D&D 5E Concurrent initiative variant; Everybody declares/Everybody resolves [WAS Simultaneous Initiative]

[GX.Sigma]

[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION]
This is a really neat system, and I'm looking forward to trying it. A few questions:

You say everyone declares their actions in ascending INT order. What do you do if the players want to plan their next round? Back when I tried side initiative (all the players go, then all the monsters go), the players would always spend a few minutes at the start of each round coordinating what they were going to do that round. It made the game feel less chaotic and more chess-like. How do you handle this? Do you ask each player in turn "what do you do" and require them to answer immediately?

Also, be honest, do you really keep track of the INT scores of every single player character and every single monster? And refer back to them every round? If so.... how?

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I'm playing PbP and before I came to D&D, I pretty much always did it so that players just stated what they want to do (all together) and then I decided what monster actions would be reasonable. And then I rolled it all out, including checks on who is faster in a conflict. And from the results I then described a detailed battle scene where every PC and monster does his actions and defensive maneuvers.

Advantage:
- You are done with a full round in only a day (assuming 1 post / day)
- DM can do a really beautiful battle narration and put otherwise unrelated things together: "X drops his sword, it hits the ground and makes a "bling" sound. The triggers the Orc next to Y to turn his head for a moment, looking at the sword. Y uses the opportunity to strike the Orc. Wounded, the Orc turns back to Y and launches a counterattack." etc.

Disadvantage:
- More work for the DM, thinking of all monster actions at once, doing all the rolls, thinking of a good narration, can easily mean you have to spent 2 hours every day on the game
- Because of high DM freedom player may complain you acted out the battle in an unfair way
- Does not work so well if you actually want to track movement (I did not)

When I came to D&D I used the initiative system as written and kinda liked it, because it usually meant much less work for me.
So that a round doesn't take multiple days, I ask my players to still post ahead of time and when in doubt write their actions as conditions e.g. "I'll attack the Orc if it's still alive, otherwise I'll attack the Wolf."
I group the enemies together so that the PCs won't have enemy turns in between their actions.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION]
This is a really neat system, and I'm looking forward to trying it. A few questions:

You say everyone declares their actions in ascending INT order. What do you do if the players want to plan their next round? Back when I tried side initiative (all the players go, then all the monsters go), the players would always spend a few minutes at the start of each round coordinating what they were going to do that round. It made the game feel less chaotic and more chess-like. How do you handle this? Do you ask each player in turn "what do you do" and require them to answer immediately?

Also, be honest, do you really keep track of the INT scores of every single player character and every single monster? And refer back to them every round? If so.... how?

With more chaos. In reality, going in order of Intelligence is the same as the current system, but substituting Intelligence for Dexterity. I certainly wouldn't have a problem substituting something other than Dexterity when appropriate if an Initiative check is called for.

My recommendation is to eliminate the order altogether. I encourage my players to talk with each other and give me their actions at more or less the same time. If you have difficulty with that, you can still go around the table one at a time. It's still very quick, because when you're getting action declarations, you're not resolving those actions at the same time. So the second player doesn't have to wait for the first person to resolve everything.

Also, since you eliminate the "full turn before the next creature goes" things happen in a more organic order. That is, if somebody is moving across the battlefield, and two other creatures are in melee, then the melee attacks will probably resolve first. You deal with this in your description of the round after everybody has declared it.

Lastly, players don't get a few minutes to decide what to do. While combat isn't quite real time, don't let them just sit and deliberate. If they take too long, then they don't act until the next round. That's not always a bad thing, mind you. While I still use rounds to help maintain some order, even that kind of goes by the wayside once you get used to it. Everybody declares their actions, and once that action is resolved, they are ready to declare their next. You find that the rounds blend together in a way that players don't think in terms of turns or rounds, and instead more tactically, more cinematically, where they are thinking in terms of a full action rather than a small slice.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION]
This is a really neat system, and I'm looking forward to trying it. A few questions:

You say everyone declares their actions in ascending INT order. What do you do if the players want to plan their next round? Back when I tried side initiative (all the players go, then all the monsters go), the players would always spend a few minutes at the start of each round coordinating what they were going to do that round. It made the game feel less chaotic and more chess-like. How do you handle this? Do you ask each player in turn "what do you do" and require them to answer immediately?

Also, be honest, do you really keep track of the INT scores of every single player character and every single monster? And refer back to them every round? If so.... how?

In practice, I've never had it happen where they want to spend a few minutes planning. They're always more eager to declare actions to me and I'm swamped because I'm trying to process their action declarations at the same time as deciding my own action declarations for all of the monsters on the board. (Sometimes I therefore offload tracking action declarations onto a player and let HIM tell me when everyone has declared.)

