Simultaneous Initiative (Adapted from Chainmail)

[Horwath]

This is a good idea, but it won't work for 99% of people.

It will be dead slow to play it out.

People drag their thinking now with round to round AFTER knowing the exact position and status of friend or foes alike. Add in guessing game and it will be a drag. Not to mention that people will just do mostly "generic" actions; I attack closest enemy, I cast counterspell for spellcasters, I heal closest or most wounded ally. I run away.

 

[Blue]

Conflicts of timing are resolved with contested Dexterity checks ... that's d20 + Dexterity and compare, with the higher goes first?

It sounds like modern initiative is the same mechanic, just made more efficient.

It does differ in force splitting movement. Not sure that's a plus.

It also requires declaration of actions. There's a active thread about that right now which has a lot of discussion on that point: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?657965-I-Do-Declare!-Do-you-(POLL)

 

[Hriston]

Have you playtested it? If so, let us know how it worked.

Nope, have not playtested this.

I don't like the sound of everyone writing orders for every character every turn - I'd think that would slow things down even more. I'd rather have a phased side-based approach as in Moldvay B/X.

Both systems in Chainmail have combat phases like B/X. It's basically movement, then missile fire, then melee. My idea here was to strip that out of the "Simultaneous Movement" system as it has been for the "Move/Countermove" system during the evolution of turn-based initiative, introducing the same range of alternatives back into the current edition as is found in the original edition (0th Ed.). I agree that writing orders sounds cumbersome, but I'm not sure how else to do the sort of blind action-declaration for which the idea of simultaneity would seem to call. (edit to add: I gave an example up-thread of the sort of written declarations I have in mind for this, but I have to admit that the actions described are a bit over-simplified due to the source material from 1st Ed. with which I was working.

 

[Mordorandor]

I’m late to the party on this one and wanted to say, I referee OD&D and use the simultaneous initiative system in Chainmail.

The referee secretly determines intentions for opposing forces, and then players secretly write orders/intentions for theirs, turning them into the referee to be read aloud. If there’s a leader and there’s a desire for coordinated tactics, the leader can put in orders/intentions for other PCs in the party.

Resolve moves and missiles simultaneously.

Then resolve magic spells and artillery either simultaneously or by Dexterity.

Resolve any remaining missiles simultaneously.

Finally resolve all melee simultaneously or use man-to-man, using charging, weapon class, and Dexterity to order the sequence of resolution.

Multiple rounds of melee may elapse in the turn to resolve all melees before moving on to the next turn. (Who said Warriors weren’t as powerful as Wizards?!)

 

[toucanbuzz]

Nope, have not playtested this.

I have, for the last 4+ years, used a "light" version of this, and it's been discussed ad nauseum on the forums. Here's what works and doesn't work:

Works

• Declaring actions in advance. Speeds up gameplay as all players (and the DM's monsters) are figuring out what they are doing simultaneously rather than one-at-a-time. Consider allowing players option to always "cancel" any declared action in favor of Dash, Dodge, Disengage, and consider allowing anyone to sub in a very similar action (e.g. I was going to attack with my axe, but the enemy is now next to a wall of fire and I want to Shove them in (a special attack), perhaps using the axe).

Doesn't Work

• Declaring bonus actions (way too much bookkeeping) and movement. Those are generally dependent on the primary action, and given the limited # of bonus actions, don't contribute heavily to "analysis paralysis."

Curious

• Simultaneous actions. Haven't tried this. Applied it in AD&D days for nearly a decade. Currently use a "highest DEX score wins, otherwise rolloff with d20" for ties. It makes sense though. I just don't know how to apply it in a day when there's bonus actions and reactions.

 

[Tonguez]

This is a good idea, but it won't work for 99% of people.

It will be dead slow to play it out.

People drag their thinking now with round to round AFTER knowing the exact position and status of friend or foes alike. Add in guessing game and it will be a drag. Not to mention that people will just do mostly "generic" actions; I attack closest enemy, I cast counterspell for spellcasters, I heal closest or most wounded ally. I run away.

The point of simultaneous initiative is to account for the fact that you dont know what your opponents are going to do and thus cant make a tactical move after getting full information. It may lead to more cautions play but how many players really do that?

Of course there may be Hold/Ready Actions which allow you to wait until the opponent attacks and then attack once you know more - but you have used an action to do so.

reactions become a whole lot more important

 

[clearstream]

Simultaneous Initiative

1. When combat starts, every participant writes orders for the character or monster (or group of identical creatures) they control, including direction of movement and action to be taken.

