Best Initiative System?

[Agamon]

No, cyclic initiative does not speed up combat. What it does is make the whole business of who goes when highly ordered. If the DM was the type to have a lot of issues with chaos in the player/DM communication, this will probably result in a net speed boost for combat. If the DM wasn't, it will not, and will probably be slower than whatever the DM was doing before.

Moreover, cyclic initiative does the least damage to combat speed when it is least needed--i.e. with relatively few players. That is, if you have 3 or 4 players and are goofing around, applying the order of cyclic initiative may help, but it will not scale well when your two friends from out of town sit in on the session. Whereas side initiative systems tend to take more upfront work for the DM to master, but then scale very well. (And it's all well and good to say nonsense like, "people shouldn't be playing with more than N players, anyway, so why design for more?" The design team of the game doesn't have that option--not to mention, it's incredibly shallow and lazy design to do that.)

Most of all, though, I can't believe all the same people complaining about "tactical elements" in the game and then turning around and thinking that cyclic initiative is so wonderful. Where do people think those tactical elements were anchored in the first place? The speed problem from cyclic initiative itself is minor compared to all the secondary effects that then need to get addressed, and the systems that spring up around those.

Are we talking about the same thing, though? Needing to pre-declare your actions each round would seldom be faster than barely noticing that a round has gone by.

Also, unwieldy large groups and the odd jump-in player can certainly happen, but they exceptions to the rule. So, okay, cyclical initiative is usually faster, but once in a while you might want to house rule something if it isn't working for you.

(Also, I'll assume you weren't pointing out me as anti-tactical, that it was just a general statement. None of the incarnations of D&D are nearly tactical enough to even be called tactical, in my mind.)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Are we talking about the same thing, though? Needing to pre-declare your actions each round would seldom be faster than barely noticing that a round has gone by.

Also, unwieldy large groups and the odd jump-in player can certainly happen, but they exceptions to the rule. So, okay, cyclical initiative is usually faster, but once in a while you might want to house rule something if it isn't working for you.

(Also, I'll assume you weren't pointing out me as anti-tactical, that it was just a general statement. None of the incarnations of D&D are nearly tactical enough to even be called tactical, in my mind.)

No, I wasn't pointing to you as anti-tactical (or pro-tactical, for that matter). It was more of an aside that I've noticed in the last few weeks, but brought up now because I'm saying that one of the reasons that cyclic initiative ends up being slower in practice is that the tactical options that tend to grow up around it are slow.

As I mentioned earlier, the trick to declarations is to make them general and loose. If you try to make them specific and strict, you are correct--you'll burn up any time you save from just going to a cyclic system.

Note that playing AD&D's version close to RAW, you sometimes can't be general and loose with declarations, because it applies modifiers to initiative based on the specifics of what you are doing. We don't want that, either, as it is trying to simulate very precise decisions in an abstract system. Again, if you want to do that, would be better to go to a cyclic system.

I think side-by-side, with loose declarations, fits the Next core thus far very well. Then add the cyclic initiative as a module, one that works well with the tactical module, though you can adopt just it if you want, and ignore most of the other tactical options.

As an example, here is what loose declarations might look like:

Wizard: I'll blast some orcs while drifting towards the stairs.
Fighter: I'll hold the passage.
Rogue: I'll snipe from the left flank.
Cleric: I'm backing up the fighter.

If I'm running that game, I'm holding the wizard to casting a spell (or trying anyway), the fighter to not moving much, and the rogue can't suddenly stab an orc that comes through a secret door on the right side of the room. It's when we start insisting that the wizard pick a spell, that the fighter pick a spot, etc. that side-by-side declarations get messed up.

And of course, the DM has to pick a plan for each set of enemies, and then honestly stick to it.

 

[Agamon]

I think side-by-side, with loose declarations, fits the Next core thus far very well. Then add the cyclic initiative as a module, one that works well with the tactical module, though you can adopt just it if you want, and ignore most of the other tactical options.

Ah, yes, keeping it loose like that would be beneficial. Declarations in my mind conjures images of 1e RAW that we ignored, and more recently, the ready action in both 3e and 4e, neither of which are all that elegant. Good point, it would fit the TotM style that they were shooting for. Mike mentioned that some of his old school ideas were shot down, I wonder if this was one of them?

