In discussion of the Daggerheart RPG, it came up about "popcorn" actions versus strict turn-taking -- it also relates some to the "everyone rolls attack" thread.

Most RPGs use a strict initiative system in combat, where there is a defined turn order for each player, while outside of combat actions go "popcorn" style - where whichever player speaks up first is doing that thing. i.e. "GM: After Saya opens the door, you see a semicircular room with a short pillar in the center that has a two-handled vase on it. Player #3: I walk up and pick up the vase." So rather than in turn asking what each PC is doing, the first player to speak up does the action.

It's mostly notable for exceptions. In original AD&D, there was one player who acted as "caller". Players could call out what they were doing, but the caller would moderate this and tell the GM what everyone is doing - possibly changing what a given player wanted to do.

Also, the Amber RPG doesn't have initiative or rounds. It suggests the GM phase back and forth between different PCs involved in different conflicts, and calls this "more of an art than a science". All players should get input, but when to cut back and forth between different players is handled by GM arbitration rather than rules.


Do people think that it's OK to use popcorn turn-taking and GM arbitration even for some action scenes or combat? Or alternately, do you think that strict turn-taking should be used even outside of combat?

It's OK to use whatever makes the game keep moving, and not OK to use anything that stalls it.  For some vague definition of "OK" that gets stricter the better things move or the worse they stall. Plus, the less people involved, the less it matters.  In a game with 1 GM and 3 players, you can use almost anything, including making it up as you go.  In a game with 10+ players, the list of workable alternatives is sharply curtailed.

As for criteria to evaluate what works and what doesn't towards that goal, I have three:

- Whatever is used should feed information to the GM cleanly in an amount the GM can handle.
- Should hold the interest of the players.
- Should facilitate interesting decisions and gloss over boring ones.

Obviously, YMMV on degree even when someone agrees with my criteria.

I think strict cyclic initiative (or any of its variants with crazy reactions and such) are typically a lackluster compromise for a GM who can't handle very much bandwidth of player response or rapid rulings.  It's too slow otherwise, and it becomes extremely difficult to hold the interest of the players once you get more than 3 or 4.  It tends to build up rules cruft in an attempt to work around its inherent short-comings, which over time tends to prioritize tedium over interesting decisions happening in the game world, let alone rulings.  It's not guaranteed to go bad.  Any decent GM aware of the problems can keep it on a leash with some effort.  However, it's always a threat to go bad when not watched.

For something more positive, I have found that the best outcomes happen when initiative happens in a relatively few "bands" or "phases".  Two sides is a little too coarse grained for me most of the time, but each side having 2-5 phases or bands seems to work well.  It doesn't really matter how you divvy up the bands/phases, either, as long as the method used will tend to separate players and opponents most of the time into different ones.  The earlier D&D option of sides with melee/range/magic division works great in those games, for example, because any party is likely to have some of all three, and many monsters will have 2.  You end up with 4-6 active bands per round.

With such bands/phases, the GM is left handling one type of thing for a handful of creatures at a time.  This is almost as easy to process as individual initiative, but a hell of a lot faster to handle in the game.

In combat there is initiatve order but I am a fan of side based initiative. Individual actions on the same side take place take place in a logical order. An archer with a readied arrow will fire before a fighter charges 30 feet and enters melee. For out of combat actions I like to ask each player what they are doing in a particular situation which can then take place more or less at the same time. This gives each player a chance to communicate intentions before anything takes place. That way if there is a conflict and two players are trying to do the same thing we can determine if their efforts can be combined, or if they counter each other if their intentions are at odds.

Funny that immediately made me think of Index Card RPG, which makes a point of doing exactly the opposite. Everything is played in turns, including exploration, downtime, etc. The only thing which isn't specified as being done in turns IIRC is talking.

ICRPG's point with all of this is to level the playing field between different player temperaments, and prevent that one guy who always talks first from running the table. It also acts in a way to force players who would otherwise just be passengers outside of combat to engage with that more.

I've never run it that strictly, but I do see the merits in ICRPG's approach. My current game has a player who reliably always speaks first, almost always to charge ahead and do something impulsive and irreversible (smash an artifact, attack an NPC, etc.). I will usually let him do whatever he wants to do, but ask the other players what they're doing at the same time, but I've had other players get irritated about this more than once, and I don't blame them.

I also play in a game which does not have initiative order, and which the GM runs "popcorn" style. As a player, I can't be bothered with trying to race everyone else to the punchline, especially as this is an online game where microphone lag can easily cause several people to talk over each other. If I get cut off and then the GM runs with whoever talked first, as often as not I just disengage from the game because it's not worth my time to argue about it.

Your players get irritated when you ask them what they want to do in the game they're playing?

I always understood "popcorn" initiative to be the acting party nominates the next to act, within certain constraints. I believe it is the GM's job to keep order and pacing, thus inviting the principal actor to act: "Thing just happened. Player, what does your character do?" This involves maintaining situational awareness by tracking multiple parameters, and initiative determines who acts when order is contested. Personally, I prefer the Battle Wheel, as actions take variable amounts of time, instead of cramming variable actions into a fixed time, and with longer ticks, it is applicable outside of combat.

Quote from: Wisithir on March 20, 2024, 01:01:42 AM
I always understood "popcorn" initiative to be the acting party nominates the next to act, within certain constraints. I believe it is the GM's job to keep order and pacing, thus inviting the principal actor to act: "Thing just happened. Player, what does your character do?" This involves maintaining situational awareness by tracking multiple parameters, and initiative determines who acts when order is contested. Personally, I prefer the Battle Wheel, as actions take variable amounts of time, instead of cramming variable actions into a fixed time, and with longer ticks, it is applicable outside of combat.