Is it right that initiative rolls are not used? If not, why not just say "At the start of each round,..."?

2. Every participant takes up to one-half their movement and any actions they can take according to their written orders, checking for opportunity attacks and other reactions due to movement.

How precise does "direction of movement" have to be? Can characters swerve, or must they only perform Queen moves (diagonal and orthogonal)?

Conflicting movement and actions are resolved with contested Dexterity checks.

What counts as "conflicting"? Can anything modify the check?

Participants who are targeted with a melee attack and haven’t already used their action may use their action to make a melee attack in return after the triggering attack. Then the remainder of movement and remaining actions are completed as ordered, with conflicts resolved and melee attacks returned as above.

3. Steps 1 and 2 are repeated for each round of combat.

I suggest rather than add a loop instruction, write the rules as a complete, repeatable round. What should then go here is what exits the cycle? When does combat end? "If only non-hostile participants remain, end the combat. Otherwise start a new round."

A few key questions for any rules proposal. 1) Can I find examples of this in use, that I can review to understand its problems and benefits? 2) If something like this already exists, or existed, how successful is it? If it's not successful, why not? Why is this method not popular today? How does my take fix the issues that prevented it becoming the preferred method?

 

[Shiroiken]

I haven't yet convinced my group to use something like this, but I used it a lot in AD&D. It work really well in theater of the mind, but much less so with miniatures. The free form narrative style of TotM allows some inconsistencies to be smoothed over.

Works

• Declaring actions in advance. Speeds up gameplay as all players (and the DM's monsters) are figuring out what they are doing simultaneously rather than one-at-a-time. Consider allowing players option to always "cancel" any declared action in favor of Dash, Dodge, Disengage, and consider allowing anyone to sub in a very similar action (e.g. I was going to attack with my axe, but the enemy is now next to a wall of fire and I want to Shove them in (a special attack), perhaps using the axe).

The easiest method is to keep the actions simple. You state if you plan a melee attack, ranged attack, spell, etc. Movement isn't declared unless it's extremely important, such as blocking enemies from getting to a spot (intercepting enemies going for the back line characters, blocking off retreat, etc).

Doesn't Work

• Declaring bonus actions (way too much bookkeeping) and movement. Those are generally dependent on the primary action, and given the limited # of bonus actions, don't contribute heavily to "analysis paralysis."

Yeah, bonus actions and movement really need to be free flowing, including non-actions like item interactions. I'd have everything but movement work similar to reactions, where you choose if you want to use them when they'd be appropriate. Movement would work as needed to complete the action, or bonus action if unused.

Curious

• Simultaneous actions. Haven't tried this. Applied it in AD&D days for nearly a decade. Currently use a "highest DEX score wins, otherwise rolloff with d20" for ties. It makes sense though. I just don't know how to apply it in a day when there's bonus actions and reactions.

Rather than just focusing on dex, I'd consider using contested checks appropriate to the actions. Unless the actions would specifically counter each other (i.e. only one person can succeed), why not just let everything occur, then resolve the effects afterward? For example, everyone rolls their attacks and casts their spells, but those who'd die or become disabled still resolve their actions. Conditions don't happen until after resolution, then last at least until the end of the following round's resolution (based on normal duration).

 

[toucanbuzz]

Rather than just focusing on dex, I'd consider using contested checks appropriate to the actions. Unless the actions would specifically counter each other (i.e. only one person can succeed), why not just let everything occur, then resolve the effects afterward? For example, everyone rolls their attacks and casts their spells, but those who'd die or become disabled still resolve their actions. Conditions don't happen until after resolution, then last at least until the end of the following round's resolution (based on normal duration).

I suppose it'd make Reactions a lot more meaningful, especially since our homebrew system goes with a d10, making ties happen a lot more.

As a caveat brainstorm, this would likely make combat harder for PCs since they are often outnumbered. Foes who would normally die might get their dying shot in, and this favors the enemy.

 

[LordEntrails]

Oh lord no. At least for almost every table this would be a disaster. Play would slow to a crawl. I guess if you had a table full of wargamers who strive for tactical realism they might like it. But for every table of role players I've played with over 40 years, no.

One example of your systems short coming would be here;

Conflicting movement and actions are resolved with contested Dexterity checks.

So the halfling rogue pushes the Goliath barbarian out of the way? I think most folks are going to have issue with that. A single way of resolving such conflicts just isn't going to work. You wil need a complex system of resolution with lots of rulings or edge cases.