that in opponents, and resolve the whole thing in 20 minutes.  We've had exactly one giant fight that took a session and a half, but that was when they let themselves get trapped on top of a rugged hill (admittedly a great defensive position) by 4 encounters at once. :)

Edit:  I don't get the spell declaration effect as strong as you describe in my D&D games.  In my own system, I'm approaching that from a different angle, but it is dependent on how magic works in that system (usually multiple actions to cast all but the simplest of spells, and skill rolls needed).

Quote from: VisionStorm;1128300But with group initiative (I'm guessing) even if you're currently doing nothing you still have to pay attention while your party members resolve their actions cuz yours might be next, and it might play off something someone else did.

Indeed, and in my experience this is exactly what keeps players more engaged. I use a (single) group initiative: monsters are one group, PCs are the other. I find that players knowing they can take their turn at any time during the PC's initiative keeps them looking for opportunities, and that means paying attention to what opportunities are being opened up by other player's actions throughout the sequence. When a player knows their turn won't be for "another 3 characters", for example, I find instead that the player is more likely to zone out until their turn, and then ask for a recap of the current situation before they even get to hemming and hawing about their own actions. Of course, as you note, a single-group initiative also means that players who are ready to go immediately do so, while those that need more time have it.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1128318...Somewhat answers mAcular Chaotic's question.

Glancing at the 0e Rules Encyclopedia it looks like they used a combination of group initiative and orders of action, going:

1. Check Morale (Optional)
2. Movement
3. Missile Combat
4. Magic
5. Hand to Hand

OK! So in this situation, let's look at movement. Does one whole team go first, then another, INSIDE the phase? Or does one team go through the entire series of steps, then the next? Or do both sides both act simultaneously inside each phase? If the latter, how do you decide how to declare things? Since if people can wait to see who's attacking what, they can decide what to do based on that information even though it's supposed to be both going at the same time.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1128428OK! So in this situation, let's look at movement. Does one whole team go first, then another, INSIDE the phase? Or does one team go through the entire series of steps, then the next? Or do both sides both act simultaneously inside each phase? If the latter, how do you decide how to declare things? Since if people can wait to see who's attacking what, they can decide what to do based on that information even though it's supposed to be both going at the same time.

In the simplest form, it's the declare before all that.  Then each side does each phase, with the winner of initiative going first in that phase.  Or sometimes initiative is tied and it is considered simultaneous.  Given the ranges of most ranged weapons and spells, movement rates, and the like, it really isn't that difficult to manage.  Your movement comes up.   Either you can close with the enemy or you can't.  Either you want to move or you don't.  If you want to move but can't close with the enemy (or put more distance between them and you or whatever), you do that.  If you run away, that may make it impossible for the side B folks to catch you this round, making their melee attacks moot (at least  against you, maybe not your friends). However, if they are still chasing you, next round they may get initiative.  

Typically, such systems make it somewhat difficult to disengage once someone gets in melee range.  Not impossible, but just running away usually has a significant cost.  Therefore the missle and magic inclined folk have a vested interest in avoiding getting into melee in  the first place.  Usually, with plenty of exceptions, and of course adventurers are often a little more flexible in that regards.  As with any system, it requires a little GM judgment to work well, and a little player understanding and experience to make it flow smoothly.  

Really, the main differences is that "sides" or "groups" encourages the players to function more as a party instead of individuals.  Or at least as a few "units" or "groups" within the party instead of individuals.   With enough henchman and hirelings, the party will often break down pretty naturally into missile, magic, and melee "groups" for any given round.  (I'm convinced part of the speed improvements, maybe most of them, are due to this switch in mindset.)  Like a lot of things, the only way to truly appreciate the difference is to try it, and do so with the understanding that it will take a few sessions for many players to really get it.  

Edit:  Meant to say, that there are a lot of variations on the simplest form, most dealing with interrupting actions of various types or providing nuance to engaged/disengaged situations.

Plus, I think if you've got 3 or 4 players with no NPC allies, it really doesn't matter what initiative system you use.  The GM could simply rule on the situation, and most of the time it would work.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128335I'm getting that by how I handle the flow of combat within the "group" actions.

Thanks for the expanded description!  Next time I'm running something where that type of initiative handling fits, I'll have to try to adapt some of what you've described.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128335It's a little chaotic, but I rather like the chaos

Managing the chaos is the #1 reason I prefer to GM, and the lack of chaos to manage is why I get bored after a session or two on the other side of the screen.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128466In the simplest form, it's the declare before all that.  Then each side does each phase, with the winner of initiative going first in that phase.  Or sometimes initiative is tied and it is considered simultaneous.  Given the ranges of most ranged weapons and spells, movement rates, and the like, it really isn't that difficult to manage.  Your movement comes up.   Either you can close with the enemy or you can't.  Either you want to move or you don't.  If you want to move but can't close with the enemy (or put more distance between them and you or whatever), you do that.  If you run away, that may make it impossible for the side B folks to catch you this round, making their melee attacks moot (at least  against you, maybe not your friends). However, if they are still chasing you, next round they may get initiative.  

Typically, such systems make it somewhat difficult to disengage once someone gets in melee range.  Not impossible, but just running away usually has a significant cost.  Therefore the missle and magic inclined folk have a vested interest in avoiding getting into melee in  the first place.  Usually, with plenty of exceptions, and of course adventurers are often a little more flexible in that regards.  As with any system, it requires a little GM judgment to work well, and a little player understanding and experience to make it flow smoothly.  

Really, the main differences is that "sides" or "groups" encourages the players to function more as a party instead of individuals.  Or at least as a few "units" or "groups" within the party instead of individuals.   With enough henchman and hirelings, the party will often break down pretty naturally into missile, magic, and melee "groups" for any given round.  (I'm convinced part of the speed improvements, maybe most of them, are due to this switch in mindset.)  Like a lot of things, the only way to truly appreciate the difference is to try it, and do so with the understanding that it will take a few sessions for many players to really get it.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I gathered from glancing at Rules Encyclopedia, but I was about to go to sleep so didn't read too deep. But like others have said there were many approaches in old D&D, and you could probably modify this to adapt it to your needs, if you don't want to roll initiative, for example. Personally, I'm a little iffy on the idea of handling Movement first, since a ranged combatant could technically attempt fire at moving targets before they move out of rage (at least in real life), so my sense is that both of those actions should happen roughly at the same time.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1128466Edit:  Meant to say, that there are a lot of variations on the simplest form, most dealing with interrupting actions of various types or providing nuance to engaged/disengaged situations.

Plus, I think if you've got 3 or 4 players with no NPC allies, it really doesn't matter what initiative system you use.  The GM could simply rule on the situation, and most of the time it would work.

That's pretty much how I arrived at my own phased system: I started using what I initially thought of as "Narrative Initiative", which was basically handling order of actions by GM fiat, based on what made "sense" in the situation. Eventually I started to dissect my process to identify what sort of criteria I subjectively/unconsciously used to determine order of actions and eventually arrived at the Fast Actions > Standard Actions > Delayed Actions framework I've mentioned before.

As DM's do you guys track initiative yourselves? Or do you delegate the task to a caller?

Quote from: Cave Bear;1128486As DM's do you guys track initiative yourselves? Or do you delegate the task to a caller?

Depends on the exact system I'm using, but as a general rule, I'll delegate to the players whenever possible--and for much more than initiative.  There are a lot more of them than there is of me. :)

Quote from: Cave Bear;1128486As DM's do you guys track initiative yourselves? Or do you delegate the task to a caller?

I'm a programmer by trade, so I tend to build basic database apps for whatever game I'm running at the time which keep track of character details, produce character sheets, and so on.  And one of the features I usually include is a screen that rolls initiative for everyone (PCs and foes alike), then lists them on the screen in order.  So I guess that counts as tracking it myself.

