D&D 5E Avoiding Initiative

[Ratskinner]

Watch how fight scenes in good action movies play out. They can be quite extended and involved -- not just "a plot beat or a few". But they're very rarely just the two sides attacking each other until one side dies or runs away. There's almost always some special objective to increase tension, like "get the macguffin" or "hold out for reinforcements" or "don't let them escape". The environment frequently plays a role, whether it's simple like the placement of light and cover or convoluted like the whole thing taking place inside a giant clock. It often becomes a running battle, with protagonists moving from location to location, varying both the aforementioned environmental effects and just changing the scenery. For further variety, the antagonists often alter their tactics over the course of the battle, deploying secret weapons or specialist mooks or devious traps just when the heroes (and audience) are starting to get used to the situation. And finally, the best fights develop the characters who are participating in them, revealing their values and priorities and hopes and fears through dialogue and decisions.

D&D combat rules are calibrated to generate these kinds of big set-piece fights. I can't speak for your players in particular, but it's why a lot of people come to the table in the first place. So I'd recommend embracing it rather than trying to get rid of it. Just be sure to make full use of the playbook that films like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are working from, and you should be able to run battles that are more than just grinds.

Totally disagree about D&D being designed for that. At least not non-4e D&D. I've seen way too many orcs in a 20'x20' room for that. Penalties for disengaging, no real way for pair of dueling warriors to slide across the battlefield without at least one of them taking extra attacks, no solid mechanics for sideways goals that aren't reducing HP.

Indeed, perhaps as an outgrowth of its adversarial past, non-4e D&D terms all such activities in terms of "difficulties" and how to restrict them, not how to make them integral to the narrative flow of combat.

I've played plenty of other games (Fate and Dungeon World leap immediately to mind as the most talked about nowadays), where the fights had a lot more cinematic action going on. D&D just can't seem to get out of its own way. Constantly playing "mother may I?" with the dice and "action economy".

Yes, an action scene in a movie has a lot going on. How much of it do we really need to roll for and adjudicate mechanically? Lets say our hero is going to fight his way past 6 goons down a stairwell. Is it more or less exciting at the table if that is resolved in one mechanical interaction or 18?

For my money, that whole thing is one beat. Because we're trying to answer (in movie land) the dramatic question "will the hero make to the door?" With stakes set by the surrounding fiction. Will he make it.."in time to for the heroic thing?" Will he make it "in time to see the BBEG carry away the princess?" Whatever it is, it isn't "Will he deal 6 points of damage to mook #4, so that he doesn't take grant advantage to mook #6 on his opportunity attack?"

But D&D isn't designed to answer dramatic questions (at least not upfront and in a straightforward manner). That's not where it started and not what its about.

Its home is as a puzzle game set in a deadly maze. Fighting, such as it is, is almost as much (or more) about resource management as it is tactics. The critical questions after a typical workaday fight aren't dramatic questions, but resource questions. "Do we have enough juice to go on without pausing or expending more resources to recover?" That is the only question (or variant of) that I always hear around the D&D table.

And just to be clear! There is nothing wrong with enjoying the tactical aspects of D&D! If you're keen on making all those rolls, and moving your mini around go ahead. But don't lets pretend that those orcs in a room are there for a dramatic event. They're there to drain X amount of resources.

And to be doubly clear! I'm not a huge 4e guy! I found all the X's and O's to be a distraction and combat move too slowly. Dropped me out of warp every time.

Again, my $.02.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So in other words it's just rolling initiative for each side.
Because I fail to see how that doesn't instantly become All of side A goes, then all of side B goes. The only catch here is that you're determining who goes 1st on each side randomly, so some plans/combos might not always work.

Not exactly. Whichever PC/creature goes last in the round determines who goes first next round...

http://theangrygm.com/popcorn-initiative-a-great-way-to-adjust-dd-and-pathfinder-initiative-with-a-stupid-name/

 

[CubicsRube]

Its home is as a puzzle game set in a deadly maze. Fighting, such as it is, is almost as much (or more) about resource management as it is tactics. The critical questions after a typical workaday fight aren't dramatic questions, but resource questions. "Do we have enough juice to go on without pausing or expending more resources to recover?" That is the only question (or variant of) that I always hear around the D&D table.

Yes absolutely. And old school d&d really shone in that kind of puzzle play.

I actually just ran a game of beyond the wall, and osr game. Very lightweight on the rules. The players had to investigate a fae forest where they encountered a lerpechaun who would only help them if they spoke in rhyme. Later they had to pass an old ent who would only let them through if they left behind something "precious" (which turned out to be a loved memory).

