D&D 5E Avoiding Initiative

[robus]

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.

This also works really well with the prerolled initiative because you can just directly ask the player at the top of the initiative what they do, all nice and smooth like.

 

[Hriston]

This also works really well with the prerolled initiative because you can just directly ask the player at the top of the initiative what they do, all nice and smooth like.

I can see how it would, but personally, I would rather have the roll take place at the relevant moment. I wouldn't ask a player to roll any other ability check before the game begins. I know some DMs have the players roll a series of Perception checks before play begins, for example, but I don't think it's for me.

 

[Wyvern]

What I've been using lately is a method from AngryGM. Track initiative vertically on a sheet of paper, leaving space to add people in between. It's very quick since you can just go around the table and have folks call out their scores (without trying to mentally juggle them into order).

The few times I GMed (in 3e, but same difference) I used a method similar to this. I got myself some Post-It strips and wrote the PC's names on them at the beginning of the game. Stuck them to the inside of the GM screen in a column, along with 1-2 blank ones for their opponents. Then at the beginning of the combat the players rolled initiative and I went around the table asking each player what they got, and sorting them into the right order. Probably took less than 20 seconds. No need to write down the numbers; the order is all that matters, and you can reuse the markers for every combat and even from game to game. If someone delays or readies an action, just move their marker down to the appropriate place in the column when they take their turn.

Wyvern

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

for example, you could change such effects to the start/end of the round.

That's the change I made. I did like the extra tactical nature and the slight-ly unpredictable nature of "damage at the end of turn" effects.

Sadly, my players hated it, so we don't use it. In particular, they really didn't like the chance that they might lose an action.

So now we go back to the old way, where on everyone's turn they have a massive discussion and every combat takes 3 hours.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

This is fine if all your players are relatively similar when it comes to speaking up and getting themselves heard, but would be bad for a table with a couple of loudmouths and some others who are more reserved/quiet.

And for me, trying to listen to more than one person at a time is just begging for misinterpretations and errors, leading to argmuents (bad) and retcons (worse) later.

Yeah, that's never really been a problem, even at a public table with 13 strangers (to me, and among most of them). It's not that it's entirely that chaos, and I'll ask if needed. Each table that I've run has had a slightly different dynamic, and it's never taken long for everybody to figure out how best to fit in around that particular table. So yes, there are some folks that will never jump in until I ask them, but that's literally been about 2 people. And that certainly didn't alter the nature of how the system worked, other than I always had to ask them what they did.

Also, we've never had any issues with misinterpretations or errors, because when I'm describing the results they are still free to provide input and guidance. They work together on the math (which is simple in 5e anyway), and my primary job is to combine everything together into a description of how that slice of time is flowing so they have the information they need to take their next action. And it actually encourages them to speak up as other players (and I) announce what we're doing, because it often alters what they intend to do. Since turn order isn't defined in our system by the rules, they are free to coordinate in a way that makes sense (with the understanding that the monsters are doing the same thing. So if the fighter says they are going to charge 30 feet to attack an orc sorcerer, two other orcs 10 feet away from that one can choose to try to intercept him and protect him.

It sounds a lot more complicated than it really is. I'll admit I've never tried it with minis and 4e-style positioning and combat tactics, but the approach is also partly designed to counter the "everybody else stands still while I take my turn" of that style of combat, which is what we're trying to avoid anyway.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

After using the standard initiative procedure for quite a while, I started doing something like this a few months ago. Declarations go in order of INT from lowest to highest, but then everything resolves as if it all happens at once. In the relatively rare cases where order matters, just the parties concerned roll initiative.

However, I started doing this because to me the standard turn taking feels quite stilted and gamey, not because I had anything against initiative rolls per se. Although I do like the resulting feel much better, it was more of an adjustment than I anticipated. Some of the players are still a little uncomfortable with it, so I'm not sure it will survive. If I have to ditch it, I'll just go back to standard initiative.

That was exactly one of the things that we wanted to eliminate too. I just didn't see any reason to set an order for declarations. One of the main benefits of the approach is that the players can coordinate better, since turn order isn't a thing. By setting an order of declaration, those that declare first don't have any reference to what the others are doing. In other words, you're shifting the turn order from the action to the declaration phase.

If you want to go in a particular order to make it easier for you, I'd recommend just going around the table, and let the players decide the order based on where they sit (and tell them explicitly). I'd also recommend giving them a short amount of time (20-30 seconds max) to work together to develop their strategies before you go through your declaration phase.

I prefer to not have a formal "declaration phase" even though we obviously have to have one. For us, combat flows the same way as the rest of the game, it's just more intense. So I'd recommend you stick with it, and find the parts that are getting in the way and address those, rather than just go back to standard initiative.

PS - I also have a fully detailed variation of "Greyhawk" (Mearles) Initiative. It's posted elsewhere on the site, with two variations. That worked really well, but in the end we prefer the no initiative thing because it's simpler and it doesn't alter the flow of the game.