When I haven't had software support to deal with it, my usual tendency is to have everyone roll for themselves and then count down (or up, depending on system), relying on each player to announce when their initiative count is reached instead of collecting all the rolls into a centralized list.  This has some issues with players not paying attention ("Wait - we're on 7?  My initiative was on 11!  Can we go back?"), which I generally deal with on a "you snooze, you lose" basis.  (I don't actually make them miss their turns unless it gets to the end of the round and they haven't woken up yet, but I don't go back to previous counts, they go when they notice that it's past their count.)

Quote from: nDervish;1128609I'm a programmer by trade, so I tend to build basic database apps for whatever game I'm running at the time which keep track of character details, produce character sheets, and so on.

I do this as well -- could be an interesting topic in its own right!

Quote from: Zalman;1128613I do this as well -- could be an interesting topic in its own right!

Yes.   I'm also a software developer.  But I haven't written tools for my games since college (when I was an amateur programmer), because I like to keep my work out of the games. :)

I'm currently running Swords & Wizardry Crucible of Freya/Tomb of Abysthor in Roll20. I use simple d6 side-based, reroll each round. Spells have to be declared before initiative is rolled; if the other side wins initiative and somebody hits the caster, they lose the spell. I'm happy with this, given the reduced communication bandwidth online.

I have a good grasp of the AD&D 1e initiative rules, and would happily use those if my players were more familiar with 1e.

I find that online I can keep up a good pace, but only if I'm just running the NPCs and not teaching the rules at the same time. IRL I can teach & run at the same time no problem.

I make no claim to an OSR style game, but I've been playing D&D (and it's descendants) since the original boxed set.  We use initiative rolled every round.  If you're going last in the round and you know all your companions go before the bad guy, you don't have the same concerns about ending the fight, or saving a dying companion.  

When initiative is rolled new every round, you may find the bad guy going first, or the person who is in danger of bleeding out beating you in initiative.  Not knowing what the next rounds initiative is helps maintain a certain amount of suspense - and suspense in general is critical for combat to be entertaining.  It's not the only way, but we find it helps alot.

Since we track a variable initiative, we used to magnets on a white board with every character's name.  Reordering it was a breeze.  Now we are spread around the country so we play via video conference; we enter initiative into a shared spreadsheet and sort every round.  Each player adds their own initiative every round.  Outside of play-by-post, it's the best version of initiative I've ever used.

I can't remember where I saw this houserule, but the idea is that you roll for side-based initiative, and then the difference between the rolls determines when you roll for initiative again.
So, if your side rolls a 2 and the other side rolls a 4, then you roll for initiative again after 2 rounds.

So, there's more variance than rolling initiative only once, and less variance than rolling initiative every round.

I gave phased combat a try in 5e with my friends and it kicked ass. It took what would've been a three hour combat into like 30 minutes. And everyone was paying attention the whole time because everyone had their turn always happening. It has some rough spots but it can be ironed out.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1128987I gave phased combat a try in 5e with my friends and it kicked ass. It took what would've been a three hour combat into like 30 minutes. And everyone was paying attention the whole time because everyone had their turn always happening. It has some rough spots but it can be ironed out.

Would you mind listing out the approach you landed on that you like? I think I see it kind of listed across a couple posts, but I'd like to run my combats better/faster.

I decided to keep it basic and do it OD&D style (as I understand it), or close to it. I ran a few mock combats with friends and we got to see how it works, along with a few problems that I need to decide a solution to.

Here's what we did:

4 phases.

1. Ranged attack rolls. (This includes all ranged attacks, including ranged spell attacks.)
2. Movement, object interactions. (So, moving around, pulling out a weapon, opening a door, etc.)
3. Melee attack rolls, generic actions. (This includes all melee attacks, including melee spell attacks. Generic actions is anything not covered here, like Lay on Hands.)
4. Spells! (These are all non-attack spells, so stuff that either just works or uses a save. These spells are held at concentration until they are fired in phase 4.)

You can use any action or bonus action you have in a phase that fits it. For instance, if you had a bonus action attack and an action attack, you could use both in phase 3.

I kept to the phases very rigidly, ie., you had to get all your movement done in phase 2. If you found yourself short to attack in phase 3, then you couldn't attack.

I ran it team initiative style -- at the start, the highest initiative member of each team faces off, the winner gets to go first. Then every member of the team declares what they want to do this turn. Once they're done declaring, we resolve each step one at a time. After that, the enemy team goes. I considered a variant where both teams go at once, but resolve in order of initiative. (So if it was like that, you'd have Team A do their ranged attacks, then Team B, then Team A moves, then Team B moves, etc.) But currently it's all one side and then the other side.

It went very fast, and it kept everyone engaged the whole way through. This was a big deal since we play online, and online makes it easy for people to zone out and do other stuff while it's not their turn. But here, it's always their turn. So it's the anti-AFK system.

Two big drawbacks:
1) It seems like almost all the action has to be handled out of character, so you can't play it immersively if you're used to that, at least not without slowing it down again.
2) There are a number of edge cases where the pre-existing character abilities don't line up smoothly with the new system that have to be figured out. For instance, in normal 5e, you can move and act in any order you want, so it's easy to move up to someone, grapple them, then keep moving. In this, you have to do ALL  your movement beforehand, and then only get a chance to grapple in phase 3 -- by which point it's too late to move anymore. The same with any high mobility option or character like the Rogue's Cunning Action or the Monk or the Mobile feat. I fudged this in some cases, like letting someone taking Dash in phase 3 as a generic action to use extra movement on that phase even though it's the melee attack phase... maybe there's a way to fix it? Maybe add a second movement phase? I don't want to add a billion phases though. Or stuff like, if a spell is held until concentration in phase 4, what does that mean if you were already maintaining a spell with concentration before this? In normal 5e, the previous spell ends. In this case, I let that concentration not count against the concentration total.

It ended up going pretty well.

I think the parts where certain classes didn't get to work as they normally would, is a pain point for the players though. But as far as speeding things up, it was great.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1128987I gave phased combat a try in 5e with my friends and it kicked ass. It took what would've been a three hour combat into like 30 minutes. And everyone was paying attention the whole time because everyone had their turn always happening. It has some rough spots but it can be ironed out.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1129027I decided to keep it basic and do it OD&D style (as I understand it), or close to it. I ran a few mock combats with friends and we got to see how it works, along with a few problems that I need to decide a solution to.

Here's what we did:

4 phases.

1. Ranged attack rolls. (This includes all ranged attacks, including ranged spell attacks.)
2. Movement, object interactions. (So, moving around, pulling out a weapon, opening a door, etc.)
3. Melee attack rolls, generic actions. (This includes all melee attacks, including melee spell attacks. Generic actions is anything not covered here, like Lay on Hands.)
4. Spells! (These are all non-attack spells, so stuff that either just works or uses a save. These spells are held at concentration until they are fired in phase 4.)

You can use any action or bonus action you have in a phase that fits it. For instance, if you had a bonus action attack and an action attack, you could use both in phase 3.

I kept to the phases very rigidly, ie., you had to get all your movement done in phase 2. If you found yourself short to attack in phase 3, then you couldn't attack.

I ran it team initiative style -- at the start, the highest initiative member of each team faces off, the winner gets to go first. Then every member of the team declares what they want to do this turn. Once they're done declaring, we resolve each step one at a time. After that, the enemy team goes. I considered a variant where both teams go at once, but resolve in order of initiative. (So if it was like that, you'd have Team A do their ranged attacks, then Team B, then Team A moves, then Team B moves, etc.) But currently it's all one side and then the other side.

It went very fast, and it kept everyone engaged the whole way through. This was a big deal since we play online, and online makes it easy for people to zone out and do other stuff while it's not their turn. But here, it's always their turn. So it's the anti-AFK system.

This is pretty awesome. I'm glad that it worked out. Sounds like this style of initiative and combat management could really speed things up in online play.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1129027Two big drawbacks:
1) It seems like almost all the action has to be handled out of character, so you can't play it immersively if you're used to that, at least not without slowing it down again.

