Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Best Initiative System?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5948962" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>As an example, here is what loose declarations might look like: </p><p> </p><p>Wizard: I'll blast some orcs while drifting towards the stairs.</p><p>Fighter: I'll hold the passage.</p><p>Rogue: I'll snipe from the left flank.</p><p>Cleric: I'm backing up the fighter.</p><p> </p><p>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. </p><p> </p><p>And of course, the DM has to pick a plan for each set of enemies, and then honestly stick to it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5948962, member: 54877"] 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. :D [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Best Initiative System?
Top