Old school d&d thrived on these kinds of things, imo, so they didn't need as many rules to adjudicate finer points, but rather more general things.

We call that player skill now. It's not a bad thing, but different to what d&d has become, which is vastly more tactical.

Neither old school d&d, which was really a puzzle game, or new school which is a tactical game, is however geared to be a dramatic game. Once you play fate or a pbta game, you realise how much better they are at doing that.

 

[Shawn Stroud]

So in other words it's just rolling initiative for each side.
Because I fail to see how that doesn't instantly become All of side A goes, then all of side B goes. The only catch here is that you're determining who goes 1st on each side randomly, so some plans/combos might not always work.

Actually, no. That isn't how it worked out at my table. I broke up monsters into logical groups, so there were more elements at play than Side A, Side B. It was NOT unusual to have the party split their actions so that they fell at the top of the round and the bottom of the round. The up side for me was that each player at the table stayed engaged, even when it wasn't their turn.

Again, I'm only reporting what happened at my table. Of course I can see it going the way you describe -- but it didn't happen that way for us.

 

[Harzel]

So in other words it's just rolling initiative for each side.
Because I fail to see how that doesn't instantly become All of side A goes, then all of side B goes. The only catch here is that you're determining who goes 1st on each side randomly, so some plans/combos might not always work.

In addition to the points that others have made, it can be a tactical advantage to force an opponent to go first (depending on circumstances, of course).

 

[Sebastrd]

I prefer rolling at the beginning of each combat. When I say, "roll initiative," the players know it's about to get real. The pause is worth the adrenaline spike, and it gives everyone a chance to mentally transfer to combat mode.

 

[Fanaelialae]

One of the main issues I've found with popcorn initiative (as well as a variant we tried where each side alternates) is that it makes certain effects (start of turn and end of turn) highly variable. You can put off taking your turn to avoid effects which take place on your turn (such as taking damage) or extend effects that end on your next turn. It's not an insurmountable issue (some groups might even enjoy the tactical nature); for example, you could change such effects to the start/end of the round. But we did find it to feel a bit wonky at times (which is why we ultimately abandoned these approaches).

 

[Cellowyn]

It’s a mechanic, but it has a place. It’s there to represent he chaos in combat. If you don’t use it, and let the players choose their turn order, you will always have the optimal combat round where wizards go first, then range characters, then the rest, followed by healers...then the monsters? The other function is to allow the monsters and NPCs to get the jump on the PCs sometimes. If you don’t use this, and decide “I’ll go first this time”, the first time there’s a death, the players will call foul (maybe just my players, but...)

 

[5ekyu]

In addition to the points that others have made, it can be a tactical advantage to force an opponent to go first (depending on circumstances, of course).

This is part of the draw to my own first last alyernate (players choose to go first or last, alyernate players then adversary. )

Sometimes its good to say have your cleric go last after a big cluster of bad guy minions if you are putnumbered so they can either patch up the ones where lucky strikes hurt or to setup the next round.

 

[Hriston]

One of the things I personally struggle with is that pause where the narrative stops and everybody rolls initiative, and then the combat starts.

One tip I’ve used is to roll initiative in advance (at the end of the previous combat is one approach) to avoid that artificial pause.

What techniques do you use?

I don't perceive it as a pause in the "narrative" that's any different from any other time I ask for an ability check to resolve a creature's actions. I do try, however, to always begin combat in the context of the basic pattern described on page 6 of the PHB under "How to Play". An initiative roll would be called for at the end of step 2 to resolve the timing of monster or player-declared actions that will happen in combat. Here are some examples:

Monsters Initiate Combat

1. DM: You see a band of 20 orcs cresting the ridge of the nearest hill about 100 feet away. They spot you as well and begin positioning their archers to the front of their ranks to open fire. There's a cluster of trees where you could find cover about 20 feet ahead of you. What do you do?

2. Players: We move up to that cluster of trees to take cover and return fire, and the wizard casts his sleep spell on the archers.
DM: OK, roll initiative.

3. DM: The archers fire their volley before you have a chance to move...


Players Initiate Combat

1. DM: You see a band of 20 orcs cresting the ridge of the nearest hill about 100 feet away. They spot you as well but don't seem interested in you and continue moving in an easterly direction. There's a cluster of trees where you could find cover about 20 feet ahead of you. What do you do?

2. Players: We move up to that cluster of trees to take cover and fire on the orcs. The wizard casts his sleep spell.
DM: OK, roll initiative.

3. Before you get to the trees the orcs change direction and move out of range of the wizard's spell. They've also positioned their archers in their back-rank and begin to fire on you...