I wonder if this is partly as a result of you still settling in to this style of combat. Though, it is true that everyone acting at roughly the same time can sometimes interfere with your ability to elaborate on what you're doing. since everyone is trying to pitch in at the same and the faster pace of combat can take over.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;11290272) There are a number of edge cases where the pre-existing character abilities don't line up smoothly with the new system that have to be figured out. For instance, in normal 5e, you can move and act in any order you want, so it's easy to move up to someone, grapple them, then keep moving. In this, you have to do ALL  your movement beforehand, and then only get a chance to grapple in phase 3 -- by which point it's too late to move anymore. The same with any high mobility option or character like the Rogue's Cunning Action or the Monk or the Mobile feat. I fudged this in some cases, like letting someone taking Dash in phase 3 as a generic action to use extra movement on that phase even though it's the melee attack phase... maybe there's a way to fix it? Maybe add a second movement phase? I don't want to add a billion phases though. Or stuff like, if a spell is held until concentration in phase 4, what does that mean if you were already maintaining a spell with concentration before this? In normal 5e, the previous spell ends. In this case, I let that concentration not count against the concentration total.

It ended up going pretty well.

I think the parts where certain classes didn't get to work as they normally would, is a pain point for the players though. But as far as speeding things up, it was great.

This is part of the reason why I don't handle movement as its own phase, and just integrate it as part of your overall action. It can constrain things a bit unnecessarily, and force you to take some decisions out of turn with what you're attempting, or limit what you can do. Though, I am bit skeptical of the feasibility of moving, grappling, then moving again in quick succession in real life. Grappling is one of those things that requires the level of engagement that would prevent you from moving once you start (unless you're dragging them with you, which should reduce your movement and probably require extra rolls). Striking someone with a melee weapon as you run pass them is more plausible, though, specially in mounted combat.

Some of the issues with feats or class abilities are to be expected, though, since some of these abilities are built with D&D's current initiative system in mind. Though, it might also be an issue of handling movement as its own phase in some cases. Abilities that grant initiative bonuses would also be an issue. Not sure how I would handle those, other than not allow them or refund them if already bought. Class abilities that grant initiative bonuses could be turned into a bonus feat perhaps.

I talked with my players, and while they liked it, they said they preferred "normal combat but with everyone paying attention." Which is a dream all its own...

Other issues raised:

1) If you cast spells, you end up being able to do nothing if the conditions for your spell are gone -- ie, you want to fireball but now all the bad guys are dead and your party is all that's left in the fireball zone. Your fireball is wasted. Someone suggested allowing you to pick a different spell instead to handle this.
2) Someone came at it the other way and suggested it makes the players act like a military unit (everyone coordinating) instead of playing their characters, who might be sloppy adventurers, which is easier to do when its your turn and you're just reacting to what's happening instead of planning with the group.

Folding movement into every phase could work...

A lot of sentiment revolved around that this is all a huge change to make when you could speed up combat by cutting turns off after a few seconds if they weren't going fast enough. But to me this sounds very idealistic, since in reality this doesn't happen much, and the benefit of phases is everyone's turned "on" throughout the entire thing.

Maybe I'll just be more of a hardass during combat though. No more taking 10 minutes to decide what spell to cast.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1129040I talked with my players, and while they liked it, they said they preferred "normal combat but with everyone paying attention." Which is a dream all its own...

Other issues raised:

1) If you cast spells, you end up being able to do nothing if the conditions for your spell are gone -- ie, you want to fireball but now all the bad guys are dead and your party is all that's left in the fireball zone. Your fireball is wasted. Someone suggested allowing you to pick a different spell instead to handle this.

IDK, that's kinda the way it's always been regardless; if all enemies are dead you wouldn't be able to fry them anyway. And sometimes situations change tactically and you can't always get what you want, even with individual initiative. Also, didn't you mention you were handling all ranged attacks, including spells, at the first phase? It seems unlikely that anyone would be able to kill all enemies before you let a fireball loose, unless it happened last round.

Fireball has always been a tricky spell regardless because the huge area radius means you have to time it to avoid hitting allies. I suppose that if all else fails, allowing them to substitute for another spell could be a good compromise. That's usually what I do when situations change and someone's previously planned action becomes obsolete. If an enemy you were gonna hit in melee dies first I might allow an attack against another enemy within reach or to use up your action to start moving (half move) towards a more distant enemy.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;11290402) Someone came at it the other way and suggested it makes the players act like a military unit (everyone coordinating) instead of playing their characters, who might be sloppy adventurers, which is easier to do when its your turn and you're just reacting to what's happening instead of planning with the group.

This to me is a plus, TBH. Acting in synchronicity can open up a lot of interesting tactical opportunities--such as letting the mage lineup that fireball first, rather than attack in disunity and foil his/her attempts. You could also have fun with it and do stuff like coordinated takedowns between multiple characters then have someone jump in at the end and strike down a pinned enemy prone on the ground--maybe even work in a little RP in it as PCs direct their moves.

Reacting to what's happening based on your turn is also sort of an illusion, created by individual initiative, since everyone's supposed to be acting roughly at the same time (at least in theory), and initiative is supposed to just be a way to help manage combat. You're not supposed to be frozen in time waiting for your "turn", although that's what initiative does in practice, which is one of the reasons I don't like it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1129040A lot of sentiment revolved around that this is all a huge change to make when you could speed up combat by cutting turns off after a few seconds if they weren't going fast enough. But to me this sounds very idealistic, since in reality this doesn't happen much, and the benefit of phases is everyone's turned "on" throughout the entire thing.

Maybe I'll just be more of a hardass during combat though. No more taking 10 minutes to decide what spell to cast.

That's just gonna lead to resentment cuz you're skipping people in combat. I'm getting the impression that some of this criticism is more about fear of change and people "liking what they know" more than really knowing what they like or want. Sometimes people don't feel comfortable doing things differently than they're used to. Some of this stuff isn't even realistic in practical terms--people are just gonna phase out if they have to wait their turn. They might force themselves to do it initially but as the battle drags on they will begin to do something else, specially if they're home alone doing all of this through a computer with a bunch of distractions, including the computer itself (internet/social media).

It's also possible some might miss some of the RP that might have been going on when playing out their characters actions in individual turns.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1129040I talked with my players, and while they liked it, they said they preferred "normal combat but with everyone paying attention." Which is a dream all its own...

Other issues raised:

1) If you cast spells, you end up being able to do nothing if the conditions for your spell are gone -- ie, you want to fireball but now all the bad guys are dead and your party is all that's left in the fireball zone. Your fireball is wasted.

I see this as a feature, not a bug. And I definitely wouldn't let a PC switch spells. The whole point of having a caster phase and putting it late in the round makes it that there is a risk, if the Caster is interrupted or the conditions for the spell don't turn out, then the caster has wasted a turn. This balances out some of the power-level of higher level casters. It's also good emulation, since spells are based on verbal and somatic actions, and this should take longer than a simple attack.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1130132I see this as a feature, not a bug. And I definitely wouldn't let a PC switch spells. The whole point of having a caster phase and putting it late in the round makes it that there is a risk, if the Caster is interrupted or the conditions for the spell don't turn out, then the caster has wasted a turn. This balances out some of the power-level of higher level casters. It's also good emulation, since spells are based on verbal and somatic actions, and this should take longer than a simple attack.

Exactly.  Furthermore, the setup is rather generous compared to some ways you can do things.   If you want to be real strict, the "slot" is spent as soon as the spell is started.  Now it doesn't matter whether interrupted or self interrupted to not fireball his friends, committing to a spell is really commitment.  In contrast, you lost a round--in which the wizard probably wasn't going to do anything effective anyway--isn't even much of a price.  Besides, the same thing happens when several melee or ranged characters target the same creature with weapons.  Finally, the end of fights is the last time to be dragging things out!  Part of the great pacing effects of side by side initiative is that the pace starts reasonably fast and picks up as you go.  That may produce anti-climatic results for a few individuals most battles, but it makes the whole fight pacing work much better.

Besides, I don't see that particular complaint as all that relevant--it is more confirmation bias.  The same wizard could be at a spot in cyclic initiative where the exact same thing happened.