But if they did want to spend a few minutes planning and talking, I know how I would handle it: treat that as a virtual conversation that happened between PCs during downtime (i.e. assume that adventurers spend lots of time doing contingency planning and tactical exercises) and allow it, but still apply the rules as normal. If the players decide that Bob (Int 11) is going to tackle the Int 19 Mind Flayer while Rod (Int 20) casts an Evard's Black Tentacles to restrain it, they still have to declare Bob's action before the Mind Flayer will commit to any action itself, because it thinks faster than Bob does.

In practice I don't force the players to actually, physically declare actions in order (and you see some of that in the OP as well) as long as the results are equivalent to declaring actions in order. If Rod says "I Dodge" and Bob says "I tackle it" and then Rod says, "Oh wait, then in that case I cast Evard's Black Tentacles instead" I'm fine with Rod changing his action in response to Bob's action.

In answer to your second question: I don't keep track of exact Int scores, only relative Int scores. E.g. I know that Nox has a very high Intelligence (16 or 18ish) and Jandar's 9 is the lowest in the party, so if I'm using Int 7 orcs I just declare their actions first, and if I'm using six Int 11 Duergar and an Int 17 Drow Mage I have Jandar declare first, declare the Duergar's actions, and then ask Nox if he's smarter than Int 17. (In case of ties I'll either just declare first for convenience, or else both declare simultaneously without knowledge of the other.) Next round I won't have to ask again because I already know.

In practice, knowing that lowest PC Int is often sufficient because I prefer when possible to use low-Int monsters that can be killed out of hand without social ramifications or moral misgivings. Setting up conflicts worth killing for between PCs and other humans is more complicated than "there's a hole in the ground with treasure and a basilisk guarding the treasure. What do you do?" (I oversimplify but you get the point.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

With more chaos. In reality, going in order of Intelligence is the same as the current system, but substituting Intelligence for Dexterity. I certainly wouldn't have a problem substituting something other than Dexterity when appropriate if an Initiative check is called for.

No it isn't. You misunderstand. Initiative is still based on Dexterity. Only action declarations are based on Intelligence. Low-Int monsters are predictable but not necessarily slow; an Orc is never going to surprise you by grappling when you thought it was going to attack with its axe, but it might still manage to tackle you before you can physically retreat out of range.

My recommendation is to eliminate the order altogether. I encourage my players to talk with each other and give me their actions at more or less the same time. If you have difficulty with that, you can still go around the table one at a time. It's still very quick, because when you're getting action declarations, you're not resolving those actions at the same time. So the second player doesn't have to wait for the first person to resolve everything.

In practice this isn't any faster than Int-ordering, but creates an artificial distinction between PCs and monsters. Still, use what you like. Some people aren't bothered by artificial distinctions imported from the metagame.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

No it isn't. You misunderstand. Initiative is still based on Dexterity. Only action declarations are based on Intelligence. Low-Int monsters are predictable but not necessarily slow; an Orc is never going to surprise you by grappling when you thought it was going to attack with its axe, but it might still manage to tackle you before you can physically retreat out of range.

In practice this isn't any faster than Int-ordering, but creates an artificial distinction between PCs and monsters. Still, use what you like. Some people aren't bothered by artificial distinctions imported from the metagame.

Ahh, got it. Why does action declaration order matter at all? I'll tell the players what the monsters are visibly doing right at the top of the round, and answer questions that they have, provided it's something they can see.

I wouldn't consider a lion, bear, wolf, or any other low-intelligence predator slow. Also, low intelligence can tell you something about a monster, but I think that an orc would probably out-fight many creatures of the same level because they live a life of strife and war. They may not be very intelligence, but what intelligence they have is almost entirely dedicated to survival in a combat-heavy world. To me, they would be more likely to surprise you by tackling you, or some other action that will give them an advantage in a battle. In fact, one of the problems with intelligent creatures is that they fear being injured, or even more, death.

My point in eliminating initiative is to remove rule constructs that interfere with the flow of the combat. Introducing a new one, like going in order by Intelligence, or adding a "delay" declaration is unnecessary in my mind.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yea, I still don't get how this is simultaneous initiative or anything remotely similar. Is it just the part about decoupling action declaration from the moment you resolve the action?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Yea, I still don't get how this is simultaneous initiative or anything remotely similar. Is it just the part about decoupling action declaration from the moment you resolve the action?

No, although decoupling them allows you to resolve with simultaneous actions.

The components that I think are important are:

1) No initiative in the normal sense. Actions resolve in a logical order.

2) A "turn" is what is allowed in the course of a round, but components of that turn take time. For example movement takes time, attacking takes time (which I consider in the older approach where melee attacks are a series of attacks and defenses, with one or more opportunities to hit represented by your attack rolls), etc.

3) Separating action declaration from resolution. If you are resolving as you go around the table, then each action takes place sequentially.