 

[LostSoul]

As an example, here is what loose declarations might look like:

Wizard: I'll blast some orcs while drifting towards the stairs.
Fighter: I'll hold the passage.
Rogue: I'll snipe from the left flank.
Cleric: I'm backing up the fighter.

Some nice posts in this thread, CJ. This is the kind of initiative system I'd like to see - simple & taking advantage of the abstraction of D&D combat.

 

[Kavon]

The way the group I've played with since 2e does it, is a little bit of a combination of the two.
We simply roll initiative each round. Might be a bit more roling, but it keeps people from being stuck in a specific spot on the turn order.
With the 3e+ way, being first only matters at the very beginning.
The way we do it, it matters each and every round.

Honostly though, I'm not sure we ever did the 'declare' thing in the first place.
I just kind of adapted to the way the group played when I was introduced to the game.

Edit: As far as what should be the base for D&D Next.. I don't see it mattering much. Just give several options. Doesn't make or break the game either way you do it. It's purely DM/group preference.

 

[billd91]

No, cyclic initiative does not speed up combat. What it does is make the whole business of who goes when highly ordered. If the DM was the type to have a lot of issues with chaos in the player/DM communication, this will probably result in a net speed boost for combat. If the DM wasn't, it will not, and will probably be slower than whatever the DM was doing before.

Moreover, cyclic initiative does the least damage to combat speed when it is least needed--i.e. with relatively few players. That is, if you have 3 or 4 players and are goofing around, applying the order of cyclic initiative may help, but it will not scale well when your two friends from out of town sit in on the session. Whereas side initiative systems tend to take more upfront work for the DM to master, but then scale very well. (And it's all well and good to say nonsense like, "people shouldn't be playing with more than N players, anyway, so why design for more?" The design team of the game doesn't have that option--not to mention, it's incredibly shallow and lazy design to do that.)

I don't see how cyclical initiative doesn't speed up combat - all other factors remaining equal. Declaring actions, even generally, and then rolling and collecting initiatives (or even counting them down) adds steps each round after the first compared to cyclical initiative. That's cyclical initiative's primary strength compared to initiative every round.

And differences in scalability? I'm not sure what differences you're seeing in rolling initiative once and sticking with that order and rolling every round that imply some difference in scalability. My experience suggests that rolling every round scales worse.

Are you assuming that the rolling each round isn't done per character but per side?

 

[Keldryn]

My preference is for AD&D 1e and BECMI style initiative. Each side rolls for initiative at the beginning of the round. Sure, you get some complaints about how so-and-so has an 18 Dexterity and should be able to strike first and all that, but no other official initiative systems in any version of D&D can match this one when it comes to speeding up play.

I consider individual initiative to be one of those rules that are more fiddly and time-consuming than justified by the benefit of using it.

Individual initiative, rolled each round (as in AD&D 2e) is terrible. It's way, way too slow.

Individual initiative, rolled once at the beginning of combat (as in 3e and 4e) is still too slow for my liking. I've grown to despise the "roll call" at the beginning of combat, putting all combatants into proper initiative order.

Side-based initiative, rolled each round, is the way to go for me. It's abstract, but D&D combat is very abstract. Some common sense handles situations like PCs with readied missile weapons vs enemies advancing and the like.

I ditched the cyclical initiative for my 2nd playtest session, opting for the above method, and it worked very well. Combats ran even more smoothly and the players liked it better too. It also easily accommodates the characters all moving into position and then resolving their attacks without getting into delays or held actions.

 

[Daztur]

There's some pretty stark differences between various TSR-D&D initiative systems, but all I can say is that after using side-based initiative for the first time in forever I'm never ever ever ever going back to individual initiative. Keeping track of what order people act in is just too much of a bother for my poor brain these days and having side based initiative helps people act more as a team and get together and make one collective plan rather than sitting around being bored while waiting for their turn.

 

[BobTheNob]

I voted for something else. Something really outside the box.

2e wasnt bad. Workable.

3e and 4e though...just didnt like. The thing in particular is that that initiative can have a profound effect on the outcome of the battle, and when players can (and do) stack against init making the outcomes all too predictable. In addition, I am absolutely NOT a fan of Dex being the stat stacked against init, both for reasons of Dex already being a "super-stat", but also the premise that "if you have good reflex's, you seem to act earlier, even if the action you take doesnt really have anything to do with reflex's"

Also, dont like that initiative is the same round after round. Cyclical gets boring...thats genuine feedback direct from my players mouths. Players tend to "switch off" once there turn is complete because they know its a complete cycle till they act again. (Your experience might be different, fine. Enjoy cyclical.)