As an aside, one of the things I strongly considered doing in 3E right before I couldn't stand to run it anymore was to ban the "Improved Initiative" feat. I noticed that the people who took it were the ones that loved the idea of "going first", but were also the most susceptible to analysis paralysis. Worse, sometimes the thing they wanted to do "going first" was stop the whole game and plan out what everyone was going to do, so that they could not only go first but have the lead off hit.  Given the way buffs work in higher level 3E, from a strictly metagame efficiency aspect, it's not even a bad plan--just boring and annoying as hell to every other consideration at the table.  It's also a direct result of a negative feedback loop:  The rounds take a long time to get through, a few actions get all the results and glory, so that the only way to even feel like one is contributing is to go early.  Now, the cyclic initiative is hardly the only reason higher level 3E combat has issues, but what it does is magnify the issues that are already pervasive in that system.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1130166Besides, I don't see that particular complaint as all that relevant--it is more confirmation bias.  The same wizard could be at a spot in cyclic initiative where the exact same thing happened.

Hm, I agree that this would be a problem with cyclic initiative as well, but it's greatly mitigated (and potentially eliminated) by freeform group initiative, wherein players can decide when each character takes their turn relative to the other characters. As Pundit points out, freeform group initiative is thus a boon to casters -- and so probably works best in a low magic game where there's no need to balance the awesome power of some spells.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1130166Exactly.  Furthermore, the setup is rather generous compared to some ways you can do things.   If you want to be real strict, the "slot" is spent as soon as the spell is started.  Now it doesn't matter whether interrupted or self interrupted to not fireball his friends, committing to a spell is really commitment.  In contrast, you lost a round--in which the wizard probably wasn't going to do anything effective anyway--isn't even much of a price.  Besides, the same thing happens when several melee or ranged characters target the same creature with weapons.

I never particularly liked this way of handling actions in combat because it always seemed very punitive and gamey to me. IMO, it's at least partly (if not almost entirely) an artifice of round based action resolution and not entirely a reflection of reality--where people must declare their actions at the start of the "round" (which is purely a game construct that doesn't exist in the real world) then follow through like mindless automatons till the end of the "round", even if circumstances change. Like having eyes and adapting to the evolving circumstances transpiring around you is some type of transgression that must be curbed, least you gain some sort of unfair advantage.

Granted, there are circumstances where it sort of makes sense, like the aforementioned verbal and somatic preparation of spells, which could arguably compromise your actions. But there's simply no way that you couldn't adapt your melee attacks and positioning to swing at an adjacent opponent if the one you were facing gets their head chopped off by someone else. It's not like melee combat involves making one single swing and that's it, but rather it's a series of thrust and parries, pivoting from side to side, trying to look for an opening, and all of that gets abstracted to an attack roll for rules purposes.

A secondary reason why I prefer to let characters switch actions is that it helps quicken the end of combat, which is a plus for me because I don't like battles dragging out. So even if I'd have to fudge it a little (like in the case of spellcasting) I'd rather let characters do something else than prolong combat when it already tends to take too long (particularly with higher level characters and enemies in D&D and their ridiculous amount of HP).

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1130166Besides, I don't see that particular complaint as all that relevant--it is more confirmation bias.  The same wizard could be at a spot in cyclic initiative where the exact same thing happened.

This was pretty much my impression, as I tried to explain in my reply. Though, looking back on it I think I came off very arrogant in my post, by not contemplating the possibility that maybe mAcular Chaotic's players really like individual cyclical initiative and framing my whole reply from the point of view that they were simply missing the point. So I apologize for that.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130187I never particularly liked this way of handling actions in combat because it always seemed very punitive and gamey to me. IMO, it's at least partly (if not almost entirely) an artifice of round based action resolution and not entirely a reflection of reality--where people must declare their actions at the start of the "round" (which is purely a game construct that doesn't exist in the real world) then follow through like mindless automatons till the end of the "round", even if circumstances change. Like having eyes and adapting to the evolving circumstances transpiring around you is some type of transgression that must be curbed, least you gain some sort of unfair advantage.

Granted, there are circumstances where it sort of makes sense, like the aforementioned verbal and somatic preparation of spells, which could arguably compromise your actions. But there's simply no way that you couldn't adapt your melee attacks and positioning to swing at an adjacent opponent if the one you were facing gets their head chopped off by someone else. It's not like melee combat involves making one single swing and that's it, but rather it's a series of thrust and parries, pivoting from side to side, trying to look for an opening, and all of that gets abstracted to an attack roll for rules purposes.

I think it works best in conjunction with the pre-3e (pre-2e?) D&D rule that in multiple foe melees, your target is randomly determined. So you're not declaring "I attack Orc #3", you're declaring "I attack", then the GM rolls to determine your target.

Can't say I ever used this rule, but like many aspects of old D&D, I'm starting to see the wisdom!

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130187I prefer to let characters switch actions ...

I agree with all your reasoning for this, but why "switch"? I mean, if a player can switch actions freely, then what's the point of declaring them in the first place? It sounds like maybe you'd be fine with only certain actions being declared.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130187I never particularly liked this way of handling actions in combat because it always seemed very punitive and gamey to me. IMO, it's at least partly (if not almost entirely) an artifice of round based action resolution and not entirely a reflection of reality--where people must declare their actions at the start of the "round" (which is purely a game construct that doesn't exist in the real world) then follow through like mindless automatons till the end of the "round", even if circumstances change. Like having eyes and adapting to the evolving circumstances transpiring around you is some type of transgression that must be curbed, least you gain some sort of unfair advantage.

It's supposed to represent the chaos of combat--especially in some dark, dank tunnel with low ceilings. It's a little much for what I prefer, too, though I see why they did it. My main point, though, is that "don't get to change to a different spell and simply don't do anything this action" isn't really much of a penalty, when one considers the range of possibilities.  It's a very mild penalty to encourage people to think a little.  Heck, even MMORPGs include timing issues like that.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130187I never particularly liked this way of handling actions in combat because it always seemed very punitive and gamey to me.

Interesting.  I see it pretty much entirely the opposite way around - Alice: "Attack orc #1".  Bob: "Attack orc #1".  Charlie: "Attack orc #1".  DM: "Orc #1 falls over dead".  Evan: "Attack orc #2"... with everyone distributing their attacks perfectly optimally because their characters are able to instantaneously respond to any change in the circumstances of the fight feels far more gamey to me than to require players to take the risk that some attacks may be wasted on beating an already-bloody corpse if everyone focus-fires a single foe.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130187Like having eyes and adapting to the evolving circumstances transpiring around you is some type of transgression that must be curbed, least you gain some sort of unfair advantage.

Sure, quantizing time in a series of rounds does introduce differences from the real world, but, even with eyes, it takes time to adapt to those evolving circumstances.  If you're ferociously raining blows down on orc #1 and your buddy takes its head off, you can't just redirect your next swing to orc #2 and continue raining the same ferocity upon the new target.  It interrupts your rhythm, you have to check and redirect your swing, you need a moment to adapt to the evolving circumstances.  Which, in game terms, is "new action in the next round", because rounds are the smallest division of time available.  (Obviously, this makes more sense with GURPS 1-second rounds or most current games' 5- or 6-second rounds.  In the 1-minute rounds of early D&D editions, there would be plenty of time to change your action, probably multiple times.)

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130187But there's simply no way that you couldn't adapt your melee attacks and positioning to swing at an adjacent opponent if the one you were facing gets their head chopped off by someone else. It's not like melee combat involves making one single swing and that's it, but rather it's a series of thrust and parries, pivoting from side to side, trying to look for an opening, and all of that gets abstracted to an attack roll for rules purposes.

Yes, and you've made your series of thrusts and parries and been looking for an opening to attack your original target.  When you switch targets, you need to start that whole process over again (*cough*next round*cough*), you can't just say "orc #1 left his right knee open, but his head got lopped off, so I'll stab orc #2 in the right knee" and expect the second orc to have left the same opening.