My understanding of the "popcorn" concept (which is used outside of games) is just that no one knows who is going to go next. So it's an umbrella term for both just the first person to have an idea -- but probably also covers the case of the acting player choosing who to pass to. (I think that's used in the Marvel Heroic RPG, among others?) Note that the former doesn't mean anarchy where the loudest player gets all the time. The metaphor is that once someone has their turn, they're done - and everyone else gets a chance to go too.

The Amber RPG assumes this - but it's described as an art rather than a science. i.e. There isn't a formula. For example, maybe in the magical library, the wizard gets more spotlight time than the knight. But at the baron's castle, maybe the knight gets more time.

This isn't a weird new concept. It's just a more formal description for how many games run when they're not in combat. You can see it at work in examples of play in regular RPGs. If there isn't combat, then typically the first player to speak up just does their thing. If another player wants to interrupt them, then maybe they roll off, but usually they'll just agree. ("I'll look inside the closet." "I'll guard the door." etc.)

One advantage is that in strict turn-taking, there's often a lot of wait time as the player whose turn it is tries to decide what to do.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 19, 2024, 08:34:36 PM
ICRPG's point with all of this is to level the playing field between different player temperaments, and prevent that one guy who always talks first from running the table. It also acts in a way to force players who would otherwise just be passengers outside of combat to engage with that more.

I've never run it that strictly, but I do see the merits in ICRPG's approach. My current game has a player who reliably always speaks first, almost always to charge ahead and do something impulsive and irreversible (smash an artifact, attack an NPC, etc.). I will usually let him do whatever he wants to do, but ask the other players what they're doing at the same time, but I've had other players get irritated about this more than once, and I don't blame them.

So if you don't do it that strictly, what do you do when using ICRPG? I understand that having impulsive players go first can be offputting, but I've found that going around the table every time slows the game down to a crawl, as the more hesitant players take a while to not do much.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 19, 2024, 08:34:36 PM
I also play in a game which does not have initiative order, and which the GM runs "popcorn" style. As a player, I can't be bothered with trying to race everyone else to the punchline, especially as this is an online game where microphone lag can easily cause several people to talk over each other. If I get cut off and then the GM runs with whoever talked first, as often as not I just disengage from the game because it's not worth my time to argue about it.

OK, I can see that frustration. I also know that I've played Amber a lot, and it seems like it can be handled by GM approach, not just by always using initiative. Do you feel like it's inherent?

Quote from: jhkim on March 22, 2024, 02:49:09 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 19, 2024, 08:34:36 PM
ICRPG's point with all of this is to level the playing field between different player temperaments, and prevent that one guy who always talks first from running the table. It also acts in a way to force players who would otherwise just be passengers outside of combat to engage with that more.

I've never run it that strictly, but I do see the merits in ICRPG's approach. My current game has a player who reliably always speaks first, almost always to charge ahead and do something impulsive and irreversible (smash an artifact, attack an NPC, etc.). I will usually let him do whatever he wants to do, but ask the other players what they're doing at the same time, but I've had other players get irritated about this more than once, and I don't blame them.

So if you don't do it that strictly, what do you do when using ICRPG? I understand that having impulsive players go first can be offputting, but I've found that going around the table every time slows the game down to a crawl, as the more hesitant players take a while to not do much.

I haven't actually gotten around to running ICRPG straight. While I like and respect the game, it's just too limited in scope to fit any of the campaigns I've wanted to run since I bought it. I did once write up a conversion of all the By This Axe I Hack classes for ICRPG. Might get around to using that someday.

What I do isn't really systematic so much as just intuitive. I play combat out in loose turn order, usually with side based initiative, but I'll break initiative if the situation in game calls for it. Outside of combat, I warn my players in advance that I will call them out for roleplaying, and then I just play it by feel. If someone hasn't spoken up in a while or I think their character should have a response to what's going on I stop the action and ask them. "What is your character doing while this happens?" or "and how does so-and-so react to that". That sort of thing.

A technique I've hit on which I quite like is a kind of character re-introduction. People usually only describe their character once in the first session and then never since. So once in a blue moon, I'll come up with an excuse to make them do it again during a quiet moment in the campaign. For example, the party has hit the road after a long series of adventures in one location. I'll go around the table and say something like "your character has been through x, y and z. Give us a picture of what they look like as they set out again in the aftermath." It can be a good way to keep people in the immediate moment with their character, and the player response has been good when I've tried it.

Quote from: jhkim on March 22, 2024, 02:49:09 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 19, 2024, 08:34:36 PM
I also play in a game which does not have initiative order, and which the GM runs "popcorn" style. As a player, I can't be bothered with trying to race everyone else to the punchline, especially as this is an online game where microphone lag can easily cause several people to talk over each other. If I get cut off and then the GM runs with whoever talked first, as often as not I just disengage from the game because it's not worth my time to argue about it.

OK, I can see that frustration. I also know that I've played Amber a lot, and it seems like it can be handled by GM approach, not just by always using initiative. Do you feel like it's inherent?

I don't think it's inherent, but I do think playing online inherently compounds it. Not being able to see people's faces disrupts the natural flow of conversation by itself, and then even a fraction of a second of microphone lag can make it much worse.

Even offline, some people just prefer to think for half a second before they pipe up, and I don't think the game should be formatted to reward being a loudmouth. GM-ing style can do a lot to mitigate this, which is why I use the approach i mentioned above. Like many things, baking it into the rules is more of a security against poorer GM-ing. If you want to run freeform, you have to have the kind of social adeptness necessary to keep a freeflow conversation going smoothly. A fair few GMs (and to be fair players as well) don't have that, so I get why they'd want a rule structure to supplement it.