 

[hastur_nz]

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.

No offense, but I think that's a terrible idea, as you then totally lose the excitement and tension of everyone wondering what will happen, what they should do, and so on; instead, you get a "pre-scripted" feeling, where Johnny who rolled 20 already knowing they are first, and have their action already optimized and ready to go; Suzzy who rolled lowest tuned out as soon as she rolled initiative half an hour ago so is probably playing on her phone or something waiting for someone to elbow here at the end of the first combat round.

Think of rolling for initiative as the start of a new Chapter in your book - it's a chance to change the tempo, start a new phase, so to speak. The key is to make the change of pace work for your game - the pace of a game should ebb and flow, no-one wants a game that's 100% full-on, non-stop, every minute - you need moments of high action, moments of thinking, and moments for reflection. Like one of my gaming biddies said earlier this year - when he was in the army, they trained to always took half an hour after any fight, because you need some down-time to make sure everything is back in order, to calm down, and generally get yourself ready for the next high-intensity piece of action.

Rolling initiative shouldn't bring your game to a screaming halt, but taking a couple of minutes to say "Roll for Initiative!", then go around the table clockwise / counter-clockwise, asking for everyone's results in turn, and writing them on your piece of paper... it's two minutes well spent. A key part of the "game" in "roll playing game", and it doesn't need to kill the narrative any more than any other D&D rules do.

The keys to success are:
1) making the process of rolling initiative Dramatic, i.e. a deliberate change of narrative pace that says, "now we are in combat mode, game on!"
2) making the process of rolling initiative Quick for everyone - as described above, just ask every player in turn for their number, and write the results down on a big piece of paper, in order from highest to lowest (leave gaps, obviously, to be filled in as you go)

 

[Harzel]

That was exactly one of the things that we wanted to eliminate too. I just didn't see any reason to set an order for declarations. One of the main benefits of the approach is that the players can coordinate better, since turn order isn't a thing. By setting an order of declaration, those that declare first don't have any reference to what the others are doing. In other words, you're shifting the turn order from the action to the declaration phase.

I do not forbid brief requests or suggestions for coordination between the players, preferably of the sort that the PCs might actually exchange during combat. And since resolution is still (conceptually) simultaneous, there is no impediment to executing coordinated actions. However, it is true that I discourage minutes-long tactical discussions.

That said, I think the similarity of having a declaration order to having a whole turn order may be part of what is causing some of the players to get a little lost in the process. So I am considering removing the declaration order. It is interesting to hear that someone else does it that way.

If you want to go in a particular order to make it easier for you, I'd recommend just going around the table, and let the players decide the order based on where they sit (and tell them explicitly). I'd also recommend giving them a short amount of time (20-30 seconds max) to work together to develop their strategies before you go through your declaration phase.

I prefer to not have a formal "declaration phase" even though we obviously have to have one. For us, combat flows the same way as the rest of the game, it's just more intense. So I'd recommend you stick with it, and find the parts that are getting in the way and address those, rather than just go back to standard initiative.

Do you disclose anything about what the opponents are up to before the players declare their actions? At least at low levels, an advantage to the players of INT-ordered declaration is that they often know what their (low INT) foes are up to before having to declare their actions.

And along the same lines, do you allow simple conditional declarations such as, "If the orcs charge, then I rush out to meet them, otherwise I stay behind the rock and shoot arrows."?

Also, if a PC has multiple attacks, do you allow target switching if a foe goes down due to the first attack? How about multiple target spells such as magic missile and scorching ray? (This is something that I have wavered on.)

PS - I also have a fully detailed variation of "Greyhawk" (Mearles) Initiative. It's posted elsewhere on the site, with two variations. That worked really well, but in the end we prefer the no initiative thing because it's simpler and it doesn't alter the flow of the game.

The simulationist in me has always thought speed factors were nifty, but practically, it has never seemed worth the extra effort.

 

[5ekyu]

"Do you disclose anything about what the opponents are up to before the players declare their actions?"

The game where we did separate declare and resolve, we rolled an initiative, then announced declarations in order worst init first to best init last. In that game, init was a perception-wits check to determine how much you saw and sussed out before decision.

resolution was action based with ties going somultaneous.

 

[Morrus]

Rolling initiative shouldn't bring your game to a screaming halt, but taking a couple of minutes to say "Roll for Initiative!", then go around the table clockwise / counter-clockwise, asking for everyone's results in turn, and writing them on your piece of paper... it's two minutes well spent.

As I indicated, I do not feel the same way.

The keys to success are:
1) making the process of rolling initiative Dramatic, i.e. a deliberate change of narrative pace that says, "now we are in combat mode, game on!"
2) making the process of rolling initiative Quick for everyone - as described above, just ask every player in turn for their number, and write the results down on a big piece of paper, in order from highest to lowest (leave gaps, obviously, to be filled in as you go)

That's certainly how one typically rolls for initiative.