If you're worried about focus-firing, you can avoid that without declaring actions.  In some skirmish games, that have no GM, everyone makes an attack role before damage is rolled on any of the hits.  If someone puts a hit on the enemy your were planning to target, you might change to a new target so as not to waste the attack.  Of course that first hit might not be enough, so you have an interesting tactical decision.  In an RPG with a GM, the GM simply doesn't tell players that a target is killed until that target's turn comes around.  "Orc #2 ... succumbs to his wounds and drops to the ground."  That orc may have been killed by the first player this round to attack it and the second player wasted their hit, but will never know.  Again, it forces players to think about their choice of targets but doesn't require anything to be declared at the start of the round.

Quote from: Zalman;1130214I agree with all your reasoning for this, but why "switch"? I mean, if a player can switch actions freely, then what's the point of declaring them in the first place? It sounds like maybe you'd be fine with only certain actions being declared.

You'd still need to make some type of declaration in order to determine how the group will proceed when initiating combat. How actions are handled from that point (or even throughout the round) may vary widely depending on which type of initiative is used: Individual, Group or Phased (and which type of Phased initiative, which may also vary significantly). So it's hard to establish one method that will apply to all initiative styles, but generally speaking once you set a course of actions that decision may compromise your position even if "switching" actions after the fact is allowed.

If you opted to move to engage a target in melee several feet away, for example, but by the time you got there someone else in your group who was already engaged in melee at the start of the round defeated the specific opponent you intended to attack I might allow you to attack an adjacent opponent instead, since you're already there. But I would not allow you to attack a distant opponent that required you to move again, since you already moved that round, so your position would already be compromised by that point. You may either take another action from that spot, or lose your round if no other action is possible at the time.

Quote from: nDervish;1130278Interesting.  I see it pretty much entirely the opposite way around - Alice: "Attack orc #1".  Bob: "Attack orc #1".  Charlie: "Attack orc #1".  DM: "Orc #1 falls over dead".  Evan: "Attack orc #2"... with everyone distributing their attacks perfectly optimally because their characters are able to instantaneously respond to any change in the circumstances of the fight feels far more gamey to me than to require players to take the risk that some attacks may be wasted on beating an already-bloody corpse if everyone focus-fires a single foe.
...
Sure, quantizing time in a series of rounds does introduce differences from the real world, but, even with eyes, it takes time to adapt to those evolving circumstances.  If you're ferociously raining blows down on orc #1 and your buddy takes its head off, you can't just redirect your next swing to orc #2 and continue raining the same ferocity upon the new target.  It interrupts your rhythm, you have to check and redirect your swing, you need a moment to adapt to the evolving circumstances.  Which, in game terms, is "new action in the next round", because rounds are the smallest division of time available.  (Obviously, this makes more sense with GURPS 1-second rounds or most current games' 5- or 6-second rounds.  In the 1-minute rounds of early D&D editions, there would be plenty of time to change your action, probably multiple times.)
...
Yes, and you've made your series of thrusts and parries and been looking for an opening to attack your original target.  When you switch targets, you need to start that whole process over again (*cough*next round*cough*), you can't just say "orc #1 left his right knee open, but his head got lopped off, so I'll stab orc #2 in the right knee" and expect the second orc to have left the same opening.

Yeah, but that "risk" taking factor assumes that battle decisions are something that must be entirely decided head of time and that once that course of action is taken no adjustments can be made on the way there till the following round, which would take place several seconds later (at least in almost all systems other than GURPS, AFAIK). But if that was the case I would crash my car every single time I'm trying to speed pass a slow line and someone randomly shifted lanes in front of me, rather than me being able to break and perhaps shift lanes as well or do other adjustments instead of instantly crashing my car cuz I have to wait till the next imaginary round to adjust my course while driving. And that may well turn out to be the case, since many people crash exactly that way, but I never have, because reacting to other people's bad driving and adjusting my course midway is also a possibility (albeit, at a risk, which may require an ability roll in terms of the game rules). And crashing a car as a result of someone throwing their car at you is an infinitely a more likely scenario that me beating a bloody corpse like a retard cuz I have to wait for the next round to tell that its already dead.

Taking a swing at someone beside you is not that difficult, and if anything the fact that you're not directly engaged yet may grant you an opening since they're not properly positioned to meet your attacks effectively. Its only once you've both had the chance to properly position yourselves and raise your guards that the whole song and dance of thrust and parries clashing against steel really starts, but a random attack may still find its way in that time and catch you unprepared. Granted, by the same token an adjacent enemy may also take the chance to take a swing at you (as they would in my games)  if it's one of your friends who takes the fall. And the case could also be made that since neither of you is properly positioned to face each other that your attacks should take a penalty, if allowed (which is something I have seen in games that explicitly allow you to switch actions mid-round in the rules). But generally speaking adapting to an enemy falling while others are still near by takes only a fraction of a second, which is more than enough time in most games, which use 6 second rounds (which is enough time to kill several people in a real life encounter, and many, many more if we're going by old D&D's absurdly long 1 minute rounds).

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130323old D&D's absurdly long 1 minute rounds).

OD&D-1e-2e combat is more a squad-level wargame, I'm finding; it's not actually intended to emulate a single combatant duelling. If I remember my John Boyd OODA loop correctly, at individual level the decision loop (equivalent to a game round) is about 3-5 seconds, at squad level the decision loop is around 15 seconds, or 30 seconds for tanks/fighting vehicles. So 1 minute is still too long, but not so egregious.

Quote from: S'mon;1130430OD&D-1e-2e combat is more a squad-level wargame, I'm finding; it's not actually intended to emulate a single combatant duelling. If I remember my John Boyd OODA loop correctly, at individual level the decision loop (equivalent to a game round) is about 3-5 seconds, at squad level the decision loop is around 15 seconds, or 30 seconds for tanks/fighting vehicles. So 1 minute is still too long, but not so egregious.

Yeah, that has always been my impression as well. I have even seen people bring up the time it takes to load a ballista when trying to justify the 1 minute round, like most characters are dragging around siege engines to raid a dungeon. Even in the case of actual sieges I don't think that the time it takes to engage in personal combat should be governed by the time it takes to mobilize and reload war machines. If those siege engineers don't want to be overwhelmed by individual troops then they better keep their siege weapons far away from the engagement where they belong. But foot troopers swinging a sword shouldn't be limited to making a single attack in an entire minute just because people loading up a catapult want to exercise their god given right to also participate in combat.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130323You'd still need to make some type of declaration in order to determine how the group will proceed when initiating combat.

Me? No, I don't. I just let players go during their side's initiative whenever they like. I don't try to track which actions are overlapping which others, I just assume that when a player "goes" is when their action resolves, rather than when an action is first initiated. I like my OSR initiative simple, fast, and cinematic, and this method works awesomely for me in gameplay.

People tend to stop considering once they arrive at a single point that doesn't match their thinking process.

A round is a unit of time.  The author set the unit of time to equal a minute.  People consider one action type undertaken in that unit of time, and determine that more of that action type (exchanging blows) should be possible in a minute.  They now exit consideration mode and enter into complaining mode. They don't consider how assigning one minute to the unit actually serves to their benefit.

What else do you do over the course of a minute?  Consider movement.  If your buddy is in trouble on the other side of a field (let's say they've been jumped by 4 bogeys when they choose to go look at something - detail unimportant), how many rounds of attacks do you want them to endure before you can arrive to help them out?  If a round is 6 seconds long, they will endure many more exchanges than if the round is stretched to a minute with all exchanges abstractly considered ineffective but one of the possible exchanges in that minute.  In the 6 second round all those presumed ineffective exchanges now can cut him down while you're hightailing it over there six seconds at a time instead of them (through the effect of the rules) valiantly buying you time to get there.

While in a more normal (even) combat situation, whether 10 exchanges between is considered after it is over to have abstractly taken 60 seconds or 10 minutes is...nearly irrelevant?  "But verisimilitude!"

Verisimilitude is another word for confirmation bias.

Quote from: Zalman;1130459Me? No, I don't. I just let players go during their side's initiative whenever they like. I don't try to track which actions are overlapping which others, I just assume that when a player "goes" is when their action resolves, rather than when an action is first initiated. I like my OSR initiative simple, fast, and cinematic, and this method works awesomely for me in gameplay.