(They are my reasons, discussed repeatedly in other threads. Feel free to disagree)

I actually like a "lottery" system. Literally, have a bowl(/hat) in the middle of a table, with a card (or toekn, piece of paper, whatever) for each participant. Pull the next participant out of the bowl(/hat). Lather rinse repeat every round.

Why? Primarily, I love the chaos of it, I love the lack of predictability. You never know who is coming out of the hat next and you cannot plan against it. It means the predictable patterns of control are out the window and players need to learn to adapt real quickly.

This is an idea I have been working on since 4e (as it was during 4e that I realised how much I disliked the init system they had) and there is alot more nuence to it than documented here.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't see how cyclical initiative doesn't speed up combat - all other factors remaining equal. Declaring actions, even generally, and then rolling and collecting initiatives (or even counting them down) adds steps each round after the first compared to cyclical initiative. That's cyclical initiative's primary strength compared to initiative every round.

And differences in scalability? I'm not sure what differences you're seeing in rolling initiative once and sticking with that order and rolling every round that imply some difference in scalability. My experience suggests that rolling every round scales worse.

Are you assuming that the rolling each round isn't done per character but per side?

Keep declares general and loose, and they go fast. A key way to do this is to not allow gaming mechanics to creep into the declaration, even if you are using a grid. Even if the fighter can see that the door is five squares away, he doesn't say, "I run to this square." He says, "I run over by the door." I know this sound nitpicky, but it is absolutely critical to making the declarations work. As a bonus, it translates equally well on or off the grid. It doesn't translate well to a tactical module, which is a big reason why you want to switch to cyclic initiative if using one.

With rolling, I'll do it one of several ways, but I'll generally roll every round. You can roll once for each side. You can roll once for each major group. You can roll individually for the characters but not for the monsters. Or you can do the way I specified in the link, where the monster group(s) all get a 10 on their initiative roll, and then each player is rolling to see where they fit.

I like that, because it is ultra fast to resolve, but still lets each player rolll individually. Players roll. Meanwhile, I'm double-checking the monster initiative groups. Say I have three groups, which is a rare, fairly complex fight. The initiatives are maybe 12, 15, and 17. Those are now DCs for the characters to beat. I ask, "Who beat 17?" We have show of hands. And so on. Takes 15-20 seconds, and everyone know where they stand. With a single group of monsters, it's as fast as everyone can roll a d20 and say whether they met the single DC or not. After the first round, everyone knows what the DC is.

Since the characters on a side are all going at the same time anyway, all we really need to know is does character A go before this group of monsters or after them?

And of course this takes slightly longer than not rolling every round. However, now is where the saving comes in. Everyone knows what they declared. Everyone knows when they go. All the players that are eligible to go can act ... now! That's why in my version, I didn't allow sequencing of such actions. If the fighter and rogue go together, they act on their declarations without seeing what the other guy is doing specifically.

What gets cut out is a lot of analysis paralysis based on what other people have done, as well as the lack of attention that happens on waiting for everyone else to go. This is particularly striking when I use a single group of monsters. You are either going now, or the monsters are whacking you, or you just went or are about to go. You also get some handling time improvements on the DM side, as you are looking at monster hit points and defenses when they are getting whacked by several people, then switching over to monster attacks when they are doing the whacking. This is basic efficiency training--arrange so that you pick up an object or look at a statistic as few times as you reasonably can.

The DM getting the results from the players does take a flexible touch. If several players go together, you may very well need to take them in some order. I just go around the table, if it is necessary. Usually, though, there are only 2-4 players going at once, and the natural speed differences in them resolving their attacks means that the results come in staggered.

It scales because the difference between 4 players and 8 players is four extra declarations, plus the time it takes to get 4 results. It is not the time it takes for 4 additional players to learn that it is now their action, state what they are doing, roll, give the results, etc.

I don't pretend that someone trying this for the first time would see immediate and dramatic improvements. I had the advantage of already having played with various side-by-side initiatives in multiple systems. It does have its own minor skill set to learn. But I doubt anyone can give it a fair try with 5 or more players and not see a fairly significant improvement after a bit of practice.