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

[Lanefan]

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.

The risk here - which would happen immediately in my game - is that the louder and-or faster-thinking players would drown out the others, and end up getting three actions to their one unless I put my foot down...and impose a speaking order...which then might as well be an initiative order.

The route to simultaniety is to use a smaller initiative die and allow ties.

The route to not using initiative at all passes, I think, through bedlam.

Lanefan

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

Heh. Reminds me a bit of BattleTech, where everyone assumes that winning initiative is the best because you get to declare movement after the other guy. I realized after a few games that declaring movement first was the stronger advantage because I could then control a reactionary opponent by narrowing his options. Couple this with a bit of insight into how that person prefers to play (or general assumptions like "they'll take an opportunity to get behind me if I offer it") and I ended up preferring to lose initiative because I knew how to use it to my advantage while at the same time my opponent thought they had the advantage. Best tactical position to be in, if you ask me -- to have the advantage but not be known to have the advantage.

This doesn't work quite as well in D&D, though, due to the inherent lack of tactical maneuvering effectiveness and because combats are so quick. But, then, the model of OODA loops your using suffers the same drawbacks.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The risk here - which would happen immediately in my game - is that the louder and-or faster-thinking players would drown out the others, and end up getting three actions to their one unless I put my foot down...and impose a speaking order...which then might as well be an initiative order.

The route to simultaniety is to use a smaller initiative die and allow ties.

The route to not using initiative at all passes, I think, through bedlam.

Lanefan

No, because you're still using rounds. Everybody still only gets their allotted turn each round. It's just addressed differently.

And no, a speaking/declaration order has nothing to do with resolution order. If it works better for you to get all of the actions then describe it, that's fine. But there's no guarantee that the person who declares their action first is the one that will resolve first.

As I stated, I'm not trying to get simultaneous initiative. I'm trying to spread everybody's actions across the entire round, with the actions unfolding simultaneously. If somebody is attacking first, then moving, their attack will usually resolve before somebody who is moving first and then attacking.

Having two creatures move to attack a single creature will usually result in that creature falling back, attempting to keep both of their attackers in front of them, such as by circling around the first opponent to keep the other opponent in a rough line. They may have initially intended to attack, but might switch to dodge instead since they are now defending against two opponents. That's not possible in the normal turn-based initiative.

While those two attackers are locking down that opponent, another ally drops another monster, and then moves to target the same creature as the other two. With three against one, it's very easy to surround the target creature. It's much harder two against one. The target creature is now at a disadvantage, so instead attempts to overrun the weakest looking creature to run away. Yes, he's subject to some opportunity attacks, but might be able to get away.

On the other hand, if his ally was some distance away, as soon as he saw them drop and the other enemy approach, he might have turned and run before the third attacker closes.

It's one of those things that makes more sense when you're trying it, then trying to explain it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

But that isn't true. Initiative still applies to action resolution--in the OP for example, initiative is rolled at one point to determine whether the Paladin is fast enough to catch up to the goblin before it can hide, IIRC.

Every time you say your system "has no initiative" I get confused, especially because you also say that you still use initiative contests.

But that's just semantics anyway. What really happens is that the action declaration phase is separated from the action resolution phase, and initiative only affects action resolution. "Can Ryan the Wizard Misty Step away before the orc (predictably) hits him with the axe?" Since initiative rolls are used for resolving that question, it doesn't matter whether you want to call that "no initiative" or "simultaneous initiative" or "concurrent turns" or anything else.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Heh. Reminds me a bit of BattleTech, where everyone assumes that winning initiative is the best because you get to declare movement after the other guy. I realized after a few games that declaring movement first was the stronger advantage because I could then control a reactionary opponent by narrowing his options. Couple this with a bit of insight into how that person prefers to play (or general assumptions like "they'll take an opportunity to get behind me if I offer it") and I ended up preferring to lose initiative because I knew how to use it to my advantage while at the same time my opponent thought they had the advantage. Best tactical position to be in, if you ask me -- to have the advantage but not be known to have the advantage.

This doesn't work quite as well in D&D, though, due to the inherent lack of tactical maneuvering effectiveness and because combats are so quick. But, then, the model of OODA loops your using suffers the same drawbacks.

This is a very insightful and thought-provoking post. Thank you.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

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.

I think that is incorrect. If there are two creatures, each of their turns takes 6 seconds. If there are 3 creatures, each of their turns take 6 seconds.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

I think the distinction is a net positive. A violent scenario should feel qualitatively different from a nonviolent one. And the words "roll initiative" can be one hell of a wham line (especially when they're the very first words of the campaign...).

"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?

It wasn't just standing there. It was still involved in whatever action it performed last turn. If its initiative had been higher, it would have been able to complete that action sooner and act to avoid the two new attackers.

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).

It's certainly an abstraction, but in my experience it's an abstraction with a purpose. I've experimented with systems that are more strictly granular: you only have enough time on your turn to do one thing, move or attack. The result tends to be player dissatisfaction, as spending a whole turn moving feels like a waste of a go. I've got a hunch this is why almost all turn-based tactics games allow you to move and attack on the same turn: D&D, Heroes of Might & Magic, Final Fantasy Tactics, Fire Emblem, X-COM, Pit People...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Heh. Reminds me a bit of BattleTech, where everyone assumes that winning initiative is the best because you get to declare movement after the other guy. I realized after a few games that declaring movement first was the stronger advantage because I could then control a reactionary opponent by narrowing his options. Couple this with a bit of insight into how that person prefers to play (or general assumptions like "they'll take an opportunity to get behind me if I offer it") and I ended up preferring to lose initiative because I knew how to use it to my advantage while at the same time my opponent thought they had the advantage.

Isn't this assuming suboptimal play from your opponent, though? If you were playing a clone of yourself, who had the same insight, would you say that declaring first was still advantageous, or would the advantage revert to the player who declared second?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Isn't this assuming suboptimal play from your opponent, though? If you were playing a clone of yourself, who had the same insight, would you say that declaring first was still advantageous, or would the advantage revert to the player who declared second?

It would be a push. Going first still restricts options, and your opponent is still reacting to your choice. The clone would have this knowledge and would be able to make the clear reactions with that in mind. The end result would be similar.

For instance, I could choose to maneuver to limit my clones ability to fully engage without also moving so that I can engage him equally. Essentially, unless I become over committed or separated, by going first I can still control the tempo of the engagement. Assuming the other side doesn't have a surprise, of course.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It would be a push. Going first still restricts options, and your opponent is still reacting to your choice. The clone would have this knowledge and would be able to make the clear reactions with that in mind. The end result would be similar.

For instance, I could choose to maneuver to limit my clones ability to fully engage without also moving so that I can engage him equally. Essentially, unless I become over committed or separated, by going first I can still control the tempo of the engagement. Assuming the other side doesn't have a surprise, of course.

How exactly are actions resolved in the Battletech system? When you declare first, do you also actually resolve first? Do you get to say "I move to the high ground on the hill" and then actually get to the high ground on the hill before the other guy can act? Or does everybody declare, then everybody resolve?

Because if it's the former, then I can certainly see how "losing" initiative would give you a real advantage in the game. But if it's the latter, then I don't see how the advantage is anything more than psychological, and could be overcome with correct play. At the very least, your opponent could simply plug their ears when you declare your action in order to just declare theirs independently, then it would be as if you both had "lost" initiative and the playing field would be even.

My actual experience with a system like this comes mostly from the Legend of the Five Rings card game, where cavalry units get to declare which battle they're going to after infantry, and it is a very distinct advantage, so I'm wondering what the difference is.