If you don't want to keep track of overlapping actions in your own game that's your prerogative. But that doesn't mean that overlapping actions don't exist or that certain actions can't cancel each other out or potentially limit your range of options--particularly if they involve multiple actions (such as moving into position; then attacking). It just means that you're willing ignore it and simplify the process for the sake of expediency, similar to how I allow characters to switch spells if their originally intended spell is no longer viable.

I know that spellcasting technically takes time and that if a PC no longer wants to cast fireball cuz their friends are now on the blast area they're supposed to lose their spell and wait till the next round to start casting another. But I'm willing to fudge it cuz it helps the combat move faster and I assume that the wizard might still be able to adapt to the changing circumstances they can see transpiring around them and notice their friends getting in the way well before it's too late to choose a more effective spell. But if you want to get technical they probably should at least have to wait for the next round (even if I'm generous and don't make them lose their spell), since spellcasting is supposed to take time with lots of ritual motions, incantations or even different material components (which would also have to be switched) depending on the spell.

Quote from: EOTB;1130476Verisimilitude is another word for confirmation bias.

Says the guy trying to justify the failed notion of 1 minute rounds cuz he doesn't want their friend in the other side of the field to get slaughtered by a gang of four bad guys, as logic dictates they should, rather than accept that maybe their friend shouldn't have been so careless or that time shouldn't have to stop just cuz your friend is in trouble and you don't want the inevitable to happen.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130479If you don't want to keep track of overlapping actions in your own game that's your prerogative. But that doesn't mean that overlapping actions don't exist or that certain actions can't cancel each other out or potentially limit your range of options--particularly if they involve multiple actions (such as moving into position; then attacking). It just means that you're willing ignore it and simplify the process for the sake of expediency, similar to how I allow characters to switch spells if their originally intended spell is no longer viable.

Sort of! Overlapping actions exist in the theoretical abstract, but in my preferred initiative there is no separation between declaration and action, so there is no interruption or switching that occurs in game. Sure, the player might change their mind 7 times before they go; if so that's a secret known only to them.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130479I know that spellcasting technically takes time and that if a PC no longer wants to cast fireball cuz their friends are now on the blast area they're supposed to lose their spell and wait till the next round to start casting another.

That may be a rule in the games you play, not in mine. I prefer a simpler initiative for OSR.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1130479Says the guy trying to justify the failed notion of 1 minute rounds cuz he doesn't want their friend in the other side of the field to get slaughtered by a gang of four bad guys, as logic dictates they should, rather than accept that maybe their friend shouldn't have been so careless or that time shouldn't have to stop just cuz your friend is in trouble and you don't want the inevitable to happen.

I'm the DM, I don't care how many characters you have to roll up?  I'm pointing out how it helps the player.  If they'd rather die for their verisimilitude, what is it to me?  People are strange.

Quote from: EOTB;1130476What else do you do over the course of a minute?  Consider movement.  If your buddy is in trouble on the other side of a field (let's say they've been jumped by 4 bogeys when they choose to go look at something - detail unimportant), how many rounds of attacks do you want them to endure before you can arrive to help them out?  If a round is 6 seconds long, they will endure many more exchanges than if the round is stretched to a minute with all exchanges abstractly considered ineffective but one of the possible exchanges in that minute.  In the 6 second round all those presumed ineffective exchanges now can cut him down while you're hightailing it over there six seconds at a time instead of them (through the effect of the rules) valiantly buying you time to get there.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The view of the one minute round is being described here is not the same as the view of the six second round. If they were it wouldn't matter as the odds of surviving five six seconds combat arounds versus four opponents would be the same a surviving a one minute combat around against four opponents.

The same to-hit mechanics odds are assigned to a smaller time period isn't the problem. The problem is that one's view of a combatant surviving one minute of combat rounds against four opponents.

Quote from: S'mon;1130430If I remember my John Boyd OODA loop correctly, at individual level the decision loop (equivalent to a game round) is about 3-5 seconds, at squad level the decision loop is around 15 seconds, or 30 seconds for tanks/fighting vehicles. So 1 minute is still too long, but not so egregious.

If we're using the realism argument, then either every combat round in every rpg ever written is too short, or most combat rounds should be spent doing nothing. Think of a heavyweight boxing match - 18x 3 minute rounds. At 1 minute for a combat round, that's 54 combat rounds, which would be a dice-rolling snorefest. At GURPS' rate of 1 second per combat round, it'd be 3,240 rounds, it'd probably be a year-long campaign. Even a relatively textbook platoon assault on a section's prepared position can take an hour or more.

What I've long said is that combat rounds can generally be an indeterminate length. Unless there's a ticking bomb beneath the feet of the combatants (or some magical equivalent like a delayed-blast fireball), it doesn't actually matter whether a combat is one second or one hour - though I suppose if it were really long then it might eventually get too dark to fight.

What matters is how much movement the combatants get compared to attacks. If you have little movement, then all combats become duels at whatever range they were when they first saw each-other; if you have a lot of movement, then combatants can run in circles around each-other. Either would be absurd. And so we generally allow a certain amount of movement as well or instead of an attack, with some caveats like "if you turn away from melee he gets a free attack", etc.

Be careful of the realism argument, because in fact nobody believes or wants reality, like the fact that if the guy's less than 20 feet away you can't draw and fire at him before he closes with you and stabs repeatedly, or the fact that a cop shooting at a suspect less than 10 feet away will miss 5 times in 6. I'm sure the age of medieval battles had their own crazy shit nobody outside them could believe. Add in to that lengthy combats and everyone would be bored out of their brains.

The details of combats are lengthy, depressing and boring. That's why we abstract them with hit points and shit like that.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1130678What I've long said is that combat rounds can generally be an indeterminate length. Unless there's a ticking bomb beneath the feet of the combatants (or some magical equivalent like a delayed-blast fireball), it doesn't actually matter whether a combat is one second or one hour.

This. Which I suppose is why trying to justify retrofitting every possible action into a specific fixed time period inevitably requires so much mental contortion.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1130678What matters is how much movement the combatants get compared to attacks. If you have little movement, then all combats become duels at whatever range they were when they first saw each-other; if you have a lot of movement, then combatants can run in circles around each-other. Either would be absurd. And so we generally allow a certain amount of movement as well or instead of an attack, with some caveats like "if you turn away from melee he gets a free attack", etc.

Or perhaps more generally, how much can you do in one round. How long is a round? It's "one attack and one movement" long.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1130678Be careful of the realism argument, because in fact nobody believes or wants reality, like the fact that if the guy's less than 20 feet away you can't draw and fire at him before he closes with you and stabs repeatedly, or the fact that a cop shooting at a suspect less than 10 feet away will miss 5 times in 6.

Speak for yourself. That's precisely how I like melee vs ranged attacks working in my game. Melee weapons are for melee and ranged weapons are for range. Use ranged weapons within melee reach only at your peril. And charge a ranged attacker from a long distance with a melee weapon also at your peril. That's what melee and ranged weapons are for.

Obviously a degree of abstraction is inevitable because it's a game and we can't arbitrate every instant our characters are in action. But just because abstraction is necessary that doesn't mean we have to drop all semblance of sense, like the distance between melee and ranged attackers doesn't matter or plenty of game effects (whether originating from spells or technology) aren't going to have a duration.

The actual duration of rounds is a compromise between "realism" and playability. And the argument could be made that certain circumstances, such as vehicle combat or long shoot outs with lots of cover and waiting in between, may require different time intervals depending on what all participants are actually doing. But generally speaking if you have to run several minutes across a field to reach a friend who's getting pummeled by multiple attackers, those attackers are going to have a lot of time to do some serious damage before you get there.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1129027...

Here's what we did:

4 phases.

1. Ranged attack rolls. (This includes all ranged attacks, including ranged spell attacks.)
2. Movement, object interactions. (So, moving around, pulling out a weapon, opening a door, etc.)
3. Melee attack rolls, generic actions. (This includes all melee attacks, including melee spell attacks. Generic actions is anything not covered here, like Lay on Hands.)
4. Spells! (These are all non-attack spells, so stuff that either just works or uses a save. These spells are held at concentration until they are fired in phase 4.)

