Deciding What to do Before Initiative is Rolled.

[unan oranis]

oh man, we used this rule and boy did it slow things down.

OTOH, it works fairly well for mini-less combats, as the dm can play out each persons actions...
might use it if running 2e or earlier, grid-less.

 

[catsclaw227]

We used it back in 1e and scrapped it after a few years. The impetus, if I recall correctly, was simply that we played in a new DMs campaign that didn't use it (and had also scrapped weapon speed and weapon vs AC) and we just never used it (or the others) again.

For whatever reason, it made the game flow better.

 

[Votan]

We're using it in our 1E game, but only for spell casters declaring if and what they are casting before the rolling of initiative - I don't think the 1E rules call for any other actions to be declared in this way.

This is the way that I've used it as well. It is very harsh on spellcasters but the idea of earlier editions was that harsh limits needed to be in place to make spellcasters balanced. So you have declaring spells before initiative, Vancian memorization and spell disruption. The net effect was to make using magic in combat a much bigger gamble than it is now.

 

[Ariosto]

I used it and still use it.

Back in the 1970s, not every RPG even had an "initiative roll" as a standard procedure. Traveller, for instance, did not (although a Dexterity roll-off would be called for if there was a question of drawing first).

For that matter, the original D&D set made no such provision either. The potential use of Dexterity was mentioned, and the Chainmail rules were recommended standard equipment. A complex scheme appeared in Eldritch Wizardry.

An "initiative" mechanism was just one of many that might or might not feature in a game's resolution of actions.

Statement of intent, on the other hand, was just a basic necessity. We had to know what people were trying to do before we could work out what actually happened.

The fashion now, at least in D&D, is to break the coupling. What figure A is up to has no effect on what figure B is doing, even if they are trying to do unto one another! Moreover, one can spend 10 minutes watching others' moves and planning one's own response in a supposed six-second period. One figure after another whizzes by in a flash -- and then returns to an uncanny stasis.

That's part of why turns take so long in the first place these days.

 

[Ariosto]

Realism would indicate disruption can only happen while casting, as allowing damage taken before casting to disrupt opens up a nasty can of worms that's ugly to even try to explain but it involves damage near the end of the previous round potentially being closer in time to your early-in-round start-to-cast time than damage taken early in a round vs. your late-in-round start.

Realism would indicate that canning worms is an anachronistic industry in which to engage in a medieval magical world.

However, if there were much profit in Realism, then it would be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Frobozz Magic Cave Company.

 

[Votan]

Statement of intent, on the other hand, was just a basic necessity. We had to know what people were trying to do before we could work out what actually happened.

The fashion now, at least in D&D, is to break the coupling. What figure A is up to has no effect on what figure B is doing, even if they are trying to do unto one another! Moreover, one can spend 10 minutes watching others' moves and planning one's own response in a supposed six-second period. One figure after another whizzes by in a flash -- and then returns to an uncanny stasis.

That's part of why turns take so long in the first place these days.

This is a really good point. The turn based combat system does give a lot of ability to precisely control when things happen and makes possible for people to dynamically change actions.

This is, I admit, a mixed blessing. It would make spell casting risky again but it makes moving last a much less painful outcome.

 

[Leif]

We never used it, and, in fact, I wasn't even aware that it was a rule in AD&D until I saw this thread. *shrug* It doesn't really sound like a very good idea, IMHO. We're not about to do that in 3.5 or 4E, of that much I can assure you.

 

[Odhanan]

Still use it, in both AD&D and in my OD&D combat sequence, too.

Basically. I use it for both OD&D and AD&D, yes.