4) Allowing adjustments on the fly during declaration and resolution processes.

5) An initiative check, an opposed check to resolve any situation where it's important to know which action completed first.

In our case, the declaration process is fairly chaotic, with people declaring their intent relatively simultaneously, as well as talking with each other. We like it to be chaotic and fast. If needed, I'll ask somebody to repeat or clarify anything I miss. They also are usually rolling their resolution at roughly the same time-that is, they don't need to wait for the resolution process itself, but the results aren't applied until all of the initial declarations are made.

Actions occur simultaneously. For example, the dwarf charging down the hall occurs at the same point the orc is loosing their crossbow bolt. The movement takes longer than the orc to pull the trigger. Then the dwarf completes closing for melee and attacks, at the same time the orc is drawing its sword with one hand and dropping the crossbow with the other. The dwarf's attack occurs, and the orcs first melee attack is in the next round, although it might still have a bonus action or reaction that would allow it another action in this round.

If at the same time that's occurring, the wizard is casting a sleep spell, then the wizard and orc would make an initiative check to see if the spell occurs before the orc shoots the crossbow. If the wizard wins, then the spell takes effect first and the orc doesn't get to shoot their crossbow.

It's not simultaneous initiative. At least that's not what I'd call it. It's eliminating initiative as a game construct that determines the order of actions, and it's removing the construct that each creature resolves their entire turn before the next creature has their turn. Throughout the combat everybody is in motion and acting at once.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Ahh, got it. Why does action declaration order matter at all?

Because I like OODA loops. It adds an interesting dimension to the combat. Players enjoy it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

It's not simultaneous initiative. At least that's not what I'd call it. It's eliminating initiative as a game construct that determines the order of actions, and it's removing the construct that each creature resolves their entire turn before the next creature has their turn. Throughout the combat everybody is in motion and acting at once.

Yes, this is the important part in bold. As for "simultaneous" vs "concurrent" vs some other term--that's just semantics. Who cares what word you use to describe it? The important part that combat is no longer an IGO-UGO; it's WE-GO, just like everything else in D&D outside of combat.


Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turns,_rounds_and_time-keeping_systems_in_games

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Because I like OODA loops. It adds an interesting dimension to the combat. Players enjoy it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

Yes, this is the important part in bold. As for "simultaneous" vs "concurrent" vs some other term--that's just semantics. Who cares what word you use to describe it? The important part that combat is no longer an IGO-UGO; it's WE-GO, just like everything else in D&D outside of combat.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turns,_rounds_and_time-keeping_systems_in_games

Interesting, although I think you still get that naturally when people have to think and react more quickly without a fixed order of turns. I'm not saying it's really a problem, and some people will work better with a structure in place. I just prefer to not have a pre-defined structure. Each group of players seems to work out what works for them in the games I run.

It's not the word simultaneous that I think is confusing people, it's pairing it with initiative. The system we're talking about isn't simultaneous initiative, at least the way it relates to the normal D&D combat structure. It's no initiative - tell me what you plan to do and it happens when it makes sense.

Unlike other solutions, such as popcorn initiative, I'm not trying to redesign initiative as a game construct. All of those systems are designed to organize everybody's turns sequentially. The point, for me, is to eliminate that. Combat is chaotic, and everything doesn't necessarily happen simultaneously, but it's also not organized turn by turn.

Initiative is a system that organizes when a creature gets to start their turn. Because of the way it slices the round up, the normal initiative system also determines which creature resolves their action first.

The Initiative Check approach focuses only on which action resolves first. And then only when it's necessary to know which action resolves first.

My goals are:
To erase the line between non-combat and combat. Or, to stop dividing the game into combat and non-combat. It often artificially limits the options of the players, whether consciously or not, to think that combat is the only option, or the "right" option once initiative is called for.

To erase the stop/start nature of slicing the round into individual turns. This becomes more absurd when there are more creatures involved because the round is still 6-seconds long. If there are two creatures, each turn takes 3 seconds. If there are 6, then each turn is 1 second. There are folks that will tell me that it's not start/stop, that when you describe the action it all flows. But the way the rules interact, that's just not the case.

"I move to attack the orc on my left."
"I move to attack the same orc, because I can use my sneak attack against it since my ally is already attacking him"
The orc is killed.
Why did the orc just stand there and allow the two creatures to move 30 feet and then attack? Wouldn't it have attempted to avoid them?

To better balance the activity timing among creatures. Being able to potentially complete a bonus action, action, another action (if you're a fighter with action surge), and move before somebody else does something in the round seems a bit much (to me).

So I think that using a term such as Simultaneous Initiative isn't really appropriate, because it doesn't describe the purpose appropriately, and may confuse the issue. I would just say 'eliminate initiative.'