You can use any action or bonus action you have in a phase that fits it. For instance, if you had a bonus action attack and an action attack, you could use both in phase 3.

....

It went very fast, and it kept everyone engaged the whole way through. This was a big deal since we play online, and online makes it easy for people to zone out and do other stuff while it's not their turn. But here, it's always their turn. So it's the anti-AFK system.

Finally got to try this out: it worked GREAT. Thank you for the writeup -- my players were really happy with this. First round was slow as people got used to it, because it was so different from what they'd done before. After that combat moved snappily and players seemed engaged and happy. I asked for end-of-session feedback as well and everyone liked the system. We'll be sticking with this for the foreseeable future.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1129027Two big drawbacks:
1) It seems like almost all the action has to be handled out of character, so you can't play it immersively if you're used to that, at least not without slowing it down again.

This didn't seem to be a thing as I was running it. I'd announce the phase and people described their action in character. Maybe the GM announcing the phase is what you mean? With a VTT though I bet I could get it to an unspoken prompt that lets me not interrupt the players' descriptive flow.

Awesome! I'm glad you liked it. I meant that a large idea around this system is that players would work together to make their plan, like a football team huddle, then go. But a lot of CHARACTERS in the GAME aren't the type to want to do team work. So you either do the teamwork OOC and get rid of the roleplaying and all the character stuff, or let it turn into a chaotic mess where you can't really coordinate -- whereas in a normal initiative system when you're playing in character, you get your own specific time to see what's happening and deliberately react to it.

It does seem like a case where the right mindset towards playing in it can fix it. Everyone can just announce what they're doing in character.

Oh, another issue related to the above is not being able to roleplay various decisions on your turn as they play out. Like, in the "declare first then resolve" system, everyone declares, then it's pretty much just carrying it out. But if you're doing it turn by individual turn, you get cases where all of the action is coming down onto you, you have to talk to your allies IC about what to do -- do you heal the downed Fighter or try to flip the switch that closes the water flooding the room? Etc. So you lose the in depthness of the turn roleplaying there.

How did you handle people doing stuff where the new system kind of gets in the way? For example, in normal combat, you can grapple someone, THEN move them around. In the phase system I outlined, after you grapple, the movement phase is already over. You have to wait until the next turn. Another example: you're a fighter with 3 attacks and 30 feet of movement. You run up to the first goblin and kill it, it dies. You have 2 attacks left, but you need to move to kill the other enemies -- but your movement phase is over now. Those attacks get wasted. Some suggested letting you do your move on whatever phase you do your other actions, and maybe that'd be a good idea. Or you could just let it become a new meta where those things are worse now, or come up with some other fix...

Another thing that might need to be "patched" is the fact that in older editions spellcasters always going last made sense since they were so OP -- it added a neat countdown tension to every round -- will we stop the caster before they unleash something terrible!? But in 5e they're pretty much on the same level as everyone else so it's more of a nerf.

Quote from: estar;1130675You are comparing apples to oranges. The view of the one minute round is being described here is not the same as the view of the six second round. If they were it wouldn't matter as the odds of surviving five six seconds combat arounds versus four opponents would be the same a surviving a one minute combat around against four opponents.

The same to-hit mechanics odds are assigned to a smaller time period isn't the problem. The problem is that one's view of a combatant surviving one minute of combat rounds against four opponents.

estar, the point is that by making a round 1 minute, it allows for 120 ft of movement.  You couldn't do that in a 6 second round.  So yeah, a whole lot of swinging weapons is abstracted away as misses to do this, but in a wargame how far a unit can move in a turn is almost as important a consideration as its attack.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1130745How did you handle people doing stuff where the new system kind of gets in the way? For example, in normal combat, you can grapple someone, THEN move them around. In the phase system I outlined, after you grapple, the movement phase is already over. You have to wait until the next turn. Another example: you're a fighter with 3 attacks and 30 feet of movement. You run up to the first goblin and kill it, it dies. You have 2 attacks left, but you need to move to kill the other enemies -- but your movement phase is over now. Those attacks get wasted. Some suggested letting you do your move on whatever phase you do your other actions, and maybe that'd be a good idea. Or you could just let it become a new meta where those things are worse now, or come up with some other fix.

Might be more complication than you want, but you could always do what some war games do and split the movement up, either half moves or either/or.  For example:

1. Ranged
2. Close
    a. Move Opportunity 1
    b. Melee
    c. Move Opportunity 2
3. Spells

In the "Close" phase, you can move before or after melee, but not both.  Or if you can tolerate keeping up with it, do the half move thing.  There are other variations on that, but the either/or seems to fit what you've done so far the best, while still requiring some hard choices.

Quote from: EOTB;1130746estar, the point is that by making a round 1 minute, it allows for 120 ft of movement.  You couldn't do that in a 6 second round.  

BX-BECMI has 120' movement in a 10 second round, if you don't attack, so not far off. 1e charge is x2 speed AIR so 240' in a 1 minute round.

Yeah, charging you can go faster.  I didn't know that about BX-BECMI sets.  Seems fast to me (not in shorts on a football field, but under game considerations), but if people like it that's fine.

I'm fine with one minute rounds either way.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1130678Be careful of the realism argument, because in fact nobody believes or wants reality, like the fact that if the guy's less than 20 feet away you can't draw and fire at him before he closes with you and stabs repeatedly...

Are you saying nobody wants the situation where the melee guy can close and stab the shooter; or that nobody wants for the shooter not to be able to shoot the melee guy?

A system where a shooter can shoot a melee guy charging towards him (he might miss, but he should get a shot) is exactly what I want. Runequest strike ranks were good for that.

Nobody wants a roll for every muscle twitch but there is a distinction between realism and physics-sim.

(Off topic but is your sig quotation from the old 80s fighting fantasy Dungeoneer? I loved that book!)

I don't mind sacrificing realism for game play and fantasy.  In fact, I expect it.  What I don't want is for the game system to be slapping me in the face constantly with its lack of coherence.  Granted, that's going to vary by person.  For example, I don't mind weapons and armor listed at a higher weight than is reasonably, especially if that ties into simplifying the encumbrance system.  I balk at the characters using a great sword that is twice as long as they are tall.

Quote from: EOTB;1130746estar, the point is that by making a round 1 minute, it allows for 120 ft of movement.  You couldn't do that in a 6 second round.  So yeah, a whole lot of swinging weapons is abstracted away as misses to do this, but in a wargame how far a unit can move in a turn is almost as important a consideration as its attack.

The root of the problem with 1 minute melee rounds in AD&D 1e is that it is holdover from Chainmail. I am not saying that D&D evolved from Chainmail but since Gygax authored all three sets of rules certain concepts got carried over to OD&D and then to AD&D. One of them was the 1 minute combat round and movement rates. These rules make sense for mass combat in formation, not so much for melee skirmishes with small scale combats like one on one fights.

And there is the issue of movement being tens of feet indoors versus tens of yards outdoors. Moving 2 feet per second indoors is too unrealistic for many including myself. But when you drop the combat round to 6 or 10 seconds and still keep the same base movement rate of 120 feet per round then the issue goes away.

Movement, eh?

So, in the army you do contact drills. One part of the unit drops and fires at the enemy while the other part moves forward, they drop down, start firing, then the other part gets up and moves. So... each move is called a "bound", and these "bounds", how big are they?

Well, when you just do the up, forward, down drill, the bounds are about 15-20 metres.
Add blanks being fired and they become 10-15 metres.
Do it on a live firing range and it becomes 5-10 metres.
Now, try that on the two way rifle range, and...

But hey, 40 metres in 6-10 seconds. Certainly. Wire fu!

Like I said, nobody wants realism. What they want is to have their favourite kind of unrealism be called realism. Hey, party on.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1130929Movement, eh?

So, in the army you do contact drills. One part of the unit drops and fires at the enemy while the other part moves forward, they drop down, start firing, then the other part gets up and moves. So... each move is called a "bound", and these "bounds", how big are they?

Well, when you just do the up, forward, down drill, the bounds are about 15-20 metres.
Add blanks being fired and they become 10-15 metres.
Do it on a live firing range and it becomes 5-10 metres.
Now, try that on the two way rifle range, and...

But hey, 40 metres in 6-10 seconds. Certainly. Wire fu!

Like I said, nobody wants realism. What they want is to have their favourite kind of unrealism be called realism. Hey, party on.

From what I remember of doing that, the getting up and dropping down takes a LOT of energy, and is not at all comparable to move + attack. In eg 3e D&D or 4e D&D the dropping would be free but the standing would take your entire move. In 3e the standing takes half your move, so you could move 15' & attack in a 6 second round, which fits your lower bound for 'live firing range'.

Not sure what your objection is to the realism of "running 40 meters in 6-10 seconds" is. Especially in a world without fire suppression!

This why I abstract time.  Swinging a sword, casting a spell and moving 30 feet might each be one action, but I can't wrap my head around the idea they all take the same amount of time. But if you abstract time as a cinematic camera spotlight, then it works. I know it's not realistic, but I am cool with an action being "do your cool thing this round" and 10 rounds equals a turn which is 10 minutes.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1130962This why I abstract time.  Swinging a sword, casting a spell and moving 30 feet might each be one action, but I can't wrap my head around the idea they all take the same amount of time. But if you abstract time as a cinematic camera spotlight, then it works. I know it's not realistic, but I am cool with an action being "do your cool thing this round" and 10 rounds equals a turn which is 10 minutes.

According to John Boyd's OODA loop, the individual soldier cycles through Observe-Orient-Decide-Act every 3-5 seconds, which is not far off modern D&D's 6 second combat round, and the Act part is usually going to be a minority of the time - we spend most of our time in OOD. This makes "zoom in for the cool thing" functionally the same as "zoom in for the Act". So it's not too unrealistic when everyone is doing their own thing. The big problem with individual init is when everyone should be doing the same thing at the same time, eg a line of soldiers advancing. This is a scale issue - the soldiers there are acting at squad level, not individual level.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1130962This why I abstract time.  Swinging a sword, casting a spell and moving 30 feet might each be one action, but I can't wrap my head around the idea they all take the same amount of time. But if you abstract time as a cinematic camera spotlight, then it works. I know it's not realistic, but I am cool with an action being "do your cool thing this round" and 10 rounds equals a turn which is 10 minutes.

Absolutely. I even go so far as to leave off the last part, "... which is 10 minutes". Instead, I use language like "Lasts 10 rounds, or 10 minutes outside of combat." Rounds (and thus turns) are variable lengths of time because they represent an economy of action, not ticks of a clock.

Quote from: S'mon;1130963According to John Boyd's OODA loop, the individual soldier cycles through Observe-Orient-Decide-Act every 3-5 seconds

Yeah, 3-5s is the shortest I would want a round to be. It just feels wrong if you can't do a complete "OODA loop" in your turn. We gave up on GURPS quickly after realizing "I aim" is a turn.

I've always liked 6 second rounds.

Bumping this thread for a question.

For initiative systems that use simultaneous resolution (ie, everyone goes at once, either both sides or just your own team), how do you resolve situations that depend on the other person's results?

For instance, let's say you are using a system that has both enemies and good guys go at the same time during some phase.

You are 30 feet away from a bad guy and try to run away. They give chase. In individual initiative, if the enemy won the roll, they could get close to you and attack you before you got a chance to run away. But during simultaneous initiative, both of you move at the same time, so you're always getting away from the enemy. If you are dealing with a ranged enemy, how can you ever catch up to them then?

Or let's say you're on the same team, you are a wizard and want to fireball a bad guy, but then an ally runs in there at the same time to attack the enemy. Does your fireball hit before or after your ally gets there?

These are two different types of situations. When it comes to chases I always resolve them by making an opposed skill roll--usually Athletics for foot chases or some type of Piloting skill for vehicle chases. The way I handle chase rolls is the following:

In order to catch up to the fleeing target the chaser must be within one round distance (based on the chaser's Speed) from their target and succeed on an opposed roll. If they succeed they catch up to the fleeing target and may make a melee attack to attempt to hit or grab them. In the case of vehicle chases, a second Piloting roll may be made to get within boarding distance to the other vehicle if they want to board. If a chase roll fails, the chaser is unable to get within reach that round and must try again next round. If they fail by 5 or more (on a d20 scale) the fleeing party takes a one round lead.

If the fleeing target is more than one round distance away from the chaser, the chaser must succeed on an opposed roll to close the gap, getting one round closer (based on the chaser's Speed) to the fleeing target per each successful roll. If the fleeing target gets more than 5 rounds away within an enclosed space, or 10 rounds away within an open space, the chaser looses them and they get away.

Allies running into your line of fire are a different matter. In that case it isn't a matter of closing the distance, but allies making bad tactical decisions in the middle of near instantaneous actions taking place at roughly the same time. Unless the ally specifically delayed their action until after your attack, they get hit as well. If they attacked before they also get hit as well because they're already there. Only way to avoid an area effect is to not be there when it happens.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1141545You are 30 feet away from a bad guy and try to run away. They give chase. In individual initiative, if the enemy won the roll, they could get close to you and attack you before you got a chance to run away. But during simultaneous initiative, both of you move at the same time, so you're always getting away from the enemy. If you are dealing with a ranged enemy, how can you ever catch up to them then?

Or let's say you're on the same team, you are a wizard and want to fireball a bad guy, but then an ally runs in there at the same time to attack the enemy. Does your fireball hit before or after your ally gets there?

In the former case well designed systems don't let missile troops move + shoot faster than melee troops can move + move, unless it's horse archers maybe. So this should not be an issue. Many systems allow charge + melee attack to close a lot more distance compared to move + shoot.

On the latter case, you see your ally running in and can choose to abort the fireball, or blast him.

What decides the order in the fireball case--you and other players just deciding who goes first?

And what are the rules for charge and melee compared to run and shoot? Or is it like phase combat?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1141556What decides the order in the fireball case--you and other players just deciding who goes first?

And what are the rules for charge and melee compared to run and shoot? Or is it like phase combat?

Fireball - depends on system, eg move may resolve before spell. Or may resolve in order of highest action dice roll (1e Star Wars D6). Or the team may get to decide the order, which would likely be my preference.

Charge & melee vs run & shoot - again will depend on system, but chargers move twice as far is typical. So they'll eventually catch up with shooters.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1141553These are two different types of situations. When it comes to chases I always resolve them by making an opposed skill roll--usually Athletics for foot chases or some type of Piloting skill for vehicle chases.

Yes that's how I've always done it in D6 system including 1e SW with its simultaneous actions, and in 3e/4e/5e D&D when out of tactical grid combat.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1127702When running OSR games, what's your preferred initiative system?

Exactly as core 1E AD&D. (Not ADDICT.) Best summarized as: Each side rolls d6. Highest goes first. Common sense exceptions apply.

All the remaining rules attempt to codify what common sense exceptions there might be. Which makes them rulings, not actual rules. But I happen to like the rulings in the DMG.

1. Ties mean simultaneous combat.
2. Multiple attack routines are staggered throughout the round.
3. Reaction adjustment applied to ranged attacks (I think of quick draw contests).
4. Charge attacks, and hastily closing to melee grants first strike solely according to reach.
5. Weapon Speed is only a factor on ties in Weapon vs Weapon combat, with multiple attacks possible for the faster weapon.
6. Mass of pikes applies exception #4 for first attack, then #5 for counter attacks.
7. Spellcasting in melee is a no-no, but if you must, losing initiative means you lose, tied initiative means you lose, and winning initiative means you may still lose.
7a. In the case of weapon use, subtract losing initiative die from weapon speed and compare the absolute value to the casting time to determine order of action,
7b. In the case of non-weapon use, the winning initiative die determines the segment of attack, which is compared to the casting time to determine order of action.
8. Unarmed combat (aside from specialists such as monks) is resolved first but may be negated by an armed defender making a successful hit check to keep the unarmed attacker at bay.